host: good morning. on today's three-hour washington journal, we will discuss the west role in the ongoing violence in iraq. houseown of the new whit the we effort. we take up the topic of unaccompanied children are showing up at the u.s. border with mexico. at the white house announcing -- we are asking your thoughts on the growing crisis grade do you

. publicans can call at -- republicans can call at (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. .ndependents, (202) 585-3882 a special line for illegal immigrants. (202) 585-3883. morning toaturday you. if the surgeon unaccompanied children and the white house response. the lead story in several border state papers this morning. here's the houston chronicle. feds unveil border crisis plans. to the los angeles times this morning. u.s. asked to ease border legal crunch.

over to the arizona republic. their story on the border crisis. america: in central don't go to u.s. migrants will be deported. that is the stories leading several of the border state papers. here is an info graphic from today's washington post about the sudden surge. our phone lines are open to get your response to how the u.s. should respond. that surge in on a company children, 24,500 the company children were apprehended by the westport patrol in 2013. twice the amount has been picked -- apprehended by the in 2013.er patrol

the info graphic also showing where those unaccompanied children or apprehended. district am grande at the border sector in rio 37,621 have been apprehended there. 6600 so far. those are the two largest sectors. how is the white house responding to it? story in the washington times. the obama administration promised a surge on the u.s. border friday to come at the od, adding judges to decide cases will allow the government to kick people out of the country faster. officials also said that they're reaching out to latin american

countries to ask them to try to gain a handle on the children and young families fleeing from central america. and will provide american taxpayer funding to help el salvador, honduras and guatemala warn against trying to make the journey. through that story a bit more is the author of the story, steve, the politics editor at the washington times. good morning. more of theseh specific steps that the white house is taking. caller: one thing to be very aware of -- this is a white told us that the border was secure and that it was time to turn our attention to a broader immigration reform. taking the steps is an admissiong that the border might not be as secure as they hope.

assessment --rall a striking admission about the status of border security and what could happen. what they said is they will send judges down there, to the border processthey can'n these asylum cases more quickly. if you're in unaccompanied minor , they are making a credible fear claim. ofy have a credible peer retaliation or violence or some other major problem in their ofe country -- fear retaliation. we put you through our asylum process and try to decide if that is actually true. if it is true, you are entitled to asylum in the u.s. in addition to the surge of children, we have seen a surge

in credible fear claims overall. that has been going on for the last year. even before this increase in children. the administration has been a little slow to get on top of that. this money putting into el salvador, honduras and guatemala, asking them to , tell yourown there folks, look, you're not going to be able to get legal status. if the bill making its way through congress were to pass, that would not apply to anybody that's coming right now. the president's non-deportation , those dates are all too early to be eligible for if you come now.

they are building more detention areas.ies in the border this gets complex. if you're in unaccompanied minor, a child under the age of 16 or 17 and you arrived here without parents, the border patrol apprehends you and they are required to turn you over to health and human services because you were a child. there are human trafficking concerns and other issues. those children don't go into detention. if you're a family -- we are seeing a surge in young mothers bringing their children across. those are families we are seeing here. those can be held, but we have not held them. we have generally

given them their court summons. one of the things the administration is showing to do to convince folks that you are going to be returned is built more detention facilities down there so that families can be held so there is more of a likelihood that they would be returned or deported back to their home countries. some of the stats on border apprehensions. this courtesy of the u.s. border patrol. 414 thousand total border apprehensions in 2013. , 38,000adults unaccompanied juveniles and 8.5 thousand unaccompanied juveniles . what did the white house a yesterday in terms of the cause of this surge in unaccompanied children on the border?

they were talking about criminal gangs being to blame. is that a change in what they have said in the past? caller: this is a hotly debated topic. -- why was the they sayinistration -- the issue is not our policy. those would not apply to new people who arrive. they say this is not an issue of u.s. froman issue of a push guatemala and el salvador. the surge is coming specifically from those three countries. it's not coming from nicaragua or other central american countries which suggests there

is something about these three countries. you have seen a surge in gang violence and smuggling networks gaining a foothold in those three countries. another piece of evidence as to why it might be a push is that from thoseefugees countries going to other laces like panama, costa rica, mexico. it's not just the u.s. that has seen an increase in the last five years from people fling those countries. the obama administration says the issue is not with u.s. policy. it's nothing we've done 20 buy them here. they are being pushed from down there. the solution is down there, not appear. that is why the obama administration has chiefly , aated this as an issue humanitarian crisis to be managed rather than a border crisis or an immigration crisis to be solved up here.

having said that, the folks on the other side say the border patrol have an internal memo. 95% of the unaccompanied minors said they were coming here to get a free pass to get into the country. , theirks were coming testimony was, we think we can get into the country and disappear into the shadows. don't know what the actual answer is. we have a lot of evidence on either side. money for some of the efforts in those countries down there, $40 million over five years for guatemala, $25 andion for el salvador $18.5 million for honduras. go, talk aboutou

the reaction on capitol hill and what this does or the prospect of immigration reform. i don't think there is much of a chance. would you have had over the last couple of weeks with eric cantor losing his primary, that shows the political side of this. this very stark reminder that border security is a very tenuous thing. that is the policy side. let me leave you with -- you want to understand how difficult this issue is to solve. i was talking about the permit sos, the free passes to get here. it's what we call a notice to appear. if you are an immigrant from

another country and you arrived here, we can turn around and send you right back. we give you a notice to appear, a summons to appear at immigration court. you are in deportation proceedings -- we consider that a punishment. a free pass to get into the country with the opportunity of being able to disappear into the shadows. when you have a situation where what we consider a harsh punishment, they consider that exact same thing their free pass. and showsgh situation you the different understanding of our immigration law and how complex it is. host: we appreciate you getting up with us this morning. we are looking for our viewers .esponse to this announcement

stemming the tide of unaccompanied children and our border. richard rogers writes in, treat the unaccompanied children is that they were our own. theirhe bill to ou native countries. bring all u.s. troops home from afghanistan and have them patrol the u.s. border. comments on our facebook page. wrightson that the can'tgton government catch a break. below that, john writes, "we have our own problems. send them back!" talking about the unaccompanied children at the border. sonja whocomment from writes, "don't let them in. we cannot support them and

taking them would enable a bad government." we want to hear of your thoughts as well. -- here our viewer thoughts as well. lucy, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for talking about the subject. from naturalized parents from egypt. i did not vote for obama. the people i have spoken to who have voted for obama make excuses for him. i'm tired of it. send back our marine who just on the borderurn u

of mexico and tell me why this president didd not even talk to the president of mexico about him. he will trade five terrorists in is guynamo and get the .aught in libya he has an agenda. when somebody lies, they are a liar. in connecticut. talking about the unaccompanied children at the border. to the announcement by the white house is of it. our line for democrats. star, good morning. caller: i want people to stop blaming everything on obama. it our legal immigrants need to

be deported back to their country of origin. they are committing a crime. we need to take care of our kids first. they needed to fix their own problems. the border needs to be shut down. thank you. host: mike on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. to start , it is our country at the behest of multinationals. they have exploited the labor, the economy and the resources of this country. the consequence, the influx of deprived people seeking justice. thank you. alexandria in reaction to the announcement from the white house yesterday about the responses to the

growing crisis on the border. members of congress took to their twitter pages and send out press releases as well. republican of virginia on his twitter page. the chairman of the house judiciary committee. jim of oklahoma. finally, vice president joe is in south america, in some of these countries in central america talking about this issue and the u.s. response to this issue. according to the washington times story in guatemala, mr. biden stressed that the underlying causes of mass

immigration must be addressed. he addressed the president .irectly that is some quotes from vice president joe biden, a speech in guatemala. talking about this issue. let's go to larry in mississippi on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. fixed the have been

senate immigration bill was passed. but the republicans won't do it. host: we are going to stick on the subject of unaccompanied children at the border for right now. westlake, ohio on our line for independents. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. remember the alamo. there getting taken over by former country. without a shot being fired. more peopled anymo coming in here that we have to support. there is one simple way -- they used to do it this way. you have buses, they would pick

them up and take them right back. hereincludes the ones illegally. host: you're talking about the work of customs and border protection? caller: correct. they are not doing their jobs. they have been told to house them or give them this -- they send them anywhere they want to go, basically, and give them a notice to show up in court. get real. how naïve can the government get? we already know that. they can do anything correctly. host: the customs and border protection -- the commissioner of customs and border protection was on capitol hill.

you're talking about border control resources. here's a bit of what he had to say last week . [video clip] >> to concentrate on these individuals who would normally be doing other enforcement duties. we have to look at alleviating that. chief fisher and others have taken on a temporary detail 115 border patrol agent from other sections where they were less busy -- i don't know any place where they are not busy. where they were a little less this area.t them in the sooner they can get back to doing those other duties come i think the better. customs andas the border protection commissioner speaking at the center for strategic and international affairs last week. here is a chart from one of the

groups that works with the unaccompanied children to provide legal services for them. kids in need of defense. showing the influx of unaccompanied children in the united states. at the numbers before 2012, well below 10,000. up above 1000 and 2013. -- up above 20,000 in 2013. we are asking our viewers what you think should be done with those children and what you think about the u.s. response announced yesterday. we have a special line for illegal immigrants. we would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject. francisco is waiting in miami on that line. good morning. caller: good morning.

from --ing bob in missouri on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. we need to put them on a bus and take them across the border. host: the children and the parents? caller: yes. especially the children. we are getting overrun here -- we are $17 trillion in debt. we can't afford this. we simply cannot afford it. if they want to come here, they have to come here legally. i don't have any problem with that at all. this is going too far. our senators and congressmen to this fact.p

we can do this. we can continue to do this -- we can't do this. we can't continue to do this. host: jenny, good morning. caller: if a child does not have a parent with them, you can't andthem back on a truck send them back. they are little children. .he closest thing to god we need to take care of all the children. earlierre you listening on the proposals announced by the white house to speed up the processing to open up more facilities to house these folks? caller: that sounds good. host: jenny in lancaster, ohio. intwitter, panther rights that they are more like refugees escaping unrest in their respective country.

debate in congress about the cause of this problem. that group, kids in need of defense was on this show earlier this week. when the young talking about -- talking about this on tuesday. [video clip] its violence in central america. 97% of the children we see arriving these days are from three countries. honduras, guatemala and el salvador. these are countries that are experiencing rampant violence from gangs and drug traffickers. these are countries that are relatively weak and can't control this type of violence. the gangs are targeting children at very young ages. trying to recruit young people into their ranks.

threatening their lives if they don't cooperate. emily's and children are making very desperate decisions to send the children out. host: how much is the prospect of immigration reform in the united states, the immigration efforts of the obama administration -- how much is that contributing to this rise in numbers? >> very little. this is not about immigration. children are fleeing a level of violence that should trigger refugee protection. it's a push factor. not a pull factor. the fact that an eight-year-old would understand that we are thinking about immigration reform is kind of absurd. talking about her efforts to provide some legal and counseling aid to some of the children who show up on the border. the unaccompanied minors that

contribute to this border search. john boehner sent a letter to barack obama yesterday, asking him to take steps to address the growing number of unaccompanied immigrant children. among boehner suggestions, sending in the national guard to provide backup for border agents and calling on the homeland security department to streamline the process for returning children back to their families in their home countries. your thoughts and reactions this morning to this story.

