lisa caldwell am a well discussed the resources devoted to watching u.s. borders. we will take your calls and you can join the commerce station on facebook and twitter. " washington journal" is next. ♪ host: violence continues iraq. insurgents captured another major town on sunday. washington announced that it is sending extra marines and personnel to safeguard the facilities of the u.s. embassy. according to numerous reports, the obama administration is repairing to open a direct dialogue with iran on the security situation in iraq. but lawmakers back on the hill, we want to hear from you this morning on your message to

congress. our phone lines are now open. we are also online. ontwitter, you can find us http://twitter.com/cspanwj, on facebook, and you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. journal,"street reporting that the united states is to meet with iran on the situation in a dialogue that is expected to begin this week will mark the latest in a rapid move over the past year that comes as the u.s. and other world powers try to reach an agreement with iran by late july to curb their nuclear programs. the u.s. and iran have both publicly committed in recent days support to the iraqi prime

minister and help the government repeal the offensive state of iraq. they have launched against baghdad and major iraqi cities in the past week. that reporting from this morning's wall street journal. joining us to talk about the security situation there, guy taylor, who leads in national security team at the washington times. >> good morning. >> talk to us about the latest you hearing out of iraq. >> the latest reports from the , the islamic here state of iraq and the isi l, this sunni muslim extremist al qaeda inspired group that has been wreaking havoc over the last week, reports are that they have massacred more than 1000 shiite muslim men from the iraqi

in this city about 90 miles north of baghdad. "the new york times" is running with this. some of the western wireless. it is all over the press in the middle east, but there is no outside confirmation other than is trying that isil to spread on social media. that is a story that is a potentially horrific of element that could come to dominate the news on this today. concerns are running higher and that an all-out sectarian civil war is on the verge of iraq and. from where we sit in washington, trying to understand this, away from all the political talk of the blood and treasure the united states spent in iraq over the past 14 years, you have to

understand that a rack sits at the center of the divide between the regions, obviously with iran and saudi shiite arabia to the south being a very sunni kingdom. so, that wider idea here that this could spiral without the presence of u.s. troops into a that is very bloody is certainly a legal concern at this point. we heard reports earlier that president obama would be engaging with iran on this issue. is that something you heard from your reporting as well? >> this is something that has been talked about, really, for the last several months, since the united states began this detente with the iranian authorities tom a talking

directly with them about their nuclear program there have been voices on the periphery of that asking -- well, would there be theous conversation between united states security and intelligence and military operetta -- apparatus about this kind of common enemy of this al qaeda inspired isil group that was a wreaking havoc and showing signs of a massive surge? some difficulty with this. it remains to be seen whether anyone, and the american military community could trust working with iranians on this. that is one problem, the sense that the iranians very much want to fight a war against this group. of butcked the regime sheer i'll assad in syria, the president of syria, who has

tried to make the civil war in syria, which began as an arab spring style pro-democracy movement, but very quickly shareed into what but assad and the iranian government have tried to propagate as a war against extremists, that is a factor that plays into whether or not washington can open the trust the iranians. the second piece of it is that the united states does not have much leverage without serious troop contingencies in the region. from the that i hear iranian government sources that i have been able to talk to his the feeling in tehran that the united states creates a mess in the region and then as soon as the situation gets hot, or whether it is over a matter of months and years, washington and the united states runaway. there is this feeling that the iranians are coming into these

very hypothetical talks with an upper hand and the united states does not like to be pushed around in those kinds of conversations. we have seen that in the history of the last 60 years. >> one last question, earlier you mentioned the defense department's struggle. what are you hearing from washington about what is going on in the region right now? >> as the conversation at the white house is twofold, one it is very tactical right now, but is there some kind of a surgical or strategic military action that the united states could take in the coming days that could try to not escalate this devolving security situation more? the second thing that is being -- what,out is exactly, is it the united states has to gain or lose from becoming very deeply involved?

we have to remember that away from the humanitarian causes of this, which are similar to the humanitarian horrors that have gone on for three years in syria that have not been able to inspire a serious reaction from washington in terms of roots on , ok?round or air strikes the united states interest in a largely at this point around british and american oil companies that are at this point he's fully extracting large amounts of oil from southern iraq, away from this security meltdown. the northern situation is not acting that exploitation. why would the united states seriously reengage, other than to save face and patriotism of following up on an expensive and bloody war and occupation that our country engaged in during

the 2000's. guyuy taylor --host: taylor, thank you for joining us this morning. caller: thanks for having me. host: let's go to your calls. stephen, independent line. caller: good morning. that sounded like the report from iran. that was odd. i think that everybody agrees that this guy is kind of a tool. i think that this whole thing in androm allowing syria letting syria and iraq dissolve into three different nationstates. we should really let the past be the past and take over our times . we would have to redraw the map. the guy thatw lived there for 10 years, what does he have to say? congresso you think should do now, though? is there any role for them?

>> they have to. we are the american people. we cannot run away from ourselves. we cannot run away from the planet. >> all right. next, let's go to san francisco, republican line. >> it is funny, the iraqi people and the american people both seem to be saying the same thing -- stay out. the american people want the economy back. the iraqi people want the occupation to be over. they have made themselves perfectly clear, they have a very anti-american sentiment. iraqi friends have told me on several occasions -- stay out, you imperialist motherfuckers. let's go to an article from "the washington post." 50 marines provide for security in the massive u.s. embassy in baghdad. the state department ordered

embassy personnel to relocate to safer parts of a rack or leave the country. as a result of ongoing instability and violence in certain areas, the state department spokesman said that more than 5000 embassy personnel are being sent to conflicts in the far south and in the northern kurdish region. "others are being relocated to the u.s. embassy in neighboring jordan." "thereport is from washington post." baltimore, peter, maryland. one of the first things we need to do is to secure our u.s. staff and employees, the personnel in iraq. we don't want to see what happened in libya. we want to make sure that those guys are safe. and that we have a good reason to send an army there. we cannot have u.s. boots everywhere in this world.

do that and still expect that we aren't making enemies. we spend $50 billion in a rack and have nothing to show. you think the northern oilfields are safe? that's not going to happen. these guys are very, very persistent. that the guyng from "the washington times" did not mention, the first thing that they did was clear out all the prisoners, clear out all the army hospitals, 50 tanks, thousands of munitions. , theynot just the groups have a complete army. this is going really crazy. he obama administration, the bush administration, they have failed significantly.

this is, this is, this is a fiasco. the only solution that i see is, u.s. personnel, make sure that they are safe so that we do not repeat what we saw in libya and then we will have a political solution to the problem. makee not out there to sure that the iraqi people are leaving peacefully with each other. that is not our job. that is their job. >> this is a hot topic for debate among the members of congress who appeared on the sunday morning talk shows. lindsey graham appeared on " state of the union" and had -- and had strong words about the situation. [video clip] >> the iraqi people do not want to be governed by isis. the shia do not want to be governed by iran. we are well on our way. the lack of a residual force, the stubborn presence we had

with this stubborn president who thinks he knew better than everyone else who withdrew troops and expose this country to the inevitable needs to change his policies equity. if he does, we can change this. headed, delusional, detached president. but that is the last bad thing i will say. esther president, a lot of people want to help you because we are in it together. a lot of people could die from this if we get it wrong and it will be much greater than 4000. the economic chaos of the world will be far greater -- the money that we spent in saving a rack? this is another and 911. the fbi director in congress warned us, syria and iraq represent a direct threat to our homeland. occupyingghters up -- this battles pace with impunity. get in the game, mr. president. leaders are judged not by the fact that they never make a

mistake, but how they adjust to their mistakes. u.s.-made plenty of mistakes, i have made plenty of mistakes. have an opportunity, time is running out, to turn this around. get involved with air power. stop the march towards baghdad. deal with syria and get a new government in place that will bring the iraqis back together for a counteroffensive. >> lindsey graham, who sits on the senate armed services panel. to yourwant to go tweets this morning. first up -- our topic this morning is that your message to congress on iraq.

the phone numbers are -- let's go to jeanne in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, on the line for democrats. we support the president in his diplomacy? take it easy. the military-industrial complex is at -- is at work. the president is coming to our town tomorrow. i wish i could be there to applaud him at the google bakery square. the man is brilliant as a military strategist. stay with him, congress. just want to spend the military-industrial complex. [indiscernible] what should --[indiscernible] host: what should congress do

specifically? >> i would like to see support for the president in the negotiation approach as opposed to the military approach. >> nancy, lagrange, line for democrats. i was in the iraqi war the first time and i think the british should take care of it. this is all about oil. back in the 1990's there was a column on the strategic environmental defense initiative. if we had had 100,000 children, cross the desert from mexico to our country, there would have been shocked -- shocked. we need to use our military for a police action to go down there and take over their oil to pay for what they won't do. i won't treat their people like citizens. host: do you think that realistically congress would approve? caller: i think they should do it. you can't treat children this way.

they already have an invasion. thank you. maryland, democratic line. caller: good morning. thesement is -- sunni-based terrorist organizations around the world emanate directly from saudi arabia. the u.s. got these folks together to fight in afghanistan. they are still here. they are still being supported by her friends, the saudi's. want to stop terrorism? go to saudi arabia. thank you. another headline focusing on this conflict from "the wall street journal." "having executed hundreds of shiite iraqi soldiers --

alex,guest: --host: maryland, republican line. if we just way to do nothing and try diplomacy, the problem is that these people over there are not very -- they don't want, i guess, to make any kind of deals. they don't want to compromise. stayhing is, if we don't over there and do something, like airstrikes or whatever, what is going to happen is the places that we own, the oil places that we own are going to be taken over, the things will

happen again, the gas prices will go up and we are going to have the same dilemma all over again. that people just don't care. they think it is just that war. our own economic safety is what it is about. program wouldthe heard from lindsey graham on the situation. let's listen now to a democratic const -- democratic congresswoman on this issue. strongest the military in the world and a responsibility to be very careful about how and where we use that military force so that it achieves the objective of what is in the best u.s. interests. it is not in our u.s. interests to go and involve ourselves in the middle of what is a religious civil war. are there specific security threats to the united states? yes, in a rack, afghanistan,

pakistan, and many other countries in the world. we have to focus our resources, our great military, on those direct and imminent threats rather than getting distracted by involving ourselves in another civil war occurring in another country between religious factions that have been warring for generations. >> that was tall see gabbard, hawaii, who served in a rack --host: that was tall see gabbard, who served in iraq. i have two comments to make. number one, iraqis need to stand up and fight for their own country and give their own blood. when the iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions and handed over their equipment and their military assets to the terrorists and then later on were executed, they shed their blood but they shed their

needlessly and without gain. that is the most important thing, we need to stay out of it and let them stand up for their own country. therefore they appreciate the freedoms they have and will not let it happen again to them. this tweet has a message from a specific member of congress -- from the next caller is texas, wayne, democratic line. hello, wayne, are you with us? caller: i am still here. we should not have laid down our guns and talk hands in the air and surrendered, but they are dealing with the united states now and we did not teach

them how to use our arms. to show them how to put a bullet into a gun and aim it at the terrorists and pull the trigger and kill them and protect our own property? manassas, virginia, jim is on the republican line. www.c-span.org thank you for taking my call. i think it basically comes down to our leader, obama, making decisions as far as where we want to be at with regards to the policies towards the middle east and all that foreign policy. he is basically sympathizing with the wrong side. he is going to great lengths to do nothing. he pulled out the troops before the actual iraqi government was properly trained.