the lead story in several of the border state papers this morning. in new mexicoale on our line for democrats. good morning. hello. john boehner is unbelievable. he is the one person in congress who has the power to take a vote on immigration reform. --an't believe that nobody take a vote. you are the only one stopping this vote. these are refugees. the homestead act of 1862 -- the italians, the germans and the anglo-saxons need to figure out their immigration status.

they could be sent back to their home countries. nobody started here but the native americans. herebecause they are born doesn't mean we can't deport you. host: dale from new mexico. "immigrants are not the problem. wagere state and minimum makes taking in people impossible." we want to get to as many of your calls as possible. the other headlines going on around the country. the front page of the wall street journal. republicans grill irs chief over lost e-mails.

e-mails were really unrecoverable. that story is in the wall street journal. week, tuesday is another primary day in several states around the country. in colorado, maryland, new york, oklahoma and utah. a highly watched runoff taking place in mississippi. the headline from the wall street journal on that story. gop factions battle in

mississippi. the 36 europe or in of the year veteran in the senate. that will be closely watched. we will be talking about it here. .ne other bit of campaign news the all-important fundraising battle for the control of the senate. numbers coming in from the two main democratic and republican campaign committees. the nrslion raised by c. democratic senatorial campaign committee announced that it raised $8.3 million.

money all going into the race for the control of the senate this fall. talking about the surgeon unaccompanied children at the in unaccompanied children at the border. diane, good morning. caller: hello. the people in america need tonight. -- need to unite. all issues. specifically the one we are speaking about. i was an esl teacher. i am paying for obamacare. my stew loan is $75,000. is $75,000.oan i taught illegal aliens for 15 years. everything they get in this

country is for free. until obama pays for my stew loan -- my student loan, i don't want to pay another dime for aliens to come here. wise up. host: rose is in wisconsin on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm happy to speak here. young, she isy talking outside her mouth. as far as this woman from egypt, if she think egypt is so great, why did she come to america? i'm tired of people bashing and coming over here and getting our goodies. as far as these children coming over the border, send them back. don't ever let them come across in the first place. you are calling in on our

line for democrats this morning. do you support the immigration reform package? caller: it is not set up right. if they want to come here differenthat's a story. these illegals, send them back. i've traveled all over the world. when you get to their border, unless you have the right documents, they don't let you into the country. if you don't have the right papers -- look at all the stuff coming into our country. they let them right over the border and they don't check anything. back."send them another take on the front page of the new york times this morning. hard lines start to blur.

the issues surrounding immigration in the small town in texas. that is the story on the front page of the new york times. charles calling in from fort collins, colorado on our line for independents. good morning. most of thiser:

problem is due to demand. these people are coming across the border because they want jobs. it's just like drugs. people who use drugs will find their way in. to focustant thing is it on employers here and making a system where we can verify who these people are. if they overstay their visas, employer says, you can't work here anymore unless you redo your visa. then we would have people here -- another good example of not so simple. deported a lot of mexicans a couple of years ago. the crops out there were running on the fines. the farmers were yelling, we

don't have anybody to pick these crops. everybody says these americans -- they are taking our jobs. we try to get americans to come down and pick these crops and they won't do it. as let's shipmple them all back and stuff like that. host: monte writes in on our twitter page. a few other headlines from around the country this morning. the general in the assault case will retire with the motion. -- will retire with the demotion.

one subject that has also gained a lot of attention is a recent column by george will in which he wrote that when colleges make victimhood a coveted status regarding sexual assault victims , that confers privileges and victims proliferate. that was written in his column a lot of flack. dropped from a st. louis paper. he responded to some of the outrage over that column in an interview with c-span. [video clip] >> did you have any idea that you would get this kind of feedback from this and you have a lot of people calling for your head? >> sure. the reason i wrote about this --

that's what i do. -- today,r my head for some reason, indignation has been the default position of certain people in civic discourse. they go from standing to fury and 30 seconds. it has something to do with the internet. the barrier in public discourse. among theely, barriers to enter that have been reduced is you don't have to be able to read, write or think. they can shout and call names and carry on. we have all sorts of interest roots who think they will only get attention if they are at maximum decibel level. and say fire him,

send him to jail, silence them. these are summer storms. they dissipate fast. post -- why dos you think they dropped to? >> i don't think they cover themselves. >> have you had much of this reaction over the years? >> on some occasions, one gets the blame. if that is part of my job. the interview with george will. you can see that on our q&a program that will be airing in the coming weeks here on c-span. we want to get your thoughts on this question of what to do about the unaccompanied children

surge at the border and the u.s. response to it that was announced yesterday by the white house. let's go to sheila from oklahoma on our live for republicans. caller: good morning. we have a center set up for the kids in oklahoma. going to government workers -- the government is haveg for it -- they will 300-600 people coming in. they are not staying at a cheap motel. they are staying at a brand-new one. inexpensive motel at our expense. expensive motel at our expense. they will have 3600 workers to process these kids. one worker for every two kids. weldren who get to stay --

will be paying social security to them. we are going to pay that per child who stays here. these illegals get everything for free here. host: what is the solution in your mind? caller: we need to send them back and get the message out there. they don't even have enough charities for people to process and help these kids. what are we going to do with them? we don't have enough foster care. where are these children going? are we going to send them to refugee camps? not enough people to take care of them and we are paying this money for them permanently.

these children are looking for jobs. most people coming in want jobs. host: we have a special line for illegal immigrants. calling in on that line is built from new jersey. good morning. -- bill from new jersey. good morning. caller: i think we have to stop the problem at the source. facilitiesnvest in in these native countries. let these countries pay the bill. to supportheaper them there than in this country where it's very expensive. you have to give these kids another choice. not just come to the west for a meal. they can have it there. host: you are ok with the money that was announced for guatemala to improve neighborhood security

, el salvador for youth centers and honduras for police training there? caller: absolutely. it will cost $1 billion here. over there, $300 million. --years from now, the kids it won't be a choice to come here. they can go to these centers and let those countries pay for them. waiting in florida on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. the problem is with mexico. i'm listening. 3000-4000 miles from honduras to the united states? these people keep coming up and the mexicans don't stop them.

i think that is the problem. host: are you ok with united states sending new money to mexico to beef up their police presence? no, the governor puts it in his pocket anyway. host: how do we work with mexico on this? caller: do it with trade. dave calling in from florida. "these are children. unless youimmigrant are an american indian." in unaccompanied children at the border and the announcement of the u.s. response yesterday. vicki is waiting in florida on

our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. any other place in the world, this would be called human trafficking. i don't understand why it's not being addressed this way. -- we haveccompanied amber alert cere when children go missing. why are so many children unaccompanied? i call it human trafficking and i wish the human trafficking people would be involved in this matter. that is my comment. catherine is in staten island, new york on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. the first thing they should do is close the borders. secure the border. start sendingu

everybody home. who will pay for these kids? you don't see immigration coming from other countries except for mexico and all of these kids. think about it. host: catherine talking about closing the borders. another take than the one outlined in the new york times story. from the small town of farmers branch, texas. the new york times interviewed david coke, a candidate for mayor in farmers branch. the laws he supported back in 2007 or a thing of the past. a thing of the past.

said "stop the illegal invasion. ." the story notes that in farmers branch, the city is 30,000 people. it is now 45% hispanic and 22% foreign-born. politics lags the demographics there. if you want to read more on that story, the hard lines start to

blur is the headline from the new york times. we want to get your response to that story as told. our phone lines are open. republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. we do have that line in this segment for illegal immigrants. 3.02) 585-388 looking for your e-mails and tweets as well. we will read those. ron in newo iran in ne york. your thoughts. we go to these like when saddam hussein was killing his own people -- this is the thing going on there. what a mollis quite a ways down. you have mexicans coming over.

guatemala is quite a ways down. they get a job and they make $800 a week. they go back to the 7-eleven and get a money order. the general public thinks that is good. if they are sending money to their families. might keep $100 to live on up here and send $700 back. the family gets it and the police or the es come around and collect protection money. host: how do you know this? caller: i have a friend from

mexico -- he is down there now trying to get his daughter back. he is scared to go there because of the violence. you walk down a street with a watch on or anything, it's dangerous. the same thing is going on. these people are working and the have to pay protection. it's not right. we should be protecting our border. if we have to do something, go down there and straighten out mexico so these people can stay. in new york. a few more comments from facebook. bob writes -- richie writes -- --ky winters writes

a few more minutes to get as many of your calls as possible on this subject. we will look for your tweets as well. keith is calling in from chicago on our line for democrats. good morning. need to clarify the distinction between illegal immigrants and refugees. mexicans come here for economic reasons. jobs. , particularlycans retirees, are immigrating to mexico. we have one million american immigrants in mexico. , children, are fro

refugees from central america. mexico is experiencing a similar invasion. salvador, guatemala -- we are seeing that. refugees from the cuba, too. it's purely political. why would we stop children, minors, trying to a skip violence and corruption in central america but welcome refugees from cuba? the ins more stable el salvador or guatemala. these stats from the u.s. customs and border protection. a chart we should our viewers earlier.

from last year in terms of the number of children coming in from mexico. children coming in from under, guatemala el salvador have skyrocketed -- coming in from honduras, guatemala and el salvador have skyrocketed. caller: we are catching them. we are intercepting them. our border security is working. we are talking about minor children. together withhem mexicans. they are two separate situations. the previous caller in new york who mentioned mexico and it's crap. -- that's a load of mexico thrives on tourism. i've lived there. i would love to live there again.

i plan on living there in my retirement. i hear some racial things and their. -- i hear some racial things in there. host: keyes in illinois. brian is waiting in massachusetts on our line for independents. caller: the politicians have been letting illegals crossed the border, trying to lower the wages. they want them to mow their lawns for nothing. -- they politicians won't stop hiring illegals. or the corporations. they want lower wages.

that is the problem. is doingt the u.s. about unaccompanied children crossing the border -- "the child we help make sure your may cure your -- cancer one day." obama announces regulatory changes to extend a wide range of marriage benefits to same-sex couples. it department of labor said would clarify that federal employees will be able to take leave from their jobs to care for same-sex spouse. something that has long been limited to heterosexual couples. a subject we will touch on later today. the front page of the financial times weekend section today. the lead story being that a top heat onrics has raised

maliki. another subject we will be talking about later in today's "washington journal" with moveon.org. the involvement in iraq.

coming up later today in the "washington journal. ." talking about the surgeon unaccompanied children. diana, your thoughts. caller: my comment is this. don't takestates care of the children in this country. kids around the world should be protected from any violence, hunger, diseases, whatever the situation to . everybody in this country besides the american indians did not belong in this country. -- thet a republican isublican party itself terrorists against the people of this nation. who goes on strike in america and gets a salary? i don't know one person in this

country who has ever gone on strike and has gotten paid for closing down america. everything the president does -- host: what do you make of speaker john banner calling on more help at the border in form of national guard helping to relieve the border patrol down there? part of the letter he sent to president obama yesterday. caller: my suggestion to him is why don't they just help the children at the border and then talk to the government over there and try to get some kind of communication going where that they will provide for those people and they wouldn't have to put all these extra guards and protections at the border, people wouldn't be trying to cross if they would just form some kind of libe of

communication. -- line of communication. and believe it or not they like them trying to cross the borders because just like the person said before me that they like having illegals over here that they can work them for any so they don't have to give americans jobs. host: jim is waiting in montana on our line for republicans. caller: i see a problem, is are america and canada first world nations. mexico and other three countries are third world nations and they're in dire poverty, really. so instead of allowing all these people to flood into our countries, we should go start with mexico and theth get projects in the other countries growing so they can turn their country into a first world nation where people could have work and security and hopefully some relief from all these

criminal gangs. and -- host: you're ok with the announcement of new money going to these countries to help stop that effort? caller: well, yeah. to start. but you've got to make sure it doesn't end up in the pockets in the people in the political power, because that's what happens a lot. they send them 30 million and 15 million of it goes into their pockets. and their buddies pockets. and then a little bit gets kind of spread out to the people as they figgier they would want to do. but each country has different things they could do. like mexico is great at agriculture. so we could actually have indoor hired uponic gardens and they could grow all sorts of fruits and vegetable that would be very high grade and stuff. and then that would be coming up to the united states or worldwide.

honduras and these other countries. honduras is an american banana company runs that country. they could have -- that way they get their kids in schools so they start learning to do good and they can help out as thai grow older they help the country. host: smiley writes in. we have time for a few more of

your calls to get your response to both the crisis that's going on and the new money that the white house announced yesterday that would be going to help stem this tide and some of the calls from members of congress including speaker john boehner on what should be done to help the crisis at the border and the unaccompanied children that are surging across the border. eye lean in florida on our line for independents. caller: this is very, very important. i am here in clear water florida and we have problems here in florida and we don't have a border here. we have the whole state is a border. our whole state is a border. so we get the cubans in, we get them from the islands, and they all come in and believe me they're from all over the place. all over the caribbean are coming here. and then they go up to new england, they go up to new

york, they go up to new jersey. they're all over the place, honey. they're coming in from all over. pay attention. host: there's a front page story of the "new york times" today saying that the hard lines are starting to blur on immigration. that the softer stance among people that are in those areas. are you seeing that in clear water, florida, at all? caller: honey, you know, i'm not sure that i'm seeing that in clear water but i'm trying to make a point to how they're coming in from the islands. they're coming in, the haitians are coming in. they're coming in from the cape. they're coming here for the same issues here. they're coming for free ride. they're coming for a free ride. with the kids or without the kids. they're all here for a free ride. it's very bad up in new england. host: do you think enough

attention is being given by congress to the areas that you're talking about? there's been so much focus this week on the u.s.-mexico border. caller: no. no. the congress -- none of them are getting it right. that's the point. we the people need to get it right. we need to vote right the next time we vote. host: who would be the right person to vote for on this issue? caller: hon yeah you have to get the independents in. they're the only ones willing to work with each other. this two-party system does not work. host: our last call on this topic. up next we'll talk to raffle reed the chairman of faith and freedle coalition. later we'll talk to ben of move on.org to keep the progressive push to keep america out of military involvement of the iraq. we showed you an article

earlier today about the house ways and means committee hearing about the i.r.s. and concern over i.r.s. targeting. i want to play you a bit from that hearing. dave champ in one of his several exchanges with the commissioner. >> does the i.r.s. have a system for tracking items? >> tracking what? >> items. does the i.r.s. have a tracking system for items? >> we track items? we don't track every item that everybody has everywhere but i'm sure we track some items. >> does someone there have a serial number for that hard drive? >> i don't know whether they do or not. a normal case when a hard drive fails the email cannot be reconstructed the hard drive is turned over to recyclers. >> it seems to me the government property would have been tracked. >> pardon? >> it seems to me the government property would have been tracked or people could simply walk away with property

from the i.r.s. so i assume there's a tracking system for the dispostal of government property. >> there's a tracking system my understanding is lois learner's computer continued to be functioning with a new hard drive. i'm not aware whether hard drives have identifiers. >> can we get the serial number of this hard drive and all the other employees who has had e-mails lost? >> if they have serial numbers. >> because i want that hard drive and i want the hard drive of every computer that crashed during that time frame. so what i've learned in the last week i think calls into question every document and response the i.r.s. has given or for that matter has failed to give this committee. the only way i can see any hope is to establish a special prosecutor with the authorities powers to uncover the truth. so for the sake of the agency and restore the trust of the american people will you support the appointment of a special prosecutor? >> there are six investigators. >> yes or no? >> the ig is already giving --

>> can you give a definitive answer? >> [inaudible] host: >> i'm controlling the time. i'm asking a question that can have a simple yes or no answer. >> you don't control the answer. >> i think -- >> regular order. >> i think the appointment of a special prosecutor after the six investigations and the ig investigation into this matter would be a monumental waste of taxpayer funds. >> is that a yes or a no? >> no. >> thank you. >> this weekend american history tv is live from the college civil war institute. this morning starting at 8:45 eastern you'll hear historian peter carmcal on robert e lee followed by arizona state university brook simpson on grant. and later historian megan nelson on the burning of chambersberg this weekend on american history tv on crrn span 3.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> raffle reed is the founder of the faith and freedom coalition and joins us live from just down the potomac river at national harbor where his group has been holding his road to ma majority conference. >> glad you could join us. yesterday kevin mccarthy addressed your conference. i wonder how you think conservatives faired in the house

we have passd legislation in the house not just with the support of our organization but with many others that would ban abortion after the fifth month of pregnancy when a child in the womb can feel pain during an abortion. and when many children can survive outside the womb. we've zeroed out funding for planned parenthood the largest abortion provider in the western world. we've reaffirmed support for marriage after the supreme court decision putting the house on record that they believe marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. and repealed obamacare. and we can't get those things through the senate. so i guess in a nutshell what i would say is we didn't have a role in the leadership race. we worked very well with eric canter.

he was a friend of mine. i i've known him before he came to congress. i've known kevin mccarthy since virtually the time he was elected. he's a good friend. he has 100% score on our most recent faith and freedom congressional score card. so on the issues that we care about, kevin mccarthy has been there. and i'm looking forward to working with him as majority leader and he gave a great speech here yesterday. >> in your introduction of him yesterday you noted that 1003r9s rating obyour scorecard. he said we will unite. how big is the divide between the establishment and the right wing of the party here? how big is that gap that he wants to unite? of ell, i guess it's kind deja vu all over again. it's not a new story. if you go back to i guess i'm dating myself i actually wasn't involved in this campaign.

but if you go back to the 1952 race between robert taft and eisenhower, then you go to goldwater in 64 and then reagan in 68 and especially 76 and 0 you've always had this tension in the republican party between what conservatives have labeled e eastern establishment that gave us dueie and rock feller and folks like that. and the grassroots. and as the center of gravity in post world war ii period and particularly since the 1960s has shifted to the south and the west, so in 1946, when you had a republican majority in the house, 25% of the members of that caucus came from each of the major regions of the country. the west, the midwest, the

northeast/flim and the south. -- mid-atlantic and the south. today you look and overwhelmingly it's midwest, west, and south. and those members tend to be more conservative. candidly more of them tend to be evangelical protestants or faithful catholics. i think there is no question that there is a much greater sort of evangelical flavor into the party by which i don't mean evangelical protestants but also a much greater percentage of faithful catholics than when i came in. so this thing continues to play out. it's a long story. and i think the -- what's likely to happen is that you're going to have the grass roots win some and you're going to have the establishment win some. and that's the way it's always been. so the grass roots are going to have victories like ted cruz in texas and dan patrick who defeated david due hurts in

texas a few weeks ago in a runoff. he was here last night, ted cruz was here on thursday. you're going to have victories like marco rubio defeating charlie kris. rand paul. but then you're also going to have the sort of more established candidates who are going to win some. so -- and from our standpoint from faith and freedom's standpoint we have a dog in that fight. but sometimes we don't have a dog in that fight. we have so-called establishment candidates who have -- i mean, mitch mcconnell for example has a 91% rating on the faith and freedom congressional scorecard. he's been with us on iran sanctions, on tax cuts, on life, on marriage, he's been solid. is he as conservative as say a ted cruz? probably not. but 91% when i was in high school was an a. so we can work with both sides. >> we've got raffle reed here

this morning on the "washington journal" and he's the founder and chair of the faith and freedom coalition. we want to get to as many of your calls as possible. the numbers are on the screen if you want to call in. but we'll get to gene calling in from detroit, michigan on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for having me on and good morning. i just have a couple of comments to make. i feel very strongly that the sabatsdz day needs to be restored. the sabatsdz is more to help to instill family values. when i grew up everything was closed on sunday so you went to church, you came home, you had a big dinner. in some cases you went to the movies. but it was a family day. and i feel a lot of times we talk about what hollywood has done to destroy the value. i sometimes feel that business has done more to destroy the family values in that everything is open on sunday. people don't want to

necessarily work on sunday but they have to. and just one other thing. we were talking about this abortion thing. i remember before row v. wade came into place and i wrote a paper on abortion. and one of the things is that women went to such extreme lengths to get abortions. it's been here forever, always will. so when you close these clinics all you're doing is pushing them underground and making them have to go to back alley doctors, use methods that are injure yuss to their health. because i remember reading about how they use scissors and coat hangers. >> we'll let raffle respond to your comments. guest: let me start with the second one first tchs the abortion issue. speaking as an historian, which is my academic background and what i intended to do, never got to do it but my goal was to

be a history professor. there's no question that abortion has always existed. it's existed for as long as we have recorded history. as long as it's been possible for women to get pregnant there have been quote/unquote inconvenient pregnancies that have been intentionally terminated. we know that's a fact. it's an historic fact. and if abortion were banned tomorrow, there would still be abortion just like people violate all laws. there are laws against murder. people still murder. there are laws against stealing. people still steal. there's laws against fraud. that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the law because the law creates a norm for society. the law also plays an important role as a teacher. and i guess the question is, what principle, what value do we seek to teach with pro life

laws? it's really very simple. you find it in the declaration of independence. it is that all men and women are created equal. and they're endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right. the first of which is the right to life. and we believe that that life extends to the unborn in the womb. we believe they are persons, they are genetically unique. they are unique in every way. and they have an untold and un tapped potential for our society to better our society. now, we're not naive. we recognize that abortions will happen. but what we want to do is reduce the number of abortions and what we want to do is create what pope jean-paul ii called a culture of life. and we believe and social scientists teach us that if the law affirms life there are people who will affirm life simply out of respect for the

law. and the good news is what we've done in reforming the law and in correcting this balance to basically after row v. wade that abortion could take place for any reason or for no reason at all at any stage of pregnancy including for gender selection. so a little girl in their mother's womb could be -- their life could be taken simply because somebody didn't want to have a girl. or any other reason. late-term abortions. and so forth. we've now reduced the abortion rate by 50% since roughly the late 70s as a percentage of women of child bearing age per thousand women. and we've reduced the raw number of abortions by about a third. so we're making progress. we're clearly winning on this issue. and as time magazine pointed out in a cover story i guess last year, they said the supreme court legalized

abortion in 1973 and the pro choice movement has been losingr since. and there's no question about that. in the last three years there has been more pro life legislation passed at the state level from 2010 to -- well, roughly 2011 through this year, than from 1973 to 2010. and we've elected a lot of pro life legislators. so i think that's going to continue. i think it's going to be gradual. i don't think it's going to happen in one fell swoop but it is clearly happening. host: joining us from the road to majority conference down at national harbor some of the featured speakers there include michelle bachmann, kevin mccarthy, chris christie. bob jindle. why no liberal elected officials invited to speak at your conference to present an opposing point of view? guest: the purpose of this

conference is to equip and to energize and to mobilize our grassroots supporters. so the purpose of this conference is not really to present both sides. the purpose of this conference is to take pro family and prolife activists and energize them and equip them to go back to their states and communities and organize. we have in the past had democratic elected officials. we'll do so in the future. i'm on record as saying at next year's conference if hillary clinton is announced as next year's candidate that we will inviolet her. i doubt she is likely to want to come or she is likely to get an enthusiastic reception. but we'll certainly invite her. i invited her husband when he was running for president. he never came. but we will be happy to invite her. and we do have democrats on the

program this weekend. i don't think we have an elected democrat but we have democrats who we work with on criminal justice reform, on education, reform. really when you get right down to it, outside of some of the more polarizing issues like life and marriage, and even marriage there's a lot of bipartisan consensus there at the local level. we don't have a partisan agenda. our criminal justice reform, we work with a lot of democrats on to try to make sure that nonviolent and first offenders and youthful offenders don't get ware housed in prisons where all that happens is that they are taught to be criminals. look at immigration reform. we've proposed some steps in immigration reform that we think are biblical and faith-based that strengthen marriage, family, the rule of law, and american national security. host: if folks want to read more on faith and freedom alition the website some