the surgehave made stronger, bigger, harder, letting people know on both sides that we mean business. we did it halfway and we pulled it is clear to me that you don't like the president's approach. is there something that a lawmaker or your member of congress could do to put pressure on him and lay this in a different direction? say that again? anything you would like to see congress as a whole due to push us in a different direction? sounds like you are this data is fight with the president's approach. i would like to see more of an effort put forward to get a legitimate government in iraq. i know that we have been there for a long time and a lot of people lost lives, but some things take a long time. we have to actually see this

through. we got a false start and then we pulled out and died. nothing was established. host: would you support sending troops back? we need to do whatever is necessary to install a legitimate force in iraq that can actually stand up against the extremists and types of groups that are out there. we just need to do more. host: all right. john, texas, republican line. pulled the, he troops out, did not listen to , you've just got to be frank about it, the president has no manly qualities. gotten clear out of

hand. we don't have a chance of going in there again, they've done all the equipment that we had when we went in the first time. now we are really going to be walking into a buzz saw. a bomb, turn it into a sheet of glass, start all over. lawmakers are back on capitol hill today. give us the latest on the congressional agenda today, neil. caller: thank you. host: what are the three biggest things you are watching this week? >> the biggest story is obviously on the house side with the leadership race that is with suspense coming out of it from kevin mccarthy in california. the current whips seeming to be

on track to take over as the majority leader following the primary defeat of eric cantor. the whip race could be more interesting, there is obviously the jockeying going on. that will be the item that gets the most attention. interestingly means that something that would be huge news on the house side is likely to for our -- fly under the radar just a bit. this week the house is scheduled to consider the defense appropriation bill for the next fiscal year, which is somewhere on the order of defense spending over on. a huge portion of the discretionary budget.

on the senate side appropriation week is rather remarkable that the senate is reaching the point debateg able to ponder over spending bills and they will try to move forward with the last time they were called a minibus, which merges the commerce justice science agriculture and transportation housing appropriation bills into one big bundle. host: the appropriations , arelation in the senate

these the staging ground for that? right: the iraqi issue is on target for the defense spending bill in the house and it would be no surprise to anybody to see some sort of attempt to attach a rider that says on one hand that you could put u.s. forces back on the ground, i suppose, but on the other hand you might have some sort of reporting requirement that would seem to encourage more intervention. none of these bills in the senate bundle are really the ones that particularly would affect the v.a.. however, the other thing we will probably see, just looking back a couple of weeks to the trade forhe five taliban figures

bowe bergdahl, which we had just a couple of weeks ago, it would seem logical that there would be efforts in both the house defense appropriation bill and in the senate to do funding for the justice department if we saw another round of attempt to either prevent the transfer of detainees from guantánamo bay or some sort of rider that would attempt to once again blocked the transfer of any of the tj needs at gitmo to military or civilian prison facilities. earlier in the program we heard from lindsey graham on the issue of a rack. what is your sense into what senate lawmakers think as the violence continued over the weekend? it is certainly

going to be a topic of discussion this week, because it came up sort of back on the radar so abruptly for the masses last week. thursday morning, i believe it was, there was a closed briefing of the armed services committee last week. the emerging voices out of that briefing were sort of a prelude to what we heard over the weekend from senator graham and from others and i think what we are going to see in the coming weeks is probably more of these closed briefings to try to figure out what, exactly, is going on on the ground there. obviously one of the immediate concerns is the safety and facilityof the embassy in baghdad and other issues with u.s. personnel who are on the

ground there. the other thing that will come up, and senator graham was one of the people who mentioned this over the weekend, if there are, in fact, as we are now seeing, reports of a back channel negotiation or conversation with regime, that will be something that will certainly get the attention of congress and it tells you what kind of a world that we are dealing with ,nd that we are seeing in iraq if talking to the iranians is necessary for regional stability, which is something i'm sure not a lot of people could have fathomed just a couple of years ago. host: you can read kneels cq roll call." thank you for bring with us. caller: thank you. cantor leaves the

door open for future return to office." "the house majority leader stayed on message during his first interview on sunday after being defeated and a shocking primary upset last week, one of the biggest in modern electoral history. runid not rule out a future for office. he said he hopes to continue to influence the political conversation and would not rule out the coming of lobbyists or running again for office in the future. we will talk more about that race and the republican party with tom davis in our next segment. for now the topic is -- your message to congress on a rack. next, atlanta, carl is on the independent line. -- on iraq. atlanta, carl is on the independent line. -- next, atlanta, carl is on the independent line. theer: looking at some of

middle eastern areas, specifically afghanistan, when i think about what this rollout of this new is conflict is bringing our way, it seems to be just a continuation of a tremendous obviously forit military contractors at the expense of our own country falling deeper and deeper into a only compromising not potentially social security, certainly not to be confused and unemployment, and certainly not to be confused with subsidies for immigrants flooding into this country as of right now because we will bankrupt individuals who have put a lot of time and energy into a system that they have had faith would take care of them when they reached an elderly point in their life. i think it really has to do with the online representatives and

what they spoke of, focusing specifically on taking care of this country, the people that paid into the system. we need to take a look at our borders and realize that continuing to subsidize individuals who want to get away from areas that are troubled, it is a sad and difficult situation, but we will destroy our own country by continuing to dole out these types of moneys for individuals who have unfortunately not risen up to the opportunity, as other countries have. i think i would be correct with iceland, and their swiss banking debacle, where they really took the upper hand to make something different happened. they did not just slap folks on the wrist, they sent them to jail. we really need to take a look at the internal issues, financially, that our country is facing if we keep handing out money to other countries in spite of how bad the situation

is. we will turn this country into a third world nation if we do not consider putting the hands out that would normally go to foreign countries back into this country. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning. host: the headline this morning from "the new york times." the obama administration is contacting hundreds of thousands of people would subsidize health insurance to resolve questions about their eligibility as consumer advocates expressed concern that many will be required to repay some or all of the subsidies. of the 8 million who signed up through insurance exchanges under the new health-care law, two million reported personal information that differed from data in government records. the company hired to resolve inconsistencies. ohio, sandra, democratic line. caller: good morning. i am calling to say that concerning the iraq situation,

the iraqi people don't trust americans. the reason i say that is -- when we went into baghdad to topple ,he statue of saddam hussein the first thing americans did andthey went and sent to bp all the oil companies and surrounded their oil. the second thing is -- it was all over the news media, i remember, they were very upset that their precious artifacts were gone. they had hidden them. i am saying -- what is the problem with america? takennot just go in and over. like the previous caller said, and i listened, he said -- well, if we don't stop them, are oil prices are going up. is there a role for congress in the situation we are dealing with? cannot help ins

the situation. they are not together even on our domestic problems. most of congress was the war hawks, ready to go in like john wayne. host: all right, our next caller is mural -- muriel. caller: how come things get so bad? we had clinton going to all these countries to see what is going on. she must've come back with a message of how bad it was in it exploded.es and why do we wait until it explodes? why not go to the president? does he say to keep quiet? why did it have to get so big? thousands of illegal children, which is a shame, coming over. why did it get this big? this out of hand?

host: a couple more your tweets this morning -- host: next up, dying and, good morning. -- diane, good morning. opinion andar as my message to congress, i believe that our troops should stay out of a rack. i supported president bush or his decision the first time. it has been an ongoing centuries-old war over there. years later history has repeated itself. i do believe our greatest threat

to national security, i agree with the gentleman from georgia, our open southern border in this country and the steady flow of illegals, his timbre -- hispanic or otherwise. obama is allowing this and it is distracting to look at the middle east again. border ofoops on the this country again, mr. president. thank you so much. detroit, tony, independent line. caller: good morning. i kind of agree with the last caller on the point of -- we do need our troops at home protecting our borders, i agree with that. i do want to say this right here , america, it is time to wake up. can't involve ourselves in battles that people don't want us involved in. we need to do is worry about the homefront, leave people alone, let them solve

their own problems. we have enough problems of our own here. unemployment. thing -- i hear so much discontent dest dish ingenuous comments. disingenuousmuch comments. ,f you are poor or middle class fox news don't care about us, they all rich. rich.nly care about all right. one more piece of white house "obamais morning, intervenes in philadelphia. were back up in philadelphia after president obama stepped into a dispute and ordered over 400 engineers and electricians back to work. in an executive order late on saturday, mr. obama took their

step of took the rare weighting into a local issue to mediate negotiations between rail line workers and the southeastern pennsylvania authority. 30y will report back within days, according to the executive order. daniel, independent line, what do you have to say to congress about a rack? -- about iraq? caller: we cannot police the world. like many of the other callers said. we have plenty of our own problems. a lot of it starts with maybe possibly creating tax breaks for corporations to open industry back in our own country rather than shipping it overseas. we have no jobs for our uneducated and unskilled workers.

, so of course they will immediately go on substantive preventive wealth -- health care. is ludicrous to keep trying to fight a battle in a region that you have been fighting since biblical times. host: another tweet -- another headline from "usa today," "child migration in guatemala." "the vice president will be stopping in guatemala during his trip this week. the number of parents trying to cross the border has risen sharply, over 47,000 children caught in the first five months this year, a 92% increase over the same.

rupert, democratic line, maryland. morning, how you doing? host: well, how are you? asking.fine, thanks for this is a great opportunity for the united states, they are all on the march trying to capture the city, so in my opinion they only understand one thing, brute force. send in the helicopter gunships and the wild weasels. that is all the time we have for this segment. coming up next we will be joined by tom davis to discuss how the republican leadership shakeup might impact midterm elections. later in the program, state department official and former security council member will be joining us to discuss u.s. options in a rack. -- in iraq. we will be right back. ♪

[video clip] overble in the 1990's had 90 -- had over 90% of the market. littlehey have only a over 50%. the business has matured and you have to do two things. you have to lower cost of your margin is good or find new services -- new sources of revenue. revenue side,e one, i think that looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers. if you look at comcast and its invention -- investment in the x one platform, if you can make video on demand more attractive, easier to use, number one, don't

lose what you have. innovate to get what you want. them taking advantage of broadband, right? a blessed source of new business opportunity for the industry. growing much faster with a huge market, it has good economics and is a good business. >> the rapid change in telecommunications and the future of the cable industry with michael powell, tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on "the communicators." years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. there c-span, created by cable tv industry 30 five years ago, brought to you as a public

service by your local cable or satellite provider. joining us now, former congressman tom davis, of virginia, former chairman of the national republican congressional committee. thank --guest: thank you for having me. host: the big news in political circles is the defeat of eric cantor. what is the message for republicans out of that? districts.her there were a number of tea party challenges around the country this year that had a lot more effort than the one in the southern district. it was supported by national groups. idaho, probably a more conservative district, those numbers were on their toes at this point. in this case, i don't really think that eric and his team really saw the seriousness of

this challenge until election night. washington completely missed it, they take a look at how much is raised into his in the race and everything else. listening to yesterday's interviews, there were discussions that internal polls had him up by 30 points, how do you miss something like that? done pollingave for me in the past, but primaries are hard because in virginia anybody can vote in a primary. if you go back to previous primary voters you would have missed a huge chunk of the electorate. it would have gone from 43,000 to 65,000. a 50% increase in the number of people showing up. i think the pollster just missed that in their sampling. there were other factors on the ground. this is a different type of year. when i was campaign chairman and things were unsettled, i said

spend your money and don't take chances. and unsettled electorate can do a lot of things that nobody anticipates. in this case he ended up with millions still in the bank without realizing the seriousness of the challenge. eric is a good leader and i hope he considers having a future in politics, i think he is a good leader and has been great for the state. after his defeat activists said that this was a sign of a populist surge. you did not have a tea party when bush was in the white house, but we have a lot of deficit spending. a lot of spending proposals coming in. presidents tend to mask those kinds of differences within a as president obama has masked some of the difference is that the democratic party has between its

progressive wing and its other wings. but in the grassroots, take a look at what has happened to the average american over the past 20 years. stagnant wages with two wars that have gone sideways but cost a lot of money with lots of human tragedy. an economic meltdown and the to the meltdown is a wall street bailout. people are very frustrated and the tea party is one manifestation of that. their anxieties are real. politicians they can learn to and -- until they can learn to understand that, we will continue to have these initiatives. host: how divided is today's republican party? guest: it is a coalition. some would like to make it a private club, but they are a coalition that gets together to elect majorities and then you fight it out. there are substantial divisions within the party on a number of

issues. trade economics, cultural issues, but so are the democrats. that is the way it has always been. what the republicans have to learn now is that we have had two national elections we have where democrats got absolute majorities. there are more democrats than republicans right now if everyone shows up and republicans need to learn to get their act together and to bury the differences between elections or they will continue to be well. guest is the former congressman from virginia, tom davis. to join the conversation this morning -- host: i want to ask you about something that you said about to haveyour party, that

to make these decisions you become radioactive to the base. that was fascinating. guest: right now voters are republicanicularly primary voters. they want to send that message of anger to the white house. when you behind the cut -- become the kind of angry representative who is in their face every day, they like that, it expresses their pain and anger. when you suddenly have to make decisions of reopening the government by passing it that you are collaborating, no longer expressing the anger, you are seen as part of the problem. that is hard of the problem that leaders face in an unpopular congress. mitch mcconnell faced the same thing in kentucky. he got out early and got out ahead of it with more resources thrown against him with eric cantor. he was able to overcome it. look, that is a problem for every leader. leaders who are popular in the

district. host: when you look at mitch mcconnell as opposed to eric cantor, what is the difference there? host: lindsay graham came --guest: lindsay graham came at a congress of me, and amazing politician, but he was fortunate that not a lot of money went to anyone of his opponents, it was kind of fractured. but he also knew the issues where he was up against the administration and he was able to drive the anger on a few issues and then on others he could respectfully disagree. he is an incredible politician. if you know him. very smart guy. is not, buthat eric eric had the mantle of being in congressional leadership, where when it comes to raising the debt ceiling and reopening government, you are part of that . you are part of that at that

point. you are seen as a leader at that point. host: some of your calls this morning -- reading, pennsylvania. i have got a couple of questions i want to tell you. back in the libertarian party, the tea party, the republican party, we all believe the same thing. this is crazy for the whole country to sit there and fight each other instead of getting together and becoming one party. just like barry goldwater, god we are theoul, people for america. we have to fight for america and not for the people create the politics, we are for the american people and we are not doing that. fors get on the ball,

christ's sake. this is a laughingstock to the world. guest: thank you for the call. i am to stand a lot of voters feel this way at this point. for the country first, move ahead in uniting. the differences between the unitarian wing and mainstream wing of the tea party are not that great in the scheme of is all but politics about exaggerating differences. particularly in primaries. consultants are paid to draw those kinds of lines and elect people. a few nasty defeats will get a .arty together than anyone else are they ready for the third time to unite? that remains to be seen. melvin is on the democratic line. columbus, ohio. caller: if the republicans had not stayed in office, where country have been?

they put us in the situation we are in. they seem to not be able to come to that conclusion. they are always blaming obama for everything. they are the ones who put us in this mess. had obama not been in office, we would trouble the have been in the great depression. that is exactly what they wanted. they must think that we as a people are dumb or something. whatever is doing good for the country, not their personal. we are the people. there are really two different narratives it going on out there. probably more, but two major and age -- two major narratives. the president has been in for six years now. he owns some of these problems. looking around the world it is still an unsafe place.

it worse,is making not better. the other narrative is -- look at the problems he inherited, we are badly -- better off with creating jobs. that is politics, trying to make your way through the narratives of what is happening. the tragedy is that you are getting republicans and democrats not speaking to each other legislatively. are note and senate coordinating on everything. this year in the senate, of all the bills that came before the senate, republicans have been given a total of nine amendments. as a result of that they tend to shut things down over there. in the house it is frankly majority rule. one former speaker said that the minorities rule in the house is to make up the quorum and collect your paycheck. in the old days it was much more collaborative. but in the old days the parties were not ideologically sorted like they are today. today there are not any

conservative democrats or liberal republicans. maybe one or two in the house, but take a look at the vote ratings from national journal, the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat. we have morphed into a behavior that is more like a parliamentary system. we have not learned to grapple with that. it used to be that all politics is local, but we have morphed is noomething -- politics longer all the local. it has become national everywhere. we have moved into parliamentary behavior and it just does not fit. host: one of the issues that has been a big sticking point has been immigration. over the weekend during the sunday show interviews, eric cantor was asked if his position on that played a role. let's take a listen to what he had to say. [video clip] has not changed

on immigration. it is the way that it was before the primary, during the primary, and now. i have always said that i am not for comprehensive amnesty but kids who findthe themselves here and do not know another passage home. i do think that it is the only plausible way forward in terms of immigration reform, that we focus on things that we agree on, not on the things that we don't, building the trust to get things done. i have said this to the president, my colleagues are aware of the position. i am sure that it aggravated people on both sides of the issue, but it is the principal position i have taken and i believe it is the right one. that is a very centrist position today. a pretty wide margin from the house. amnesty has really been defined

i talk radio and some of the television pundits as opposed to what it really is in this case, but eric's position is hardly radical. ita republican primary, morphs into amnesty and the emotions get very high. this is made particularly worse by the tens of thousands of kids know crossing the border and coming into this country, looking for american aid. the status quo is just unacceptable and immigration. for people who do not want any action, if you think the status quo is acceptable with these people across the border now and young people and stuff like that, i have got news. we need action. pennsylvania, george is on the line for republicans. caller: i am more than a republican. what this country wants and why there was a defeat is we want truth.

we do not get truth. we get people in office, "i did not win because i did not say this right or do that right. " of malarkey.unch you need good and talented and well educated people. we need to go back in time and reflect on the writings of socrates and aristotle more. and get to the truth. that is what people want. i have prayed for it and asked for it. onm tired of people coming with this agenda and that agenda. democrats are bankrupt morally and republicans, you do not know what side of the fence they are on.

i appreciate the comments that one of the problems we have today is, what is true? you go to websites and there are different variations of the truth and it is like they are from different planet. it is difficult to sort out. you do not have the kind of filters in terms of content today. people are exposed to all kinds of facts that are not really fast. i have seen things on the internet. birthbarack obama's certificate on the internet from kenya. you start to believe it until i saw his birth certificate on a different site and i said, this cannot be right. to content ratio on the internet dirty a lot of different fax. cycleable news, a 24/7 they're not always accurate. often contradictory.

it is difficult to sort out the. -- sort out. itis so left and so right, does not always comport to the facts. were a chairman right now, how would you advise candidates to run? 80% of house members in both sergeants are safe for their party. the november election does not really matter here it november is just a formality. just a primary. take it seriously. , you earn thatut throughout your tenure. if you have a difficult opponent in the primary, you spend a lot of attention and time in your district and identify the issues and meet with your voters.

take a vote that is not popular. i used to get beat up by the party base. move onto the next issue. people who do not do that, i think they become aloof and estranged from their district. example is in idaho. he spent a lot of money, a very conservative district. his record was probably more moderate than the party based it. back every weekend despite the fact -- >> in phoenix, ben is on the line for independent area -- independents. a number ofhere votes the house of representatives did to represent

obamacare? guest: i do not know how many votes they took to repeal it or part of it, but you have to remember the vote was a straight partisan vote very no republicans supported it. you traditionally find when one their agenda without the other party's votes, it is rarely over. the other party tries to dial it back or repeal parts of it. we will see this falling off from state to state, fought in the courts and fought in congress. as long as public opinion stays as divided as it is, you will see this. twitter -- i think midterm elections are about disgruntled ibo coming

together and sending messages. presidential elections are about the future and can eating visions. my experience when i was campaign president in 2000 and 2002 was that these are often message elections. this year, democrats face a higher hurdle because they are perceived as controlling government even though they only control one third of government with the presidency. the president.er the republicans control the house. it is divided government and the ability to finger point. what you traditionally find in midterms is that the president posses party takes the blame. going well.ot last time, democrats controlled everything and republicans had historical gains. it was the republican posses largest since 1938.