700,000 members as of 2013. we've got raffle reed for a few more minutes and we'll go to george waiting in maryland on our line for independents. aller: good morning. host: deborah in florida. good morning you're on with ralph reid. caller: i saw you on c-span last night and you were amazing. we need to see more of that in this country. absolutely. i'm an evangelical christian. i love the lord jesus christ and we need to bring god back into our country. that's the reason our more or less have declined. a lot of people might not believe that. but try it, you'll see. speakers.all of the i was listening to chris christie talking about you know what, you take the child from

the womb, all the way to the adult. he's right. that's exactly what the -- >> host: talking about some of the speakers at the faith and freedom coalition's road to majority conference. raffle reed, who among those sounded presidential to you? guest: i think a lot of them sounded presidential. rand paul gave a great speech. he gave a great speech last year. he's appeared a number of times. marco rubio was a big hit here. of course ted cruz is one of the brightest stars in the national political affirmment right now. i think one of the most intriguing was governor christie's. i think a lot of people were surprised he got a good reception

what governor christie talked about yesterday specifically was drug rehabilitation. we've got a terrible problem in this country with addiction, addiction to drugs, alcohol, other chemical substances. and it's really destroying a lot of lives. there are very few families in america today that have not been touched with this disease. and being pro life means both in the charitable sphere, in the religious sphere and in public policy doing everything we can to liberate people from the scorge of addiction.

host: let's go to carolyn in maryland. caller: good morning. i have a question as far as the right to life. the issue always comes up during election and it bothers me because people look at this issue on paper. so my question to you is what do you principally and specifically plan to do with the babies that women do not want? i have two kids and raising kids is hard and i wanted my children so i can't imagine somebody being forced to have a baby when it happened and they weren't planning on it. and then secondly i want you to specifically answer that question but secondly you talk about planned parenthood. abortion is 100% preventable but then you're trying to cut funding for planned parenthood. if you give the money and education up front, we won't

have to worry about abortion on the back end. so i don't understand the theory and the principle. and i want some practical information on how you plan to solve the problem that you're raising. guest: i would be happy to address that. our reasons for not wanting to see taxpayer funding go to planned parenthood are threefold. one, planned parenthood has been involved, it's even in court papers in a great deal of illegal activity including medicaid fraud and other things of that nature. they settled i believe two years ago a huge settlement with the state of texas where they were involved in medicaid fraud. they have been involved in -- and this has been recorded by journalists working undercover. they've been involved in counseling young women who were potentially involved in human sex trafficking and things of

that nature. and we just think that if you are somebody who is demonstrated that you're a bad actor and that you are involved in thing that is we don't want to be encouraging as a government that we shouldn't be providing you with funding. that's number one. number two, planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider not only in the united states but in the western world. we believe in an ethic of life. we know that planned parenthood -- and again this is a documented fact by congressional committees, by their oversight and by other investigations. that they encourage young women and girls to have abortions and in many cases pressure them to have abortions and they don't really give them a true choice. and then thirdly and finally we think planned parenthood's role in women's health is greatly exaggerated. one of the things that came out as a fact during the susan g komen controversy, i guess now a couple years ago where susan

g komen was indicated they wanted to phase out their funding of planned parenthood it turned out planned parenthood doesn't do breast cancer screenings at their own clinic. if a woman comes in and she's concerned or worried that she may be suffering from breast cancer, they just refer her to another clinic anyway. so planned parenthood exists primarily to promote abortion. and we don't think look wherever you stand on this issue, and i recognize this is a tough issue, and there's a diversity of views on this and people of good will disagree. and i understand that. but i don't think our tax dollars should be provided to an organization that has a track record of promoting abortion and attempting to encourage young women to have abortions. i don't think we should be doing that with our tax dollars. we provide over $500 million a year in federal and state tax

dollars to planned parenthood. it's a $1 billion operation. they don't need our money. they've got plenty of money especially when here in washington we can't balance our budget. you know, when we're borrowing money from the chinese should we really be borrowing money in order to do that? is that really a priority? i just don't think it is. host: we showed our viewers earlier in the show a headline from the "washington post" this morning. guest: i think our position is not that inconsistent with some of the things that anthony kennedy said in the majority opinion in the windsor case which is that historicically marriage has been determined by the states.

now, when we supported the defense of marriage act in the 90s, a bill that by the way passed by margins large enough to pass a constitutional amendment joe biden voted for it the senate majority leader voted for it. it was signed into law by a democratic president. the main purpose of the defense of marriage act was to make sure that if one state legalized same sex marriage, that they could not force another state to recognize that marriage. so if somebody got married, a same sex couple in massachusetts or new york or vermont, they couldn't move to oklahoma or utah and force that state to recognize that marriage. i think that's a pretty simple federalist concept. and marriage and family law has always been a state matter. and by the way, the supreme court did not overturn that provision of the defense of marriage act. it only said -- and let's be clear about what the court said. it only said that in a state

where same sex marriage has been legalized, that the federal government couldn't deny benefits to those couples. only in those states. so it only affected 17 states. and by the way, only six of those states have redefined marriage by ballot initiative or legislation. in every other case it's been imposed by the court. >> is your message resonating? here's a poll from late last month. you can see the trend lines in that poll moving towards support. guest: for now. but 0 years ago, we -- 0 years ago we were losing the pro life issue and today we're winning it. ten years ago we were winning the marriage issue. now they've made a little bit of a comeback. ten years from now we may be

winning it again. you can't take a poll and freeze frame it and extrap late the results and say for all time this is where it is. because on the marriage issue on the life issue on legalization of drugs and on lots of issues these things move. and by the way, these poll numbers are greatly exaggerated by the media and by the left. and let me just give an example. take the gallup poll. that's all adults. ok? it's anybody over the age of 1. that's not voters. you screen that poll for voters and that poll goes to about maybe 52, 53 for same sex marriage. you screen it for likely voters and it comes our way. if you don't believe me look at the politico poll a few weeks ago that polled likely voters in ballotground senate states and battleground congressional districts these are the voters who will go to the polls in november and by 52 to 48%, a majority, said they supported

traditional marriage. so i know there's a lot of people in the press and in the sort of opinion elite who want to say that this issue is over and it's done. let me ask this. if they're so confident they're winning why are they having to impose their views by the courts? why won't they qualify ballot initiatives? how come they're not trying to qualify a ballot initiative anywhere in the country in 2014? if they believe they are winning how come all the talk about the ballot initiative in ohio stopped and there's not going to be one? how come there's no attempt to qualify one in florida? how come they never tried to qualify a ballot initiative in california one of the most liberal states in america. you want to know why? i'll tell you why. because they did their own polling and their own polling showed they might lose. so if our message is if we're going to decide an issue this important -- and this is a very important issue in which there are some very strongly held views and some honestly held

views these are honest real differences of people of good will at a minimum let the people decide. don't do this by court opinion and then create a marriage version of row v. wade where it's imposed by the courts, the people don't get any role, and then we fight about it for another 40 or 50 years. that's a bad way to pursue public policy particularly on an issue this important. getting ready for another day at the road to majority conference down in national harbor. appreciate the time this morning. >> thanks. good to be with you. host: up next we'll talk to ben wick ler from move on.org. later juliet of the "washington post" joins us to discuss an effort to vastly expand the federally protected ocean areas in the pacific. but first all weekend long

c-span's city tours travels to st. louis. coming up today at noon on book tv. we visit with local authors and g to historic sites including a . ip to bell fountain cemetery >> the book contains sections which tell the history of the city of st. louis. each section contains biographies. altogether there are 80. so i wrote biographies of people buried here. some of my favorites are people who changed the world. such as william clark of the lewis and clark expedition who went out -- he change it had way we live because without the work of lewis and clark the west would have been -- would have taken much longer to settle it. they just opened the way.

they made it possible. he had another very important influence on the history of the united states as super teandnt of indian affairs and one that is not so well known they called him the red-haired chief because he was a negotiator. he brought 419,000 acres of indian land into the territory of the united states without ever raising a musk et. it was all negotiations. >> the thesis of the book is that there is a whole group of people in america, a big swath of america that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion i think for either party. particularly though i would argue the republican party. and i call them blue collar conservatives. the folks out there that are working people, most of whom don't have college degrees,

folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people of understand the importance of family and faith. believe in freedom and limited government. so you say those are conservative republican voters. and in many cases they're not. in fact, a lot of them don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have in trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. >> former pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate rick santorum argues that working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems. today part of book tv on c-span 2. this month we're discussing the forgotten man, a new history of he great depression.

host: move on.org petition asking the president to avoid military action in iraq had about 75,000 signatures this morning and here to discuss the outlook is ben wick ler a senior strategist. how would you assess president obama's response to the ongoing crisis in iraq so far? guest: thanks for having me on. before i speak to that let me say i really look forward to interacting on all the c-span viewers and i'm proud to be here representing the move on organization. wherever someone is watching from they probably have a member who live ons their block. as an organization we really came of age in 2002, 2003 in the leadup to the iraq war when george w. bush invaded that country. if you remember back there were millions of people in the streets saying this war is not

a good idea. but there were people like paul wolf wits and dick cheney saying this war is a great idea. paul wolf wits said back then that the war was unlikely to have the sec starne strife in bosnia because there wasn't the same conflict. so we wouldn't need peace keeping forces. then president george w. bush announced mission accomplished. so fast forward the same people are saying we need to get involved. jun mccain just said we have to take drastic measures. and members think like guys were wrong then and now. we've been polling our members and they've been saying overwhelmingly that they're gravely concerned about the united states getting dragged into another wake and they're opposed to military actions. we appreciate about president obama's stance so far has been his ask first shoot later approach.