this time, you will see republican gains because they .re the out party >> looking ahead to the midterms in the future after that, do you see opportunity for dealmaking with the white house in the next two ears? are things going to get done? so.s we hope divided government is the new normal. we have had it for almost 80% of the time. a look at the house of representatives and how it is constructed, democrats got 100 and 2 million more votes. the republicans have a 17 seat edge. that is a problem with the voting rights act, all of which gives democrats in and republicans an advantage. youhe electoral college,

have 18 states plus the district of columbia that have voted president 68 -- 6-8 times. democrats have been electoral college advantage. republicans have an advantage in the house. the end result has been divided government. that can do wonderful things. i was in a divided government with the clinton posses resident. we had dealmakers on both sides. it takes two to tango, extraordinary leadership. presidents today are fighting a polarized media. you did not have fox news and msnbc news where people to need -- tune in each night to hear their own views. you did not have the internet where people tune into their own websites to hear what they want

to hear. money was not with super pac's out on the fringes. it was still centered with parties. you had a lot more control than you do today. there are extraneous factors that make agreements harder. i have always said if the speaker and president reach an agreement and the media did not members phone lines ringing off the hook and the deal is undone. it takes extraordinary leaders to overcome that. i am hopeful we do this after the election that it has become tougher and tougher. on the line for democrats. >> good morning. i agree the government is divided. you made a good point. it is really government by minority.

republicans have the house and in the senate, every time we try to pass something, republicans yell filibuster and it has to go to 60 votes. republicans are always talking about the do notution, but i recall him the constitution that you had to have a supermajority to pass a bill. they also say republicans, if they listen to the people, well, if they really listened to the people, we would have a student loan bill, background checks, , aprehensive immigration road bill that would be repairing our roads and airports and i see in wage, our congress that they are more concerned about getting back into office than they are about the people of the united states.

all of those things i just pullingd had a majority for those bills. edt, the republican filibuster and the bill went down and fire. guest: thank you for your comments, i am certain in massachusetts, you represent the views of the people there. members are present individual district. they are not all like massachusetts. , background country checks are political death for people who support those. that is why so many members are indeed representing their distress. thatrepresent districts are far different from the districts in massachusetts. many of them from the south and west. as far as the student loan issue

i recognize it is a problem, but nobody read these bills. you are answering a question from a pollster about what it entails. there are a lot of complications. overriding all this is how do you view the deficit on the student loan bill? there is a cost to this. that, with allte of these problems, you mentioned the highway bill, infrastructure is crumbling. the color is correct. it is finding the appropriate offsets. it got so much harder to make policy these days because of the diversions of sets from each lyrical party and the perspectives and the fact that so many districts are single party districts.

the largest group of voters is 40%. you are in a safely drawn seat in your party, that is who alexia. inependents may dissipate november. independents wine. graham got 56%. i am a little concerned. it seems like the average joe sixpack takes it on the chin when republicans can together with a general agreement. lay the groundwork for the great recession, but i also have an issue with fracking.

i am not sure it will be safe. i would contend water is a if wegic resource area lose our water supply, with the trillium, i think we will be in more dire straits. i would not mind having the asset there if we did not needed for a strategic resource. the problem i have is congress counting chickens before they hatch and they want to use our newfound energy independence to influence or counter russia and ukraine. i would like to keep the oil and gas in the u.s. you for your comments. i would disagree with you on free trade. i was in a technology district. everywhere i -- everyone i talked to was for free traders

because there is selling products abroad. that was the largest market and a different perspective on that. our unemployment rate continues to be one of the lowest in the country. perspectivesferent on that. where you come from is where you said. -- six. sit. notwe just have come together on energy issues. we do not want to continue to finance a dysfunctional countries around the world. so weicing oil supplies can do better here domestically at home. i hope we get there. i am hopeful we can get the pipeline issue done. right now, we are in gridlock.

>> a question from twitter. -- question.ery good the answer is independents are independence for a reason. they do not agree on anything, either. they are and at collective group. i believe a strong independent candidate coming in when you have a dysfunctional state and a dysfunctional country running, can come in and claim the mantra and win. it has happened and it could happen here. it is a money issue. he will need someone to raise that kind of money. grassroots can come quickly. it is possible here. parties have been weakened through campaign-finance reforms and other things we're at it has not happened yet. mayor bloomberg in new york was selected as an independent.

has different lines for different parties. he had the republican line. you had four or five different lines you can run on. every state is a little knew ye -- unique. institutionally, it is hard and independents do not all agree and that is why they are independence. ellen is on the line for republicans. caller: i have been listening to this man speak and everything he says makes sense. i have been writing to the republican party and telling them to get along with the tea party. they're coming up and can join the republican party and they are very strong. it does not have to be it is and the republican party

the republican tea party. it is silly and the president has an awful about everything. the roads in pennsylvania are awful. we need help. i think the railroads should be used much more. the energy problem is ridiculous. we should have our oil pipeline going like crazy. thank you for the comment. continues to echo the frustration we hear across the country. everybody has a different point of view. it ought to be about outputs and not just input spared outcomes. and includes infrastructure investment of some kind. it includes energy policies. the climate with

change issues as a part of that. deficit issues, we know the current course we are on is not sustainable. none of these are easy to solve. it has become more convenient for political leaders to not act on them. the cost of acting becomes so high. not everyone will agree with the solution. .e have a lot of solutions but it is a huge frustration. me to leave congress. i left congress undefeated and unindicted. i have been a committee there and i had a good run of it. sometimes, you think, i could do more productive things of my life very it we have people there for the right reasons. which putsf a group republicans and democrats together. we have a problem solvers caucus

trying to get together. i think it is coming but it is still very polarized as an atmosphere. >> we talked about image -- infrastructure. i'm curious what you think about the role in your party right now. social issues play a role in both parties in terms of coalitions. one totors that lead choose political parties are race, ethnicity, and cultural .alues a majority of the poorest counties voted for mid romney and some of the wealthiest floated for barack obama. these are not economic coalitions as we traditionally understand it. values andbout cultural issues. the social issues are not going away. for republicans, it is difficult because you have people who agree with you on issues but they will not look at you if you -- if they think you are

laughing at their lifestyle. democrats have the same issue where economically, their policies could be viewed as more beneficial to these people but if you're mocking their religiosity, you do not want to have anything to do with these people. same with ethnic groups. very conservative economically, but if you look at the party they view as something not welcome to immigrants, why be part of it? party has got to understand the coalitions are not favorable to them. immigrants and young people, republicans are losing. older people die off eventually. ahead.e got to look that will take a look at some of

the social cultural issues and acide immigration, how we get handle on this. that is a different discussion in the party. sherry is on the line for independence. caller: i have been a republican all my life until 2007. then i came out about obama running. fact checking. i just decided it was time for people to do some fact checking. they still need to. i just cannot be republican. the hatred and discrimination has gotten so terrible that i could not do that anymore. you know there is no way you will convince american people that obama has to own part of this. only one that has

saved us. i am 60 years old. if it had not been for him, we would be in major trouble. these people talking out of both that is their mouth, what happens to the republican party. thank you for your comments. there are two different american -- going around america. go backrd sometimes to and say, how did i feel six years ago? we are all in the here and now. i appreciate the call. host: a question about no labels. -- we have a number of strong republicans and strong democrats. what it says is when you get to the negotiating table and when it comes to passing bills, we

need to work together. we are a balance of power as government. we are not a parliamentary system. the system was designed to have a balance of powers that reasonable people could prevail. we had a constitutional convention where you july and down the middle and everyone took a hard-line, we never would have gotten anywhere very he would not have had the connecticut and virginia plan merge. people would have just riven hard and fast there at all we are trying to do is create discussion between members and recognize sometimes, problems are so overwhelming that everyone has to give a little bit. sometimes, just to understand what the other side is ranked. we talk across each other on this. no budget no pay was a no labels creation. agenda,a national things most people agree to. we disagree on how to get to the goal but we have certain goals

we all want. having adult discussions about that and sitting down and trying to solve it and that of pointing fingers to each other is what i think is long overdue. that is what it is about. there are members afraid to do anything, but we have very conservative members with no labels and liberals with no labels. i come to the table because i am paid to produce outcomes. host: tom is on the line for republicans. i had a quick question and if i could just expand it, looking regionally with the tea know, if you happen to just the strain right now of primary challengers in the federal government, i know every two yes, it is all congress persons and than one third of

the senate, but do you know offhand how many are being challenged by tea party members? is it a low number? less than five percent? more than 20%? i have been a lifelong republican and we do not have too many up here in new jersey. -- did run for guest: jon runyan's. a primary from the right. in southern districts, you have a lot of that. they are tea party. it is hard to put a label on everything. you're finding more primary challenges than you would find in normal cycles at this way.

it forces members to take a hard look at themselves. incumbents, we hate primaries. we think we ought to be given the job by the party because we have been doing a good job. it gets you back in touch with constituencies, back in touch with your voters, causing you to re-examine some thought. they can be pretty healthy at this point. most he party challengers have not gone anywhere. -- heic cantor upset i was the most conservative member of the house leadership. you're leaving more moderate members along. -- alone. thate seeing a lot of around the country. it is the sign of a dynamic hearty trying to come to grips with itself.

it is feeling outcast and wanting to be in on government or this stuff will get reconciled sooner or later you're that is historically what happens there it we will he more challenges today. host: carolina, on the line for democrats. caller: my point first of all is i do not see why people keep claiming obama. the failures, obama is only a part of the legislative rant -- branch. he cannot pass anything without the house and senate. then the tea party, just another name for the kkk. all their agenda is about hatemongering. you for the comment. presidents tend to take the hit whenever things go wrong. that is traditional. ,t was true bush and clinton president obama and president eisenhower.

it is kind of traditional. i know a lot of tea party people in virginia. cry from the kkk. there are elements of those sometions that could lead to think there are racial component to it, but i look at the senator from -- running for the first time. he was appointed unless the house before that. tim scott, a tea party supported in the primary, african-american republican. if they were the kkk, there would be no place for him. the conservative choice down in utah. she is a haitian immigrant. it is racial at all. there are some people that is paid and raid just wave the confederate flag.