hopefully not shoot later. he's asking what would the consequences we b? and so far he hasn't made a mistake. we applaud that. we applaud his realistic view of whether dropping bombs in iraq could solve problems and we strongly urge him not to make the same mistake that george wrment bush did. >> host: any concern when he announced 300 advisers? >> it's not military action. thank goodness but it is a dangerous road to go on. we know what happened with vietnam. we started by sending military advisers. soon we were doing secret operations and then a full-blown ground war trying to pop up a government that has no support. that's the kind of thing we don't want to see here. this is a government that most pretty much any expert will say, this is a government that doesn't represent all the people of iraq. this is a government that's been repressive to the sunni

minority in that country and there will be no solution unless there's a government that represents sunni, shia or kurds. this isn't something the military is is going to solve. host: some concern about mission creep was brought up in which president obama talked about these 300 advisers going here's a bit of the the president's response. >> i think we always have to guard against mission creep. so let me repeat what i've said in the past. american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq again. we do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thoups of troops and commiting the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in iraq. ultimately this is something that's going to have to be

solved by the iraqis. >> in that same press conference president obama said it's in the interest not to see a civil war in iraq. would you agree? >> absolutely. i would like to have no civil war anywhere. >> how do you prevent that from happening then? guest: you have to be realistic about what the u.s. can and can't do. one thing is you can't drop bombs and stop swars. we need to talk to everybody, creating a solution, but we can't wave a magic wand and solve. this is something where we need to be conscious of the limits of the use of foreign military power and we hope and pray that a resolution to this crisis is reached as quickly as possible. it could get worse before it gets better. but that will happen whether or not we drop bombs there, whether or not we intervene mill tarlte. the question is do we want to insert ourselves into a war where we have no business? host: ben here to talk about

iraq and a petition circulating that would keep the u.s. out of military involvement there. can you talk about who originally wrote that petition? guest: that is a petition started by matthew ho. he served as a marine over there. when you go through the list of cities, the mosul and baghdad, those words put chills down his spine as they do for many people because he saw lives lost. there have been 4,500 american troops who lost their lives in this war. at least hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians lost their lives at the time when the u.s. was there. the civil war started long ago. it started after we invided and it will continue. the question is whether we will go back. what he said is look going back won't solve this problem. we should not be inserting ourselves back into the war. and members have been signing. ten,000 have also called the

white house and this is just the beginning if the drums of war are kicked back into action move on members are going to mobilize. host: if you want to talk to ben questions or comments for him the phone lines are open. republicans can call the number on your screen. the democrats, call the number on the bottom of the screen. we'll start on our line for republicans. mike is in safety harbor, florida. caller: good morning. just a couple points of contention. move on.org loses a bit of legitimacy considering they re there to get barack obama reelected. i was a democrat for 20 years, voted for obama in 2008. went to the occupy tampa protests. and talked to the leadership who set up the protests there. and the guy was all pro obama. he wasn't about finding out

about these changes. because we obviously hasn't found any changes. but the thing i really want to touch on at this point now you are 100% correct that bush and tchainie should never have brought us into iraq. that is without a doubt. but now that we are there and subsequently left, if guy that we let out of detention in 2009 is not a leader of the isis, why can't we use these drones or some other -- not boots on the ground. but if they're paving a road down the highway to baghdad, why can't we just bomb these guys take out -- because what they're doing is -- something needs to be done. we can't just say well bush and cheney took us there and it was a mistake and now we need to stay away from it. we can't allow iraq to be controlled by this group of people. guest: first of all, thank you

for your call. and thank you for your obviously very strong engagement in the kinds of issues that move on members rand all americans care about. this stuff is really important. with respect to your specific question on iraq right now, nobody wants isis to take over iraq and syria. that would be terrible. the question we have to ask ourselves in, would sending in drones, dropping bombs, actually help? it may be satisfying. it would feel as those we were doing something. that can be a great feeling to feel as though you are trying to help. but actually just intervening in that kind of way doesn't have a great track record of bringing peace to a civil war like this. this is a big complex. this is something where there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in lots of different ways. the regional powers are involved. all these troops that the united states let go home and take their weapons home. the sunni troops are have now picked their weapons up and

entered this conflict. it's not realistic to think that this would turn the tide. this is something that would require a political solution led by the iraqis. the united states does not have a good track record of engineering that through the use of military force. especially in iraq specifically. i wish that there were a way that we could take action and solve. that's something i give president obama a lot of credit for exercising real caution and ration nalt in the face of an emotional and very challenging crisis. >> who should be involved in whatever that solution is? guest: it's hard to see how the iraqi situation gets resolved without all of iraq's neighbors somehow playing a hand. frankly thing they alreadyor involved. so there needs to be talks between all the people surrounding that country. this is a regional situation as

we see right now. but that's outside the scope of the stuff that we're asking move on.org to do right now. we serve the 8 million members and how them to take action on things that they care about. they feel very clearly that u.s. involvement right now is not going to help. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very interested in what the president is doing now. and i have kind of a mixed feeling about this. i believe he's right because i think he is being advised by the general. he doesn't just sit thrup and make decisions on his own. he is being advised. so let's get that straight. that's number one. and number two, i think the reason he is sending these

advisers because he's trying to protect the embassy because otherwise we'll have another benghazi and then the republicans come back and say oh my god look what the president did. he allowed another benghazi. please understand that. it's not that the president just sits up there and magically puts us out there. he doesn't want us to go to war. he wants us to protect the embassies. these are advisers. guest: sure. one thing i remember very vividly from george w. bush's presidency when president bush went on tv and said i'm the decider. he was very clear about that. he made gut decisions based on his ink tifrpblt. and when advisers told him things he didn't want to hear, generals would be publicly overruled.

they would be actually removed from their post. it was an administration that didn't tolerate dissent. and one of the virtues i think of president obama's presidency is that he actually seeks out and asks tough questions and listens to the answers. the same with military force. it can have a kind of momentum. once things get going everyone kind of wants to fall into line and it's easy to fall prey to the thinking that once we do this everything lk ok. if you're not supporting it you're against the united states. that's not true. most with military force. you have to ask the hard questions not just what would happen if we did this but also what would happen after that. that's the kind of question that can pull you back from the brink of wear. even if you did destroy that road being built. the next day the same people would come right back and next time they would be mad because the united states just dropped a bomb on them.

host: about wholes fault it is when it comes to the current a ation in iraq here's column by rand paul. guest: well, i appreciate rand paul's actually quite principled views on foreign policy. this is a guy who knows what he believes in and i agree with him and move on.org members agree with him that intervening right now trying to fight this civil war ourselves is not a good idea. i do think if you look at the balance scale what is the biggest contribute that are the

united states has made to the civil war in iraq? it's hard not to think that invading that country on the basis of a false pretext of weams weapons of mass destruction then letting the sunni armed forces go home and take their weapons home without pay it's hard not to think that that was kind of the biggest contributor to the war that we have now. another thing i would say is that it's hard to see how intervening militarily in syria would have stopped this from happening. it seems like that is a calderon that has been boiling in an incredibly painful and dangerous and terrible way. and i don't see any path that the united states had. we've only been facing bad options there as well. but this is a complicated situation with many factors and many causes. the most important question is what do we do now? do we repeat the mistakes that we've made in 2003 and rush into a military intervention there or do we think realistically and logically about what the choices we have now are? and if that is the best option

and we think guest: i will say rand paul is opposing intervention. i don't think we should send anybody to iraq and put them on

the ground. but i do think that people that are urging military intervention should ask themselves would they be ready to go and fight there? would they be willing to put their own lives on the line? do they really think that clearly that this is worth it to american interests, to basic human rights? that the united states should send people to potentially fight and die? or send drones and drop bombs on other people? that's really the question if you're talking about military intervention and i just do not see the case for that at this moment. host: let's go to delaware on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i think this brings up a very good point. ralph n listening to nador there's the ikeie issue in your view the leading edge of that permanent change. guest: there are a lot of different forces swirling in

american politics right now. there's a huge demographic shift. there's the growing of the millenial generation. a lot of different things going on. but there is one shift and i think it might be what you're speaking to that's been pronounced, which is the united states is tired of war. the united states, the people of our country have experienced trillions of dollars lost to these military adventures that have not gotten us more safe. they've seen thousands of americans die and they've reached a point where whfer war is being discussed we really think hard about it. and i think that is a shift. as a country we've reached a point where we recognize that war is not a good first option. war is the very last option. and it should only be undertaken in extreme circumstance where we know that going into the war will in the long run leave us and the world better off. this doesn't meet that threshhold. the first iraq invasion didn't meet that threshhold. what obama said is he doesn't oppose all wars.

he opposes dumb wars. he was right then and that idea is still right now. ost: on twitter. guest: thanks for that question. i don't think anyone wants an isis led iraq. what we're saying is we don't think it should be ruled by sunni, shia kurds p and we're not going to use military force to help one side win. what anyone would say you're not going to have a stable government unless all groups feel they have representation in the government. that hasn't happened under maliki's government and wouldn't happen under isi, either. host: rick. guest: good morning to you. thank you for taking my call. good luck to you. c-span has been parading out war hawks all week long and they're not -- they want a war. and i'm tired of the middle

east. let's stay out of there. if israel wants a wear let them fight it. we've got our people here in the united states. thank you. host: trying to bring you all sides of this debate. but ben, let you respond. guest: i appreciate the call from hawks and doves and people trying to figure out. all are trying to figure out what to do. that's just the reality of it. but it's also true that as you say we don't want to go to war as a people. this is not a country that is clamoring to get involved in another armed conflict. and in this situation getting involved militarily just won't help. so i appreciate where you're coming from and millions of members are very, very concerned about getting involved in this iraq war just like they were concerned about the last one. host: from twitter.

guest: thank you for the question on twitter. i and i think many americans very much support the idea of more women in power. that's a glass ceiling that has not i would hope that help bring some balance to our views. i would also say women in leadership, if you look at margaret thatcher, women in presidency in other places, i don't think there's necessarily a difference in foreign policy that's based on gender alone. to president clinton, you know, she is someone who was a very successful secretary of state, moveon.org members, many of them have enormous respect for her and her public service. but this is a long -- the idea of thinking about the 2016 election is a long way away. when we poll moveon.org members, the biggest share of the answer is that it is too soon to even think about that. we have an election this fall

in 2014. we have issues of incredible importance right now, like iraq, like the minimum wage. these are the things that moveon.org members are focused on right now, and we've got to get through the next few months before we look over the horizon. host: are progressives motivated for 2014? what's going to bring them out to the polls? guest: again, this is something we sur moveon.org members about, and there is a lot of interest in 2014. the number one thing is making sure that the republicans who have been using their position in the house and even the minority in the senate to obstruct and block everything president obama tries to do, even things with enormous bipartisan public support, to make sure that this extreme republican party doesn't take over the senate. and, you know, mitch mcconnell said his number one priority was preventing president obama from being re-elected. apparently in president obama's second term, his number one priority has been to pretend like president obama wasn't re-elected and make sure he can't actually do any of the things he was elected to do f. he's got to take over the senate, we're going see

partisan witch hunts, more obstructionism, an impossibility of appointing people to the positions of public service in the executive branch. stopping that from happening is something that very strongly motivates moveon members. host: are they happy with harry reid? guest: you know, i don't think we actually polled specifically on job performance, the percentage for majority leader reid. but i will say one of the things he's done is call out the role of the koch brothers in blocking progress on a whole host of issues. he spoke many times about money and politics, and specifically how the koch brothers have used their enormous financial strength to fight back against action on climate change. that's something that moveon members feel very strongly about too. you can see local campaigns across the country opposing koch brother initiatives like trying to block renewable energy standards and impose taxes on solar panels, roll back wind initiatives in kansas. these are the kind of things that the koch brother flood of

smone trying to do, and moveon.org members are fighting against it. host: are progressives going to come out in red states to try to protect moderate democrats? mary land ryu, mark pry year, are they going to be there in november? guest: what i can tell you is that moveon.org members and democrats broadly understand that the pryor race, the landrieu race, these aren't about one senator or another, this is about control of the united states senate. that's very motivating. we see what these guys have done with their majority in the house, and we see what they've done with the filibuster in the senate. we don't want to see more of that extreme obstructionism, government shutdown, you know, teapts -- attempts to roll back every initiative. they threaten to shut down over obama coal plant initiatives, which will help avert a climate catastrophe f. they take the senate, the threat of that should stop, and all of us understand that's what's at stake, even in these states with moderate democrats.

host: bonnie is waiting in ohio on our line for independents. bonnie, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, there was a caller on c-span, and they taught -- talked these isis is actually freedom fighters that were brought in from benghazi, went to syria, and they are who is fighting in iraq, but they actually are members from the west that are americans that belong to this group. and pro president obama will not bomb them because the members of isis are actually people from america that went over and joined this organization and that they have called the freedom fighters. they were in syria, and now they're moving into iraq. host: can you clear up some of bonnie's questions? guest: sure. bonnie, thanks for that question. it's certainly the case that there is kind of an international movement, and there's some fighters who have moved between these different

complexes one after another. that's one of the unfortunate things about these waves of wars that have been happening in the middle east. i have not heard the theory that there are americans directly involved in that conflict right now, but i can tell you that a huge part of the fighting is actually iraqis themselves. this really is a civil war. there are tons of former baath party members, military officers who worked for saddam hussein who have taken up armed again. it's a conflict that's been happening in slow motion in a way since long before we intervened. iraq has had, you know, different wars at different times with different groups in control. those conflicts, those deep rifts, are still playing out now. iraq was actually created, iraq and syria, the border was drawn about 100 years ago by the british imperial powers. these weren't countries that existed before that. when those borders were drawn, they weren't drawn on the basis of communities that were preexisting. they weren't drawn on the basis of ethnic lines or tribes. these are divisions that have

really deep roots. the war that's happening right now ultimately is the same forces playing out. host: let's go to warren waiting in new hampshire on our line for republicans. warren, good morning. you're on with ben wikler of moveon.org. caller: good morning. would you comment on the israeli involvement in getting america, bush one and bush two's wars with iraq, and ccain wanting to bomb them now , please. guest: well, i appreciate the call. you know, i think that the decisions by some of someone like president george bush really come to a decision made by president george bush. i was one of many people who were in the streets seeking to hold him accountable for the decisions that he made. i hope that president bush at this point recognizes that it was t was not a good idea to

invade iraq, but ultimately the people who made those decisions bear responsibility for them. host: sheila is a democrat in alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say, those folks in iraq are suicidal people. what can we do about those folks? people that wake up, because if the republicans had been in office, they'd have been back over there fighting. and if those idiots like cheney and the rest of those republicans want to fight, let them go over there and fight. host: sheila, can i ask what you mean by suicidal people? caller: you know, when they was fighting in iraq, the last time, those people with bombs and stuff strapped across them, you know, walking the streets, you know, that's what i mean. you can't do anything about those people. what can you do with them? host: sheila, do you think the u.s. should stand up for the people of iraq, the citizens of iraq? caller: no, i think we should

stay out of that. we had enough people to lose their lives in iraq the last time, so i think we should stay out of it and let them fight their own wars. if there's something that maybe, you know, if something -- if there's something we might can do, i think that's the best thing to do. host: thanks for your call. guest: one thing i would say is the vast majority of people in iraq are far more tired of war than we are here in the u.s. i have friends that are iraqi -- most people in iraq desperately wish for peace, and this is the people that have suffered enormously, for decades now. my heart goes out to them. i just can't imagine the tragedy that is unfolding all around them right now. what a disaster. but at the same time, it's not the case that the u.s., you know, as you said, not the case that the u.s. can get involved mill tailor and somehow solve the problem -- militarily and somehow solve the problem. that's an unfortunate reality, but that's the situation that we're in. host: i want to ask you about another issue we've talked

about this morning, the influx of unaccompanied minors showing up at the border. what is the progressive solution here? guest: the most important solution to the immigration solution is comprehensive reform. this is something that moveon.org members in our polling feel quite strongly about. this is something that has bipartisan support. your previous guest, ralph reed, spoke about the biblical imperative to pass comprehensive immigration reform. right now the united states policy has been to deport millions of people at this point, and it's broken so many families apart, and this is happening and continuing to happen because of republicans in the house to pass a comprehensive reform bill. that's the big picture scommeerks that's something that we desperately need to address. and that's something that moveon.org members hope is taken off the table as a partisan issue. we hope very strongly the republicans come to their senses just in the next couple of months and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, because we see an unfolding tragedy, and the kids

coming over the border now, man, they're in desperate straits. they're caught in a system that just fundamentally doesn't work. host: jason is waiting in tampa, florida, on our line for independents. jason, good morning. caller: how you doing, sir? my question was more or less a statement than any question. as we both know, they've been fighting amongst each other, and i guess there would be more of a broad cushion versus islam from very back in the day. my question would be, we've already gone there and seen the mistakes that we made by invading, and i agree with you on that. i guess my question would be, given the history, what we do know now, what would be your solution? i do believe that among those 300 advisors that we serningts i'm sure some of those are going to be advising in a role more leaning towards combat, just in case the military

solution is something that we must resort to. so i guess my question to you would be, if you had to speak as a representative of your moveon.org, what would be your solution or proposed solution? i know you said you don't -- up don't present white papers, but just a personal solution, what do you think we should do? i mean -- host: thanks for the question, jason, go ahead. ben wikler. guest: i guess there's two ways to read your question. jason, i appreciate it. i think all of us are looking for solutions to the situation. there's a question of what the united states should do, and then the there's of question of what should happen in iraq. for what the united states should do, i think the number one thing is the united states should not jump into this civil war. the number two thing we should do is to try to constructively engage and support diplomatic and political efforts to reach a resolution of this crisis. for what iraq should do, iraq is ultimately only going to have peace if it has a

government that can actually, you know, speak to and represent the needs of its people. sunni, shia, and kurds. that's kind of the independent that iraq needs to come to. it's either going towards that or it's going towards breaking apart in some way. this is a conflict that will not be won by military force alone, and i think the thing that we know won't work is trying to prop up a government that represents just one group and pretend that they have democratic legitimacy. that's something that we, in a certain sense, propping up a government that was not actually supported by its people, something that we tried to do in vietnam for years, and we all know what happened there. iraq is not a place where there's a certain kind of weapon or a certain kind of military strike that will suddenly make this government something that's viable, and unless the government shifts how it works and shifts who it represents, it's hard to see how they come to a peaceful resolution. host: got a few minutes left with ben wikler of moveon.org, a senior strategist there, also the host of the podcast and

radio show, the good fight, if you want to tell us allegation bit about that program. -- tell us a little bit about that program. host: it's a moveon.org-sponsored podcast about people changing the world remember the real story is about fights by regular people and other people may have you've heard of to make a difference. one of the episodes that we did just recently was about this incredible grass roots campaign neighborhood by neighborhood across the country that's helped shut down coal plants and build renewable energy across the u.s. it's the reason why u.s. climate change emissions have actually been going down in recent years. it's because a third, almost a third of our coal plants have shut down, and we've built this huge boom of wind and solar generation. we tell that kind of story. we told the story of how moveon.org members and really a broad array of people oppose intervention in the syrian civil war. last year when that he was under consideration, i hope you'll take -- if you go to itunes and search for the good fight, you'll find the show. host: dan calling in from washington on our line for republicans. dan, good morning.

caller: hi. i'd like to ask him, when did i know iraq had no weapons inspectors? george bush inherited an iraq with no weapons inspectors in the country, and president bush had to send 250,000 troops, surround iraq, threaten invasion, and saddam, by the way, still wasn't compliant. that's why the u.n. resolution was passed. since he likes to rewrite history, i would really like to know, when did him and his progressives know -- even though it removed you're rain yalm from iraq in 2007, i'd like to know when you guys knew, because thanks to progressive bill clinton, he left iraq with no weapons inspectors and had a show of force to get boots back on the ground. i'd like to know what you would have done to get the weapons inspectors back in iraq since you keep saying iraq is a mistake. host: i appreciate the question. i guess i'd like to though back to you the question of, once iraq was surrounded by troops, once weapons inspectors were back in, once intelligence was flowing out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that at that point we should have invaded the

country? there were so many indications long before we sent troops surrounding iraq, if you asked intelligence experts for their analysis, they did not have a definitive conclusion that there were weapons of mass destruction there. and then as we approached that war, the chorus of dissidents grew and grew, but the bush administration cherry picked intelligence, relied on discredited sources to keep making the case that they were seeing weapons of mass destruction that posed an active threat to the united states. you can go a lot of steps towards a war and then decide not to invade. and when the intelligence says you shouldn't invade, you shouldn't invade. i think that's the number one thing here. even when you're on the precipice of military action, you need to take a deep breath and you need to ask yourself, will we make the world better? will we protect american interests by actually using force in this situation? and i think, in that situation, the answer was clear, and it's clear now. host: our last call from baltimore, maryland, on our ine for democrats.

are you with us? caller: yes, except i hear your people in the office talking. host: oh, go ahead, we hear you. caller: ok. thank you for taking my call. i want to propose something that might sound totally idiotic, but look, i'm really tired of all the war talk and the back and forth over there. we had a similar situation in japan during world war ii with a group of people that would fight to the last man and kill everyone, and we decided we weren't going to waste american lives on them. let's deny both sides that area, nuke them, you know, poison so they can't have that area all the way over -- host: you're advocating for dropping an atomic bomb? caller: i'm advocating for killing them all because i'm tired of it. they're either going to go back and reform somewhere else, and yeah, you deny them both.

you want our help, we're going to end it for you. guest: i appreciate your call. i can tell you, we haven't polled moveon.org members about your specific idea, but i can almost guarantee that the eight million progressive moveon.org members across the united states would not support dropping an atomic bomb in the middle east, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people is generally not a solution to a conflict that you're worried will result in bloodshed. that's about the worst idea that i can imagine. but i appreciate your thinking about this, and i appreciate your call. host: if folks are interested in this petition you've been circulating, how do they find it? guest: go to moveon.org right now and it's on the front page. if you don't think the united states should get involved militarily in the iraq situation, go to moveon.org right now and sign that petition. host: ben wikler, thanks so much for joining thus morning. guest: thanks for having me on and thanks for your call. host: up next, juliette eilperin of "the washington post" joins us to discuss the

plan on expanding the ocean areas in the pacific. but first, we were joined by democratic national committee airwoman debbie waserman schultz. >> it does show the president's popularity is sinking, that he should be a drag on democrats, and i've seen no math anywhere that suggests that republicans won't gain house in the -- gain seats in the house. i mean, the fact of the matter is republicans are going to do better in the next congress and house than they are this term. >> no, thernt. >> why not? where did you beat them? >> where will we lose to them? mean, the republicans are fully engulfed and have been swallowed by the tea party. when push comes to shove and you have a republican candidate versus a democratic candidate, standing in front of the voters, race after race, it will be democratic candidates that win because we're focused

on creating more opportunities, investing in education, supporting more opportunities for young people to go to college, because that's the path to making sure that you can have a life that you envisioned for yourself and your family. we also put on the political side of things, we have, you know, through these efforts and the d.n.c.'s efforts, so many races in which we've recruited candidates to run against republicans that have embraced that, and i think mainstream voters, particularly democrats and independents, are going to embrace our candidates as a result. >> do these things animate your voters? right now if the president's approval ratings are at 41%, which the nbc poll found, you know, how do democrats go out in full force a midterm election? >> this race is not going to be a referendum on the president. this is going to -- what happens in the midterm, as much