but i do not think at its heart, that is what the tea party is. that is been my experience. i want to ask you quickly about house speaker john boehner and his standing right now. i think it is strong right now. closing the government and opening it up, he went with the caucus on that. his danger is, when you go to the floor, there are republicans that would elect republicans to speaker. he had 10 or 11 that did not vote for him last time with a 17 vote edge. that is the problem. i think right now, he has never been stronger within a caucus. last caller from florida, on the line for republicans. theer: do you think republicans will keep the house

and take the senate? guest: that is a good question. because the republicans are the theparty at this point, and way the lines are drawn in the house, they will certainly hold the house. my guess is they will pick up a few seats as opposed to losing a few seats. but there are just -- there just are not that many seats in the house, swing districts. many of these are overtly defined as either solidly republican or solidly democrat. you will just not get any variation on it. the difficulty for democrats is there are more democratic seats up than republican seats. seven of those seats are in seat -- states that romney carried. clearly competitive

races in what i call swing states. but the battle for control of the senate is in red states area democrats are on defense at this point, offense on very few states. they will lose seats, the question is will they lose six seats? former congressman of virginia. thank you for joining us. we will take a quick break. when we come back, will would be joined by the former national security council and state party .fficial hillary mann leverett we will put the spotlight on the customs and border patrol service. now let's go to an update from c-span radio. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> president obama returns to washington today. authorities in spain and germany announced several terrorism related arrests. eight people in spain and another in germany are suspected for working with a jihadist group in iraq and syria. four people were killed in belgium by a suspected french islamist extremists who returned from syria. josh of politico reports that joe biden is extending a planned trip to latin america this week, adding a high-level meeting on a surge of children crossing the border to new -- to new mexico. he will cross the border and

meet with the president there. we will talk about this later in washington journal. those are just some of the latest headlines. >> religion is a powerful identity forming mechanism. part of human society is figuring out who is us and who is them here at -- them. religion answers the question easily. if you pray like me, eli kimmy, go to the same church as i do, you are us. if you do not, your them. that in groupw and outgroup mindset can easily to extremism. marginalization. religion may be the most of identitym formation. just as powerful is violence. how do you know who is us and who is them?

if you are fighting alongside me, your us. against me, your them. far from religion and violence being things that have nothing they have each other, been much more aligned than we would like them to be. he will take your calls for three hours live at noon eastern. in the months ahead, august third, the former texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul. in the former chair of the u.s. commission of civil rights and children rights advocate. discussing we are the forgotten man, a new history of the great depression. start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room. book tv, television for serious readers. >> last journal continues.

host: thank you for joining us this morning, hillary mann leverett. i want to talk about the united states options in iraq. what are you seeing? u.s. options are bleak but should be basically expected among policymakers here in washington. ae invasion of iraq was historic mistake. there was no way to come out of this without some kind of low back to the united states. what we should do, first and foremost, no more harm. that is critically important on the political and military level area you hear a lot of discussion in washington that we should really go in and do something. first of all, he is not the problem and secondly, the ability of united is to micromanage a medical -- better

political outcome is something we tried and we found multiple times he should not again. the other is the temptation to use military force to do something. airstrikes. limited we caused a lot of harm for a lot of civilians but are going to do anything to solve the urgent crisis in iraq today. theeed to think about diplomatic options short-term and long-term. short-term, we have to start dealing more constructively with the players in the region. is therst and foremost republic of iran and secondly, saudi arabia. iran, we have to engage with them constructively and start with steve and intense dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect that recognizes iran posses central role in the region. for saudi arabia, we have to look at the mutual dependencies between united states and saudi arabia and figure out how we can extricate ourselves from that and really focus on reorienting

a policy in saudi arabia so does not continue to support jihadist across the region. street journal and others reported on how to handle these threats. your perspective, what needs to happen in these talks? i helped initiate and participate in the u.s. dialogue negotiations with the republic froman right after 9/11 2001-2003. we work closely together to cooperate in afghanistan. it was a successful discussion negotiation and strategy we work together. the problem at the end of the day was, after we had these escutcheons, we were together to rout the taliban in afghanistan, if iran was labeled. there is a myth in washington that we never talk to iran. we do. weincreased sanctions area

talked in bosnia, where they have weapons in bosnia. we sanctioned them. us.fghanistan, they helped from -- for the iranians going into this, they will be clear eyed and skeptical and we will have two really go the extra mile to prove we are serious about reorienting our policies in the middle east. a question on footer -- guest: that is a good question. you can look at it two waste. you can say possibly they control close to one third of the landmass. in terms of the population, it is much less fear the overwhelming majority of iraqis are shia and the overwhelming majority of the shia areas are firmly in control -- of

essentially their security forces. for the shia, the iraqi military. greater than is the population we control. therefore, i am not as concerned that the entire state will fall. some are a bit more alarmist. >> any strategic mistakes, or what things let up to the point we're at with iraq? one has received the bulk of the attention, the enormity of the mistake to invade iraq. not just that it was badly implemented. but the whole concept, the idea that we could invade a country and disrupt the whole political social security military order was a mistake. the urgent thing is not who did was, buthow about that a long-held american policy of

arming, funding, and training. jihadist militants. goes back to the decision in the --ter administration in 1999 1979, in afghanistan, to entice militants to invade the country and then use it to get them into the strategic quagmire we had in vietnam. that hasgh people see short-term games in terms of getting soviets out of afghanistan, the policy has been disastrous for the united states. indirectly leads to 9/11 in terms of training these elements to al qaeda, and then after the invasion of iraq, as you are desperate to try to take in the groups, the upending of the political order we arranged, desperate to try to co-opt some of those elements, the surge, which was looked at here in washington as an unmitigated success, took us right back to

the policy. it entailed, beyond sending 30,000 troops to the baghdad area, it entailed arming, funding, and training 80,000. that brought us back to the policy of training and funding, to fight their way into a political order, not to negotiate. we then have a military intervention in libya, adding to the fire and unleashing dozens of more malicious -- militias. towards syria, we have worked directly and indirectly to arm, train, and oppositionists, would have really given fuel to the radical, extreme jihadist, insurgency in syria. it is all coming home to roost in iraq. the most urgent issue is not the problem invading iraq.

the urgent issue is to deal squarely with our arming, funding, and training with jihadist for each of these conflicts in afghanistan, libya, syria, and iraq. on talkis a big topic shows. instagram had comments about the discussions the united states will reportedly start having. i would like to listen to those and get your take. you --iranians can get provides some assets to make sure baghdad does not fall. we need to correlate with the iranians and get the sunnis back in the game. to dominatet iran iraq. that is where they are headed. the shia area of iraq, do not let iranians say baghdad. let us save it so there's a chance at second government. >> lindsey graham, your take?

>> it is a remarkable turn of .vents to see figures come out i have spent a decade in u.s. government and out of it. the clear urgency to assess the republic of iran as a central player. , it is remarkable. working with on and using iran in a short-term and bostonanistan and lebanon, to take advantage of military assets to help us in the short-term way. failed andpeatedly made the situation worse. here, it could potentially be disastrous to coordinate with them on an overt military strategy. for the u.s. air force to provide air cover for iranian troops. that is a trap and it has been

the grand strategy of al qaeda for some time, to bring what they call the crusaders, the united states, and the infidels, to bring them in and then use their joint military intervention as a way to rally sunnis across the world who are not extreme, not violent, but feel they're under a threat from crusaders. grandas long been their strategy. i'm afraid we could fall into the trap. military assets of what iran has to offer. an important peak -- piece of what iran has to offer is political. they have long held deep relationships with a range of their take on an involvement in syria, which people in washington hate to it knowledge as important, and their role in the region. and foremost, it is a deal

diplomatically and lyrically, and not just to focus on a short-term military marriage that is convenient and could act fire. host: what is the impetus of the world syria. it is critically important. al qaeda essentially on the roast before 2011. 2011 happened and the predominant conventional wisdom because obama withdrew the truth but i would argue that is not the case. the opening they had was the outbreak of violence in syria. the rush of judgment in washington and throughout the west and the arab states of the to arm, train, and fund sunni militants in the area to overthrow assad.

neededve the trigger he -- it needed to come back and have further ground not just in iraq but serious. with protection from the united states. while we were using drones to , there was noa way we would attack them in syria because we supported the overall goal of overthrowing assad. they have had safe haven protections, directly and indirectly from the united states and our allies, for three years. that had an immediate impact. first color is very in florida on the line for publicans. it says on the screen your former state department. does not say what administration. i would like to know because you seem to think iran is the answer.

they have sworn to destroy israel. they have funded and sent the troops into afghanistan and to destroy those countries. you seem to think they are people we can deal with? they have nuclear capability. coming from? as makes no sense to me whatsoever. i understand the caller is a prize. the analytic take i take are very much against conventional wisdom here in washington. was ald say first, i service officer with the state department. the clinton national security council and the bush national security council. i serve both presidents over a range of nearly 20 years.

the focus is not my argument that iran is some great and fantastic place. is the united states, particularly with the class of soviet unions, at the end of the gave us a policy of where wen the region, tried to have at least constructive relationships. and with the destruction of iraq in 1991, the iraqi military and the defeat of the soviet union. astead of bouncing and having relationship, that we would take on it -- take it on ourselves. state in the region to rise and challenge our power in the region. that puts us on a collision course with iran. iran has increased its gain in the region.

do not become best friends with iran. countries do not have friends. i have interests. we have critically important interests of the public -- republic of iran that align. no country is perfect. but we see that often pretty much how we want to see it. the good guys always coming to do the right thing and anyone who challenges us is the bad guy. that in history has not worked for us and has been disastrous with iran. we have seen them play a constructive role in iran. as much as people do not like to hear it, they have been much more constructive in syria than we have here it we have worked with so-called allies to arm, train, and fund. the militants who are now threatening to take over iraq. a news interview,

secretary of state john kerry says the obama administration is willing to talk with iran over security conditions in iraq and cooperation. out john stice made the an option. kerry says option 10 is open to discussion with iran if the iranians can help with violence and restore confidence in the iraqi government. ask about possible military operation in ironic, he would not pull anything out if constructive, but he said any contact with iran would move step-by-step. your thoughts? grahamlike senator recognizing the central role iran has to play in the region, it is instructive book that it hasn't can't continue to play in the region, a very important elites tor policy accept and embrace.

the problem is there is not come at this point, a military solution. for the united states and iran to come together in a no vote -- overt military partnership, will as an assault on sunni power. we should not be shocked if there is blowback. instructive to have a strategy together. that is important. to rest to have a military operation could be a trap. host: richard is on the line for independence. i would like to clarify my own thinking. i usually listen to c-span

discussion around these things and it is always the point of national security discussion, where you cannot really get an u.s.standing of the position and what it is about in the region. what i am dealing with as i , is this are -- iterislso about development in the region? i would like to get feedback on that. not necessarily what is being captured, but the sales of arms that are being used that these here groups will be able to fight against each other, where are they coming from? the united states arms supplier,

a large sales portfolio. the caller makes two very important points and questions. one is the nonstate actors, which clearly i isis is. the threat that it is, as a nonstate actor, is in its ability to work in iraq, to engender support in iraq, to take cities, to do so in syria, and have related groups do so in libya, means that for the first time, we are seeing a significantly intensified jihadist terrorist threat. it is a transnational one which not only threatens to be a platform for actual attacks against people, civilians, whether americans were nil easterners, but it threatens the middle state fabric of the middle east. one of the first and crisis did when it took over is it went back to the border with syria

and took down the border. is critically important for them to take down borders, take territory, and expand. it is another thing very important and threatening about isis. , it is nonstate actor trying to take down the nationstate system. there is no rational reason to believe they will stop with iraq. genocidal. as we have seen in the city they have taken, they have slaughtered the shia. they said they will continue to do so. the aim is to march shia holy cities and slaughter the shia there. and this is aidal critically new element in terms of a transnational at -- transnational network of nonactors that threaten the entire nation's they system. host: next up, bob was on the line him -- four democrats in

pennsylvania. caller: when our troops were over in iraq, there was an earthquake at the border of iraq and turkey. our troops went up there and helped. process, they looked at the military behavior, our militaries. they are much happier there helping. in ones that were fighting the other parts of iran. were iraq, rather. in the process, wait a second. if our troops have higher morale when they helping people, you can go back to another area. you ever hear of a thing called cooperation from the sea? it was russia and the united states.

earthquake and disaster drills in the pacific where they helped . russia and united states worked together for four years. the troops were very happy working together. it was a process of trying to help one another. the morale was a lot higher. as a toolthis be used against terrorism? if you're going to choose weapons of war, then you get no help during a disaster. guest: the idea that u.s. troops or anybody's troops can go into another country and win hearts and minds is essentially a cornerstone of general petraeus's counter service -- counterinsurgents reggie, has not borne out anywhere. the data shows troops are

perceived to be, whether they're doing good or not so good, well-meaning or not, they are perceived to be occupation forces from a foreign country. with a different agenda. data on that. of the university of chicago has an important data project on that. i liken it to the united states during the height of the financial crisis. what would we have thought if the government of the people's republic in china had dispatched about 100,000 troops, but just 5000 troops to wall street and major the world financial system that everybody has an interest in was working soundly and smoothly? they did not do anything file and they helped us get our financial house in order. americans would rightfully see that as an invasion and an occupation and we would resist it. that is what we have seen in east of these places all over the world, with united states goes. there a threat right now to the u.s. homeland?

guest: i think there is. we see an increased threat by having a group like isis and its having af groups, large loss of territory, an enormous amount of money. al qaeda on 9/11 was considered to be the wealthiest terrorist organization in the world. it was estimated had $30 million. today, isis has 1.5 billion. $500 billion a just got from raiding the banks. in terms of its military wherewithal, it has had three years of arming, training, and funding, indirectly and directly, from the united states and our so-called allies. well armed and well-trained. the group is well financed, well armed, well-trained, and the ability to go in and out of different places, from libya, syria, iraq, and afghanistan. we now have the connections worldwide. the director of national intelligence has briefed

congress publicly, that thousands of these fighters in i think that anybody looking at this objectively would certainly see an increased threat to americans. sam online for republicans. caller: good morning. i have two questions, comments. one mainly of historical interest in one more relevant to the discussion. first one is what role do you think the first persian gulf war had in the lead up to 9/11? interest, they don't fall president for withdrawing troops from iraq. im for fault them for -- homf

is the libya war which helped kicked off the syria conflict in which is led to the iraq problem we are having now. the caller is making two interesting points. littleas been very retrospective analysis of what that war in 1991 did in the gulf in terms of the united states. we saw how we were able to knock out saddam hussein's military easily. what is not talked about is keeping tens of thousands of the middleoops in east, in this critically holy place. al qaeda a cause

to rally around, to get the united states out of the gulf. not gotten enough critical exposure and is very important. i agree with the caller, the problem is not that president obama went through with president bush's decision to withdraw american troops from iraq. if we had kept troops there, i'm afraid that we would be perceived as a continuing occupation force and we would continue to drop fire against us in iraq and elsewhere. the problem was the decision based on faulty and fantastical evidence and ideas that libya had to be invaded and its government had to be overthrown. that was a disastrous decision, followed only by the more disastrous decision to arm, fund, and train sunni militants in syria.

those two decisions of had a direct impact on the current situation. host: richard in massachusetts. caller: thank you. you are spot on. your incredible. but there has always been, like joe biden said years ago, that .ossibly iraq should split up right now, the kurds are controlling the oil area and the sunnis have the northern part of the country. the south.in you think that is a workable solution? south.shias in the do you think that is a workable

solution at some point? guest: the point about the breakup of iraq, it may happen. the idea that some have in foreign policy here is that somehow the map can be withdrawn and the united states can work with other partners to redraw -- map in the middle east those days are over. the united states does not have that kind of influence or control in the middle east. what happens in iraq will be andrely decided by iraqi's the surrounding states. states the surrounding has a critical interest in helping iraq stay as a unitary state. they have a critical interest. has no interest in just a

shia state focused in the south. they have said clearly that they are committed to a unitary iraq. the same thing for turkey. for turkey to have an independent kurdish state on its borders would be something not in its interest. for jordan to have a terrorist network controlling a huge swath of iraq and syria on its order is a fatal scenario. isis has already said that they are interested in turning their sights on king abdullah in jordan, as well. a stakethese states has in iraq being unitary. the united states needs to turn to diplomacy and get more frank. host: i will ask you about a recent piece you wrote.

tell us a little bit about that. guest: most of the commentary about iraq is about most of the disastrous decision to -- is about the disastrous decision to invade iraq. it ignores the problem that our political class has failed to deal with and healed -- fueled. you have today, president obama has fielded with could dance -- demands that gaddafi has to go. this is something that is of long standing. serious under president reagan.

you had a1, coalescing of groups here in washington. their fellow travelers in the democratic party. they see 9/11 is the opportunity or window to go in and do something that wanted to do before 9/11, which was destroyed , this arabur military power in iraq. and they do it on exaggerated if not completely made up evidence. had toulse that they come together, the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers on the democratic arctic him and to use y-- democratic partners --and use 9/11 rather than look , abouto learn from it

these arab gulf states and their relationship to al qaeda, our inability to deal with what happened on 9/11 and constructive policy for it has been very problematic. instead, there was this idea to go back to a pre-9/11 agenda and push it through with 9/11. host: omar is in indiana. caller: wow. you are dropping some bombshells rarely heard on c-span. even though you were using diplomatic language, basically what you're saying is that the seeds that the u.s. policy makers have been planting throughout the middle east are bearing fruit today and they don't like the crops.

great the taliban, use it against the russians, fight. when it is over, support who is convenient, support the al qaeda in syria. importantly, you are a credit to c-span. i get so sick and tired of having them look at richard perle and david from and robert kagan and elliott abrams and on and on and then for every speaker like you who comes on, there are 10 of those others. i would encourage c-span watchers to go to you and your to try to getite an alternative point of view. you are a breath of fresh air. c-span wants to be fair and

balanced, they need more speakers like you. you have been to the region. you are an iranian expert. we need to know both sides of an issue. talk about you and your husband's visits to iran for example, which is one of the main players in this, and these current crises. i think the caller for his comments about me. i want to focus on one point he makes in particular. sector that have been several times to iran, to iraq, to turkey. to egypt. you wento be that if to a country and he spent time there and you really bothered to listen to people there, people , thatu may not agree with

used to be seen as scholarship. that used to be seen as trying to understand the other perspective on its own merits, you couldo that inform policy debates in the united states better. today, that is dismissed as being an apologist. in the bush administration, after 9/11, one of the things i thought was the most startling is that anybody who spoke error -- arabic, anyone with experience in the arab world was seen with significant skepticism in the white house as an apologist to the arabs. they were dismissed as apologists for the arabs. people one about with theoretical policies who have never been to iran, who have never met an ayatollah.

it is not as counterproductive, it has really been disastrous. it has allowed us to look at the prism through deeply ideological lenses.d jeff is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. two things. you get people talking about the president on doing this and not doing that. no, no, no, no. where are the jobs? as far as the force are concerned, i remember walking down the street with my -- when you've got people who create these weapons

24/7, where are they going to put them? the warehouses? they've got to use them. you are not going to have people creating weapons 24/7 and putting them in war houses. -- warehouses. guest: the caller points to something i have found very interesting. the military-industrial complex. there was something important about that idea. it was put forward by eisenhower, a very mainstream former general. you look at how that has impacted the current dynamic in the middle east, particularly in iraq, it is stunning. the united states has spent over $1 trillion in iraq. tens of billions of dollars in

weaponry. intosis is just walking the arms depots and just taking them. thispropensity come of instinct, to militarize a conflict has created real blowback. it is worth the attention of analysts, of thinkers, and commentary here in washington to talk about why are we fueling these conflicts with more weapons? we need to have them think twice, our lawmakers on capitol hill, before they spend more on arms and funding to militant groups. it is something we need to look for a more why that happens in washington, whether the interests then push it -- that push it. to weatherford, texas. mike is on the republican line. basically, your guest is

not know if she is talking about on the sunnis in iraq. i got there in 2004, out in the triangle. the state department was very anti-sunni. get 40 of the folkstone to bodhran on our side. ahrain ondown to our side. the state department was very pro-shia and anti-sunni. it kicked off the saudi's. hraini's. off the ba the anti-sunni factions in the --ernment and the military you look at the purge after we left iraq. thank you.