as the republicans would like to make it about barack obama, is race is going to be about local issues, issues that are important to each congressional district, each senate race. and the question for voters is going to be, does the candidate that wants me to vote for them have their finger on the pulse of what i care about? the finger that republicans -- the pulse of the republicans have their finger on is right-wing tea party extremism. >> "washington journal" continues. host: earlier this week, the obama administration announced plans for a major expansion of protected marine areas in the pacific ocean. juliet eilperin was the first reporter on this story of "the washington post." she joins us now to talk about it. juliet, this is a pretty remote part of the pacific ocean. why is this expansion area so important to environmentalists? guest: it's really important for a couple of different reasons. the first reason is just because of the biodiversity

there. this is, in the words of national geographic and also one of the few scientists that spent a lot of time there, it's as close to the pristine ocean as any place he's seen on earth. the fact that these islands are uninhabited has meant that the ecosystem there looks like what the ocean used to look like before we really started fishing it out. so that's one reason. the second is that a lot of environmentalists, as well as some scientists, are on a campaign to put somewhere between 10% to 20% of the ocean off limits to any sort of fishing, mining, exploration of any kind. host: how much of the ocean is off limits right now? guest: in terms of fully protected, we're talking about less than 1% of the ocean, and then roughly depends on how you look at it, something like 2% of the ocean has some sort of protection. so they want to dramatically expand it in the next few years , and so if, for example, this

happens, this would double the amount of ocean that's fully protected. again, that still will put it up 2%, but it would be an important step in this movement to put -- to protect some of the world's oceans. host: to show our viewers exact where will this location is, these protected areas would be, here's a map, courtesy of the "l.a. times." can you talk about why these areas were picked and what's there right now? guest: what happens is in 2009, then-president george w. bush created the first national marine monument around all of these islands. it's the pacific remote islands national marine monument. and at the time, when did he it, it was an absolutely ambitious designation. they already have protections going from shore to 50 miles out. what the obama administration is now looking at is extending those to 200 miles from shore. that's the absolute limit that

any country can control. basically we have something called an exclusive economic zone in that area, and it applies to basic 28 hundred miles out from shore for any territory of a particular country. that's why they would have the power to do this and no one else has to weigh in on it. host: so this would go from 87,000 square miles protected right now to close to 782,000 square miles? guest: exactly. it's real a huge, exponential expansion if they go ahead with it. host: what does it do to fishing or commercial use that happens in these areas? guest: under the proposal, it would eliminate any commercial fishing that goes on, which is really the main activity that's happening here now. however, one of the things that certainly will be up to negotiation is what do we do for recreational fishing? at this point, there really is very minimal recreational fishing. it takes something like 10 days by boat to reach it, but there's one operator that technically has a permit from what i understand, and when george w. bush designated it,

the rec rapingsal fishing community was very upset about it and they got an exemption. that might be, for example, the one activity, and then again, scientific research goes on in many of these marine monuments, even though you can't take anything from it or, again, deal with mining, drilling, or other extracted activities. host: some responses from members of congress after this was announced this week, here is dianne f.b.i. stine, the president's decision to expand marine sanctuary social security an important step in preserving the health of the ocean. host: that leads to the question of, what is congress' role in this expansion? guest: congress really doesn't have a role in this expansion. what president obama is using, which other presidents have used, is his executive authority under the antiquities

act which passed in 1906. this is one of the few ways the president can put either federal lands or federal waters off limits without having congress weigh in, whereas congress usually does designations, whether you're talking about wilderness or national parks, that's done through a vote of lawmakers. so he has the authority to do this. there's kind of -- there's a legal debate over whether on some level this could be overridden, but generally, presidents of both parties have done it, and this is one of the times that lawmakers just don't have a say. host: we're talking with juliet eilperin of "the washington post," white house correspondent there, talking about the announcement coming from the white house, this expansion of protected ocean areas. if you have questions or comments, our phone lines are open. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. independents, 202-585-3882. if you're outside the u.s., it's 202-585-3883. juliet eilperin also the author of "demon fish travels through

the hidden world of sharks." certainly an interesting topic, if you want to discuss that as well. i'm sure she'd be happy to do that. but on this ocean policies, this announcement this week, it was announced at a state department conference, a global ocean policy conference. i want to show our viewers a bit of secretary of state john kerry talking about ocean policy and come back to you and ask questions. >> if we want to honor, if we are going to be able to honor our shared responsibility to protect the ocean, the ad hoc approach we have to do -- we have today simply will not suffice. that is not how the ocean works. we're not going to meet this challenge. unless the community of nations comes together around a single comprehensive global ocean strategy. that is the only way that we can clean up our ocean today

and make sure that it remains what it needs to be for generations to come. that is what this conference is all about. host: the ad hoc plan that he was talking about, explain how that's worked in the past and what he's looking to do in the future. guest: well, basically, different countries have been pursuing policies, whether it's cracking down on illegal fishing, again, putting some areas off limits, addressing things like carbon emissions that contribute to ocean ad success fakes. and again, these have really been done on a state-by-state level across the world, and what the secretary of state has been calling for and try to codify through this conference is essentially more of a global strategy to address these issues, not necessarily doing, for example, we've seen the u.n. climate talks has been one approach to deal with a global environmental issue, but there might not be, say, a treaty in the way that we've seen in the

past, but really kind of a regular convening of all the countries who are invested in these issues. he's now going to make this conference an annual event. chile has pledged to host it in 2015. so it's the idea of coming up with more over arching, concerted strategy to address some of the primary threats. host: and some of the leaders were at the conference this week at the state department? guest: absolute. we had a few heads of state, and then just as significantly, a few foreign ministers and so forth, part of what secretary kerry pushed very forcefully for, was countries didn't send their environmental ministers, but sent people from other departments to suggest that this is a government-wide issue and not just the domain of someone who's overseeing the environment. host: some questions for you. from twitter, talking about this expansion, this marine monument expansion in the pacific, what about shipping? would shipping through those areas be curtailed? guest: that is an excellent question. i think that you still would be allowed to go through them. i don't know, for example, how

active the shipping route these are. but certainly, i think that's something you would examine. my sense is that would not necessarily be curtailed, although i imagine one of the things they would monitor is what kind of impacts there are to shipping. but my guess is we do have representatives of the shipping industry who regularly consult with the government here on that, and i don't think that's certainly having as significant an impact as actual fishing activities. host: would these areas be treated like national parks? could you go visit these sanctuaries? guest: that's an excellent question. i mean, technically yes, you could, although i know the northwestern hawaiian island, a monument that george w. bush created in 2006, at the time it was the world's largest fully protected marine reserve, i think that there are restrictions on who can visit that. it may that be you would need a permit, and again, partially it would be an extremely, for anyone it's an extremely expensive proposition to get to

this area of the world because it's so remote, although, again, with advances in transportation, there certainly will be a point where it will be easier get there. host: the northwest hawaiian island protected area, you can see this map in "the washington post," also showing wake island, johnston atolls, where we'll see if it moves through the regulatory process, this expansion in the future. let's go to gregory in pennsylvania on our line for republicans. gregory, you're on with juliet eilperin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i applaud the initiative to expand our marine sanctuaries in this particular area, especially approximate to hawaii. my concern is simply this, when something like this emerges, there apparently is some kind of a threat or some kind of an initiative outside of our own

concerns that might be -- that we might be aware of. i'm thinking, how are we going to fund this, and what kind of assets do we have in that area to enforce the protection of these marines -- marine sanctuaries? i appreciate your help on this. thank you, ma'am. host: thanks for the question. funding and enforcement? guest: i'm glad your caller raised that, because i think that is one of the questions now facing the administration. the fact is that, as your caller notes, given that this is a remote area, if you're going to declare activities off limits, you do need some sort of enforcement. in fact, interestingly, there was no enforcement officer who mentioned a few days ago, having spent time working in a couple of different places, including in the florida keys and in hawaii, that he anticipated it would be very difficult to enforce this effectively. now, i think part of what certainly some scientists have suggested is you could use

satellite surveillance or, you know, you could use technological surveillance in order to deal with this, but i think that this is a question that -- a legitimate question that people will be struggling with, and i think that, if you don't have adequate enforcement, there is a question about how significant it is. there is navy activity in the area, and in fact, some coast guard activity, and i know that one of the things is that a neighboring country that has a marine reserve in the phoenix island adjacent to this area has talked about collaboration between the united states in part to try to have some level of enforcement there. host: and this proposal still being worked out, but any estimates of the cost of expanding? guest: no, we don't have that, and it's an interesting question, whether i you'll they'll have to come up with something, although there's no trigger or there are hold that would determine that. what the administration has said is that the interior and commerce department will be taking comments certainly over the summer at some point, most likely by the end of the year,

but it's not definite they would make a final decision. i think we'll see the questions raised in the course of public comments. host: the final decision would then create the designation for this expanded area? guest: exactly. at that point we will have a final designation that would spell out these issues. host: ben in cincinnati, ohio, on our line for independents. ben, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i guess my question was actually directed by gregory, so i'll go on with how much commercial fishing is actually being done in the area now, or do we have statistics for that, and i guess do we have to worry about overfishing right now there? guest: we do have estimates. the estimates are that -- the main activity there is tuna fishing by u.s. vessels, and the tuna fishing that goes on there represents between 1% and 3% of the total tuna catch in the central and western pacific. that's according to an analysis

by the few charitable trust, which has been campaigning for this marine monument. so the argument that certainly environmental advocates makes is it's a small percentage of the catch, and these vessels can simply catch tuna elsewhere in the pacific. they say that one of the reasons you want to stop the tuna catch there and you could move it elsewhere is that there's the accidental catch that comes along with these fishing activities, generally done through long line, and what they're arguing is that if you move it elsewhere, you certainly -- it stops the bicatch, the killing of marine mammals, predatory fish like sharks in this particular area. but certainly, the tuna industry is one of the industries that will have a significant input into what ends up happening there. host: roger has a question about the drilling industry. how will this affect plans to drill? he says off the florida coast, but ocean drilling in general. guest: at this moment, there's no oil and gas drilling in this

area, so it wouldn't have any impact on current activities. again, theoretically, at this point it's partially because much of the ocean remains, the deep ocean remains unexplored. you could see something in the future, people being interested in this activity, and it would be off limits. but at this point, it's not going to affect current activity. but also, the input you're just getting from one of your viewers points out this idea that it is actually easier to protect something far away from the u.s. shores, the immediate u.s. shores, because you could have more domestic opposition given this portfolio drilling off america's coast. host: william is in kent, washington, on our line for republicans. william, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my phone call. it's more of a comment that i just have to say. as much as my side would like to beat up on the president, i applaud him for, i'm a conservative, environmentally and physically, and i just applaud c-span and the young lady here for the time that

she's taken to bring this to light. i just thank you very much, because we do need to, you know, protect, you know, our fisheries and our environment. i just thank you. thank you for bringing this to life. host: juliet eilperin, the first to report on this proposed expansion. in this this week's tuesday edition of "the washington post." here's the front-page story, obama to expand pacific sanctuary. on twitter, we can't manage our borders, so how will we manage the off-limit areas of the ocean? who pays? also questions, is this international or local law? guest: well, i'll take the second question. it's actually international law under the law of the sea. we actually have not ratified that treaty, but all countries observe it even if they haven't ratified it. we have the right to do something within, again, i mentioned 200 miles of shores of any u.s. territory. so that's really what's