i think he makes some critically important points. i wouldn't just lay the blame on the state department, but the united states made a decision not just to invade iraq, but to disband the iraq military that had been formed, trained, and given salaries from the sunni government. to disband that, to fire sunni military officers who were battle trained, armed, but with no paycheck -- that was a colossal error. tois this point i'm trying make. the united states looks at the with fanciful thinking, through rose colored lenses.

we talk to these expatriate experts and we use what they say to validate what we want to do. when the u.s. invasion was not welcomed and we are in iraq and theave disbanded sunni-formed iraqi military, we are left with a majority population of shia. come uped states had with a strategy to deal with them. i is the only figure who can garner support and any kind of consensus, with all of his flaws. the problem is how we approach the sunnis. them was toded with arm, fund, and train them,

instead of bringing them into the political system. it made it almost impossible for them to come into the political system. so you have come a saudi's, libyans, syrians by the thousand come in to join the sunni compatriots. of how we treated the sunnis in iraq was a serious one. it was born out of the fanciful thinking of going in to iraq under the assumption that iraqis invasion andte the they would all become secular liberals to form a government like ours. i was wrong from the beginning and that will not change. host: idaho, republican line. caller: i would like to echo the

previous caller's comments. i do think this lady is making a lot of good points, but her major premise that the american is this invading, occupying force is totally wrong. if you look at the history of the american military, we have been a force for good in the world. if we had withdrawn from south korea, like president obama dead from iraq, guess what would have happened? when we withdrew from vietnam, it was overrun by communist, christians were persecuted. our stabilizing force in germany. every country we have actually -- our -- even defeated military has been a force for .ood

the philippines i would add to that list. i think history will only tell about the invasion of iraq. that all ofremember the democrats, nancy pelosi, hillary clinton, they were all on board with our invasion of iraq. blame it on george bush and the republicans was ridiculous. guest: i am clearly a bipartisan critic. when i criticize the bush administration, that was fine for most of -- much of the force.al though i respect our armed forces, i do take issue with the caller in terms of the success of these invasions, both in terms of what they have done on the ground, the moral cost, but

much more importantly the strategic cost. i think after the invasion and occupation of vietnam, finally president nixon and henry kissinger realized the strategic quagmire. they turned around and said, how could we have a different strategy in asia? critical to that was going to beijing. that is why i titled my book, going to tehran. you had to come to terms with the essential, critical players in asia. china, whom we had isolated and sanctioned for 20 years before nixon went there, that was a tremendous success. we will need to do the same thing today. the strategic failure, quagmire in vietnam is similar to the strategic failure and quagmire in iraq. not only do i think it was an effective decision -- a critical

decision to leave iraq, but we are going to have to come to terms with the critical players in iraq. we will not be able to be the hegemonic power in iraq, just like we were not able to in asia. need to pursue a similar strategy and deal with a central player. former state department and national security council advisor. think of for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: our weekly segment will take a look at the customs and border patrol segment -- service. let's go to an update from c-span radio. >> it is 9:22 a.m. eastern time. more from chuck hagel on the iraq situation. has ordered uss mesa verde into the persian gulf.

growing -- as concerns are growing. the mesa verde has already moved into the gulf, joining the aircraft carrier and other u.s. naval ships. the ship's presence will give president obama additional options to protect american citizens and interests in that country. the pentagon says that may severity-- the may carries equipment that can be used for crisis response. an update on ukraine. russia says ukraine cannot have any more natural gas until it starts paying. same pipeline also carries gas for europe. moscow's decision to cut supplies earmarked for ukraine does not immediately affect the gas flow to europe, but it could disrupt the long-term energy supply to the region if the payment issue is not resolved.

>> turning to congress. has on spending bills slowed in the house as republican members work to elect new leaders, this following the effect -- defeat of eric cantor last week. the houses that today, but members return tomorrow. the senate meets today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. live senate coverage on c-span 2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. the idea behind 250 in 250 is instead of trying to sell -- tell the entire timeline. we would miss finally important things. we decided, what if we give snapshots of st. louis history

that would give people a glimpse of all of the diverse things that have happened here and they could use their imaginations to fill in the rest. we chose 50 people, 50 places, 50 moments, and 50 objects. we try to use the most diverse selection we possibly could. we are standing in the 50 objects section. this is what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is red front of you. it is an amazing story with lots of different breweries. the most famous became anheuser-busch, one of the largest in the world. anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year, we think they're producing so much. , this is from an era where things were little but more simpler. it is fun to show people this

object and gauge their response. in the days before cancer or bottle caps, they put corks in the top of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. it has foot petals on the bottom. that is where the operator would push down with his feet to give the court enough force to go into the bottle. >> the history and literary life of st. louis. gateway to the west. "book tv" and "american history tv." >> washington journal continues. host: each week at this time, we take a look at how your taxpayer dollars are spent. today, our focus is on the customs and border patrol service. we are joined by alicia caldwell of the associated press. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: immigrant children have been in the news a lot. how much is the border patrol

being tested and strained by the influx of children across the border? isst: what we have heard that it is pulling resources from every avenue. guys who would normally be patrolling are taking care of -- iten and maintaining does not meet to suggest that the border is being patrolled area but there is a tremendous influx of children. you have to treat them different than adults. you cannot put them in adult cells. you cannot put them back on a plane if they are not for mexico or back to mexico if they are not from there. most of them are from central america. you transfer them over to health and human services, where they will be put in some sort of foster care or sheltered care, until they can be reunited with a relative or potentially sent

home. the point is to quickly reunited with relatives, if possible, in the united states. i want to get a listen at these comments. [video clip] >> it has taken away resources. , toin the border patrol concentrate on caring for these individuals that would normally be out doing other enforcement duties. we have to look at alleviating that. i don't know any place on the border where they are not busy. the sooner they can get back to doing their other duties, the better. host: george take.

guest: it takes a lot of resources. you are not simply taking people and turning them around at the mexican border. with adults, you can process them through the system and repatriate them to their own country. if you're from mexico, the process is considerably shorter. if you are from central america or third-party country outside the region, the process is going to be longer. it does tax resources. you are talking about the southern texas border. the rio grande has the most apprehensions in the country right now. 174,000 give or take. are other of those than mexican immigrants. they crossed the border illegally, being apprehended. it is going to take time and resources to deal with that population in a different manner .

what we have seen historically is a large number of mexican immigrants. when he let children to the mix, it becomes a whole different animal. there is a much different process involved dealing with children. to hhs.from cbt host: is there any reference to how much unaccompanied children are costing to the border patrol? is health and human services and the border patrol. they have said we need in excess of $2 billion to deal with this problem. obviously, there is a differential of more than $1 billion. we are still not at the peak or no were near the peak of

apprehensions at the southern border. we're still in relative lows. but you have a changing population. dealing with the changing population means you're going to have to move your assets in a different way than before. host: how have these children been getting to the united states? how has this happened? they are walking, primarily, as silly as that sounds. you are not taking a bus. you're taking very dangerous trips across central america into mexico, potentially riding a train, not the comfort of an amtrak, potentially on the outside, the top of the train, and so on. smugglers are involved. going into treacherous territory that is owned by various smuggling groups. you're going through treacherous territory and you have to have guides. a lot of the kids do have

coyotes or guides to get them up to the border. in some cases, you do have children with parents. that has become an issue as well, the so-called family unit crossing the border. is notf the times, it even apprehended. they are approaching border patrol and sang, we have just crossed, we are from this country, can you help us out? basic as thats sounds, that is to a degree the process that is being employed. don't imagine putting a child on a greyhound bus. that is certainly not happening. it is a long, difficult trip in dangerous conditions that often involve criminals. host: what can you tell us about the customs and border patrol budget? it is in a perpetual state of flux. you need more money to deal with this. but the federal government is

constantly in shrink mode. they are having to readjust and shipped out some things. congressional panel have decided thehift somebody within department of homeland security from things like the air marshal , to addto customs border officials. to add customs and border protection guys. there have been proposals to add significantly to the border patrol, but that has not happened. the immigration bills have largely stalled and look be stalled for the considerable future in light of recent events , and virginia, most notably. host: this is a look at the budget requests. they asked for $4 billion for budget border security, three billion for in -- $3

for inspections. what is that money likely to be used for? guest: it looks like what it sounds like. say between of dallas -- nogales and san diego. you have a crossing point. it is guys out there on horseback, in suvs, patrolling a rugged stretch of desert in many cases. in texas, they are patrolling and equally -- and equally rough stretch of the rio grande. they are out in the open, running up and down the levee, looking for people. in south texas, they are seeing a lot more people than in arizona or california. even in the el paso area. in more open areas, lots of patrol trucks.

desolatere rural, more areas, you will not see as many concentrated because they are out in the middle of nowhere to patrol. texas, it is not uncommon to see a bunch of border patrol trucks. it would not be an uncommon sight to see the apprehension of groups of people at any date or , in theoss that region rio grande valley sector. host: we're talking to alicia caldwell. (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. the first call is on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to make three quick points. for questions.

is the government giving any additional funds for the state to accommodate the large influx of these children? it has been reported that these are not actually children, that these are teenagers. the second question i wanted to make, are any fines be -- being considered for these countries that allow these children to come and do not stop it? is this something the congress has to decide on, how the money is going to be spent? something that the federal government, congress has to vote on? or is this something that the ?resident has to use thank you for taking my call. a couple of things.

on the border states and money to the border states. it is a difficult question because customs and border protection has said, we are not keeping these children in these other states. they are sending some children from the rio grande valley into arizona, which we have all heard about. the government has been very vocal about that. they are being held there temporarily -- temporarily, in theory, is that -- three days. they are supposed to get these children moved onto other shelters in three days. that is not always happen for a variety of reasons, some of which could include health issues. the government is footing the bill out these temporary shelters, and we are talking about a warehouse at a border patrol facility. that is not, everybody would

agree, ideal. are being moved to military facilities in texas, oklahoma, or california. those are being paid for by federal dollars. it is all tax money. it is debatable whether you are a state resource or a federal resource, but ultimately it is from the federal budget. the big issue with third-party countries and arrangements for their would-be immigrants were coming to the united states illegally or have fallen into a position where they are deportable, some countries have declined to have travel inuments given repeatedly ofs case -- i have not heard a situation where fines were not applicable. i don't know if there is a lot to allow for that. somebody smarter than me would have to pick up the ball and run with it.

in terms of the financing, it is the congress who decides the budget to read the president asks for x dollars in the budget and in the debate begins in congress. health and human services asked for $868 million to deal for unaccompanied immigrant children. they have gone back and said that it is going to be upwards of $2 billion. we could end up with a population exceeding 90,000 by the end of the fiscal year. initial estimates put the around 60,000. obviously, you add 30,000, that will change the financial dynamic a bit. host: rodney is on the line for democrats. caller: hello? host: you are on with alicia caldwell. caller: hey there.

i live in a rural area of tucson. i have three points. you can dress it up anyway you want, but they are illegal aliens. governorike to see our load up about seven busloads of these wonderful people who are taking work away from me by sending them to washington dc with a camera crew and dropping them off in front of the white house. maybe they will get the idea. because it is not in their backyard, it does not bother them. bothering ust is out here in tucson. i would like to find out more information about the medical aspect of the people coming across the border. we see the country getting more ,nd more -- they are saying urban people are not vaccinating their kids. i think it is the illegal aliens that are not getting vaccinated

and are coming in here and now you have children in america who are getting whooping cough and polio and other things that you used to be vaccinated against and take care of because of the influx of these youngsters coming across the border, not even the youngsters come of teenagers, the adults. in downtownlace tucson working one time and i saw a chain gang come out of the building. guards were wearing masks and surgical gloves. me of the u.s. marshals told that these were all illegal aliens that have communicable diseases. these are ones that they catch. where are not getting caught? couldn't speak to the health issues. the children who are being detained and cared for are being treated for medical issues. that is part of the delay in getting them from the custody

over to hhs, is the medical treatment and the delays in getting them into the military facilities because they have to be cleared by medical professionals for about seven days, i believe. there is concern there, in terms of just getting these kids and making sure they are not unhealthy. in terms of communicable diseases are whooping cough and such, i certainly could not speak to that. i would have to punt the ball to someone smarter than me. host: question from twitter. guest: that is a good question. we cannot bus to central america. adults traveling by themselves or apprehended at the border are routinely flown with some degree central back to american countries. there is a provision in federal law that allows for expedited removal -- adults are eligible for that, adults traveling by

themselves. children traveling by themselves are not. someone call of a quirk or loophole in the law, but the reality is that you cannot put children into expedited removal proceedings without their parents for deportation back to their home country. there has been some concern in some internal memos and such that the flight process for those adults should be sped up with the third-party countries. that is something that is still outstanding. in terms of logistics, it is a little bit more complicated than simply turning around or busing back. mexican immigrant population, that is possible. it is the same if you're caught crossing the canadian border illegally and you are not from canada. it is the continuous country where repatriation is quite easy. the merits are somebody else's ballgame to discuss. the efficiency is there.

host: let me talk about the enforcement on the southern border and the northern border. what is the manpower like? there are 21,000 border patrol agent's. 200 or so are on the coasts. 19,000 are at the southern border. the mass is evident. the canadian border is not as busy. the traffic historically has come from our southern border. of illegal immigration, much of that traffic was coming from mexico. mexican nationals migrating into the united states, were trying to migrate into the united states. we have seen some shifts over the years. there was a tremendous flow of brazilian nationals who would make their way to the southern border come across, and turn themselves in immediately which was under a policy during the bush administration that was dubbed, catch and release. they would give them a notice to

appear and then those folks would go onto to their final destination in the interior. someone returned to court, someone not. we are dealing with a situation that is similar about the notice is given to family units to appear. we don't know how many of those folks have been released. we don't know how many have shown up. the federal government has repeatedly declined to discuss that number. host: barbara is on the line for independents. caller: yes, thank you. i pray for these people that come across in wanting a better life. america just does not have the money. becausen bad shape now of what has been going on since obama took over. can't tothey set up detain these people.

they set up camps for these children cannot get into -- maybe that will stop a lot of the coming across the border. if obama would uphold the border security like you should, they wouldn't be coming in. they would be stopped right at the border. he needs to uphold the law. of the constitution. for the american people. we cannot afford it. for america and those people and i feel sorry for them. but we are in bad shape ourselves. a couple of are things. to be fair, the process to handle unaccompanied immigrant children who are not from mexico precedes and supersedes the

obama administration. the law is such. that this is the problem to handle unaccompanied minor children. we have not seen this dramatic of a situation in recent memory. there have been cases of immigrant children being caught illegally on their own in the past. this is generally how it has been handled. i could not speak to cancer or anything like that. a lot of these folks are being caught. the border patrol has suggested in its statistics and statements that they are much better today at apprehending people than they were before their apprehending more people today than they did two or three years ago. bit degree, it is a debatable. are there more people coming and we are only catching a smaller ?ercentage

we know that they are catching a number of people. the numbers are relatively low to the 1990's.d it is a number that has boomed in south texas, in particular, and is getting quite a lot of attention because of the change of the population. vice president biden will stop in guatemala this week. he is scheduled to meet friday with the quantum on president and senior officials from honduras and el salvador. most of the children have ended up in immigration detention facilities near the u.s. border. what is the hope coming out of that trip for u.s. officials? guest: the hope was to encourage

guatemalan officials and those from el salvador and honduras to keep the children out of a difficult, dangerous situation. when you are crossing the mexican border from guatemala, it is a very dangerous proposition. it is not like you are walking to the convenience store down the street. you are crossing a river from guatemala into mexico. you're are then going into cartel country. these are not people who say, oh, you are a seven-year-old kid , you're looking for your mom, wonderful. andme help you get on a bus send you north. that is not the situation. they are dealing with smugglers, who are then dealing with ruthless people saying, you cannot pass through here without x benefits to me. the hope is to reach out to the third-party countries to stop the problem before it gets there. --nd secretary jeh johnson

homeland secretary jeh johnson is scheduled to go down next month. the numbers are still rather high. we expect that to continue according to the estimates. host: al in pennsylvania on the independent line. hi.er: i'm here. i'm sorry. my comment is that president obama has repeatedly changed immigration laws in the past three years. i'm sure he can overcome these technicalities about sending back the mothers and children who are coming over the border. second point is, we must reject the contention that the criminal activity in guatemala and as durings the same

the barrel bombs and the poison gas in syria. these are not legitimate refugees or asylum seekers. it is a search of economic the goodwho want features of living in the united states. thisorry, but i see essentially as president obama's revenge. says, ok, we are going to allow another search of hundreds of thousands to come across. clearuld make it very that these people are not legitimate asylum seekers and will not be taken into the country. thank you and i await your response. guest: in terms of sending back mothers and children, it is absolutely doable. but if you're from a country

that is not mexico, it does take time. you have to arrange flights and go through a process. children mothers of are being released into the interior with a notice to appear. part of that is based simply on logistics. there are 96 odd family beds available to customs enforcement. that is not a lot. said that you cannot put these families in an adult correction facility or an adult detention center, with potentially dangerous individuals, who are detained pending deportation for a variety of reasons, many of them criminal. how many early to say will be removed. admittedly, the government has said, here is our ballpark to

rid for the public safety. you cannot get more recent than being apprehended at the border and processed into the system. there is a bit of a dichotomy. within the immigration and customs enforcement system at ,he executive office for review the immigration court systems are lengthy and are backed up. befored be a year or two they see a courtroom for final removal proceeding. it is a lengthy process that nobody has a quick answer to, at this point. there are processes by which these folks are and removal process receding's -- proceedings. provided they maintain their relationship, the process will work its way through the system eventually. host: john in atlanta, georgia.

independent line. caller: how are you doing? , how about the u.n.? this is multiple countries. these are immigrants, refugees. what is the u.n. do? there are some places they could go, some areas they could go. they are not like america. the u.s. is on a global initiative to set up areas for refugees. the u.n. could do it. they don't do nothing else. dr. king streamers. -- dreamers. they haven't made it to the mountaintop. where is the black caucus? they have made it to the mountaintop. you can find them.

they ought to be jumping up and down, raising hell. guest: i'm not sure where to start with that. u.n. is a very complicated prospect. i will punt the ball to somebody else. the u.n. was asked to come into mexico at the peak of the drug war. there was a lot of global attention. host: if you look at the numbers unaccompaniedn coming across the border, there seems to be a lot more than there used to be. central america is extraordinarily violent. there is some of the highest crime rates and homicide rates in the world. honduras is number one at this stage.

number two, their families are gone, in many cases. parent or another has moved to the united states at some stage. there is reunification. of ifird is this concept i make it there, i can get in. i will get a bit of a free pass being from central america. technically, everybody is put in removal proceedings. the line is lengthy. the line to be removed in deportation proceedings is lengthy. the unaccompanied children's docket is shorter than that of adults. it appears to be a multitude of factors. in aovernment has said number of ways, a number of action forferred young immigrants brought here by their parents -- to avoid deportation for two years -- that is not applicable. wouldtential reform bill

not be applicable to these folks. you had to have been in the country for about seven years. for the proposed immigration bill in congress, i think it is about a year and a half. does that change the perception. i think that is a different question. we have had folks down at shelters say that we here we get to stay. if my children, loan, they get to stay. they are definitely dealing with a perception battle, the government. that is one of the reasons why you will see vice president biden in guatemala. that is what you will see jeh johnson in guatemala. there is no free pass, but the reality is, you cannot quickly repatriate unaccompanied minors. many will remain in the united states for the time being. this family units travel

together, but they are removable. it is a time-consuming, cobb located process. host: phoenix, arizona. independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? thank you for c-span. i am a truck driver in phoenix, arizona. i go to a lot of plants and factories in places. there sure are a lot of immigrants stepping in and it appears to me that the reason they are here is because they are encouraged to, and the irony is that the politicians get their campaigns paid for by businesses that are encouraging this. no one seems to put it together, but everyone knows what it is. why are we pretending that we don't want these people here with the leaders of this country are encouraging them to,. come up?e

guest: that is an issue that has been there for years. it is the jobs magnet. border security was ramped up, we did not have as much illegal immigration at the southern border. that is already did by how many people are apprehended. it is a rough measure. the economy has improved. we are not seeing the same type of immigrant that we saw before. it is difficult to tell. there have been a number of verify that employees are legally authorized to work in the united states. states are going to that model. there is some effort to go at the employer by this. the fact that of these things are complicated in support for getting

immigration related reform, bill, legislation of any sort has been a sticky wicket, if you will. host: host: that is all the time we have for "washington journal." ♪ >> coming up and about half an changes inemographic the south. naacp president benjamin jealous