governing this, along with, as i mentioned, the u.s. law that allows the president to exercise his executive authority. but, you know, as we mentioned, i certainly think enforcement is something that's going to come up, and it will be raised by critics of this proposal. host: suzanne is in oregon on our line for democrats. suzanne, good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching about johnston atoll, nuclear waste there, and what, if anything, was done to clean that up. thank you. guest: i have to admit that that's not -- not something that i'm very familiar with. i mean, i know obviously this was an area where you did see action and activities during world war ii. but i should say that certainly none of the scientists i have talked to -- and again, when bush administration was working on this, and i consulted with them close on the it, i did not get the sense that there was a concern that there was nuclear radiation that was affecting the marine ecosystem there. host: let's go out to hawaii, caller david calling in on our

line for independents. david, thanks for getting up with us on the "washington journal." go ahead, david. caller: i was just wondering where you derived the power and the laws to regulate vast parts of the ocean. where does that come from? guest: really, i mean, certainly for more than a century, there have been negotiations and discussions among countries about how to do this. in the, while hawaii really wasn't at issue, one of the ways this became really important is historically, countries regulated a much smaller amount out to shore, and the united states, in fact, led the drive to expand this exclusive economic zone, primarily because russian and japanese fishing vessels were catching fish off alaska, and the americans pushed back. this is decades ago. people like the late senator ted stevens from alaska was in

the forefront, essentially saying we have the right to catch the fish off our shores. it shouldn't be foreign vessels that are reaping the profit by extracting our natural resources, and that's when you saw this expansion to 200 miles. host: you brought up japan just now. on twitter, if you can comment on the impact of fukushima on the nautical reserves. guest: my understanding is that the meltdown in fukushima did not have an impact on this particular area, which is, again, actually, certainly some distance from japan. my sense is that that's not a big issue. host: this might relate to your book, "demon fish travel through the hidden world of sharks," can you talk about the specific marine life that's going to be protected in this expansion effort? guest: yeah. there's a huge amount of marine life in the area. there's something like nearly two dozen different kinds of marine mammals, many of which have some level of threat that they're facing in terms of their population.

they have roughly five species of turtles, all of which -- sea turtles, all of which are imperiled. there's an array of sharks and other predatory fish, and that's one of the things that's particularly interesting that scientists have discovered, we usually think of wildlife as an inverted pyramid, where you have a few of the big animals on top, big species like lions and sharks and so forth, and smaller species in larger numbers, but what the scientists found when they went there is it's actually the opposite, that the biomass, the actual weight, if you add it up, of the large fish, including the sharks there, outnumbers smaller animals, suggesting simple that will when we observe the sea now, it's been so distorted through fishing over the last few hundred years that we're not seeing the natural balance. that's one of the reasons why researchers are so interested in protecting this area before it changes too much. host: another question i had is what is an underwater mountain? guest: yes, i was going to get

to that. an underwater mountain, or sea mount, are really these hot spots of diversity. they are kind of what they sound like. they are mountains that can be, for example, as high as 1,000 meters or roughly 3,000 feet. they simply don't break through the ocean surface, so we don't see them. but because they change the current, and you have a great deal of nutrients around them, they've become areas that really attract sea life, and so one of the interesting things is when president bush and his advisors were looking at it, they had determined that they thought it was most critical to protect 50 miles around these islands. they thought that that was what they would say is the critical biological nexus to protect. now scientists are saying you can increase the number of sea mounts, which now number between 40 and 50 in this fully protected zone, to roughly 250, and they're saying, for that reason, that's one of the best arguments for expanding the protections there. host: we've got about 10 or 15 minutes left with juliet eilperin of "the washington

post," talking about this expansion of protected areas in the pacific. phone lines are open, if you have questions or comments. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. independents, 202-585-3882. from twitter, this is a great idea, we must protect our oceans as well as the land. you brought up the efforts by former president george w. bush. can you talk about previous presidents? were there other efforts before george w. bush to protect ocean areas? guest: there has been, although george bush holds the record right now for protecting more, the broadest part of the ocean. but really, for example, protections of these areas started back when theodore roosevelt in 1903, want use the act that wasn't passed then, but he used some of his authority to protect birds on midway island, sea birds that were being hunted for their

feathers, for women's hats. so that was one of the first pushes you saw. f.d.r. then followed with additional protections in the pacific. president clinton also made some efforts around hawaii, and he created a marine monument off the coast of california. so you have seen other presidents do this in the past of both parties. host: and if this expansion does go through the regulatory process and it is designated, would president obama then hold the record? guest: he would hold the record, which is one of the argument that is advocates are making. one thing that's been interesting, there has been somewhat of a global competition. right now, britain, under gordon brown, holds the current record for the largest marine reserve also in the pacific. chile has created a marine reserve that is quite large, although it's not as big as this. part of it is you have seen a bit of jousting among world leaders to hold that title. host: let's go to nance any fort myers, florida, on our line for democrats. nancy, good morning. caller: good morning. i certainly support the young

lady also. i also wonder why people individually can't pull back on how much seafood they're consuming themselves, which seems excessive to me, and that would help for the demand on the fisher in the fishing industry, correct? guest: that's certainly a debate going on, and i think one of the arguments that you see happening now is not quite as much about the quantity of fish that's being consumed, although that's certainly an issue, particularly an issue in, you know, certainly asia, but also the type of fish, and this came up in the conference as well, the idea of sustainable seafood that people are trying to make distinctions between what kind of seafood we eat. the united states is the second largest consumer of seafood in the world behind only china, and roughly 85% of our seafood is imported. part of the issue is what kind of seafood are americans

eating, and is it caught or raised, farmed sustainablely? host: juliet eilperin is the white house correspondent for the "washington post," the first reporter this week to write about this expansion effort in the pacific. let's go to marlon waiting in texas on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think that this is another example of the most incompetent president in the history of this country. i don't believe anybody has ever lived with more incompetent and has shown it time and time again. he an't -- this area that has declared, because we don't have the money, and i don't think congress will grant him the money, even if we had to borrow it from the chinese. thank you. host: marlon echoing some of the concern we saw earlier from members of congress. guest: right, and it's worth noting, for example, there is significant opposition to other aspects of what obama has done on the oceans.

there's something called the national ocean policy, which he issued through an executive order during his first term. there have been efforts in congress to, for example, limit the amount of money he can spend to enforce that policy. and in very rare occasions, i should note, for example, with one monument designation under woodrow wilson, congress did pare back the boundaries. you know, you could see some effort in congress, but given the makeup and given, for example, the president's willingness to use veto authority to veto his veto power, you know, that might be a tough road, but you can see activities either there or through appropriations as your caller is alluding to. host: on the ocean policy you bring up, can you discuss the issue of ocean zones that's caused so much concern? guest: that's fairly central to what the national ocean policy is about. it's really looking at coordinating activity among federal agencies, as well as state and local agencies, to reconcile the competing interests in the sea, whether you're talking about wind

power, drilling, fishing, recreational activity, so this policy, which took place in the first term, has set up a regional planning process. we've seen it make certain advances, particularly in new england and midatlantic, they're furthest along. there's certainly questions about whether some other regions are as eager to adopt it, and there is a funding shortage which really is impeding some of the efforts to enact it fully. host: john smith has a concern. he says this law or this expansion will make seafood prices go up and put american fishermen out of work. guest: well, i think that that's something that needs to be analyzed and will be analyzed. it's unclear how much, again, given that it's a small portion of the catch, what are the ripple effects, and i have not seen statistics on, for example, how many americans are working on these u.s. vessels. certainly that's something i would imagine they would look at, and the industry could provide some input on the sense

of, will they actually stop fishing or will they fish elsewhere? one thing that is also interesting to note, when george w. bush created the first marine monument that he created in hawaii, there were eight fishermen that actually caught fish there, and at that point, they received a very generous payout from u.s. taxpayers. they were offered financial compensation from environmentalists. they ultimately ended up turning to senator daniel inoue in getting a significant amount of money from americans to compensate them for the fact that they would not be fishing there. host: do we know what the actual total was? guest: that's something i'm researching right now. i would like to look into it. it was something that happened without that much fanfare. host: we're talking with juliet eilperin. we've got a few more minutes with her to talk about this ocean expansion, this effort to create what would be the largest area of protected ocean out in the pacific. let's go to gregory, waiting in annapolis, maryland. gregory, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, gregory.

turn down your tv and go ahead with your question or comment. oip ok, no problem. -- caller: ok, no problem. host: we're still with you, gregory. go ahead. caller: yeah. hello? host: yeah, gregory, go ahead. caller: ok. i wanted to talk to her. i think what you said about the weight in the ocean is very important, because the way -- most weight of anything and a lot of people don't realize it, the sharks and everything, but us o wanted to talk about eeling now, a better construction so we don't have oil spills to kill all our fish. and the other thing i want her to respond to is as far as nuclear tests underwater that

been going on, that a lot of people don't know about, but that has a lot of effect, and we really have to come together as, like we said, not only the united states has to come together, it's the whole world, because we all on the planet that we don't realize that if we destroy our planet, nobody is going to be in here. host: can you take on a few of his concerns? guest: well, i think in terms behalf he was talking about, shipping oil, that is certainly the united states has addressed in the past, particularly in the wake of the exxon valdez spill, ships were transporting oil and were required to have double hulls to protect against those accidents, and i'm quite concern that the interior department has been looking at some of those issues in the wake of the oil spill in the gulf of mexico, although, again, that was caused by something else. so i think that's something people are looking at, one pointed that might be worth noting is the united states

controls under, again, the exclusive economic zone, a great err part of the sea than any other country on earth, roughly 13%. that's one of the reasons why we can play such a significant role in making these designations. host: he expressed some concerns about underwater nuclear testing. guest: yes, i have to say i'm not familiar with those tests, so i wouldn't comment on that. host: go to pat waiting in pennsylvania, on our line for independents. pat, good morning. caller: good morning. o wanted to ask ms. eilperin t speak about the dead zones that are created by this big al occur tour, and i wonder if any effort -- by this big agriculture, and i wonder if any effort is being put into reining that back. guest: sure. the dead zones your caller is referring to is the area in the sea that are caused primarily by nutrient runoff, in part by, for example, farming practices on land. what we saw is that was

certainly a subject of debate in the conference that the state department hosted. they looked at primarily two forms of pollution, plastic debris, but also the issue of nutrient runoff. we've seen, under the obama administration, an effort to address some of those issues through the environmental protection agency. there have been concerns raised by farmers, but it's an area that both scientists as well as federal and state regulators are looking at, because they are concerned about the impacts that you have on the ocean when you have that runoff taking place. host: another form of pollution that came up, carbon pollution, impact of climate change on the ocean. here's a little bit more from secretary of state john kerry talking about the impact that climate change is having on the ocean. >> we need to develop a plan that gives us a better understanding of the acidification effect, that carbon pollution is having in our ocean, that we know that in the antarctic, for instance, there was a regurgitation of carbon dioxide. have we reached the saturation point? i don't know, but i know that

it's a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and to maintain the oceans. we ought to be able to know where it's happening, how quickly it's happening, so we can find the best way to slow it down. and we need to push harder, all of us, for u.n. agreement, to fight carbon pollution in the first place, because the science proves that's the only way we'll have a chance of reducing the impact of climate change, which is one of the greatest threats facing not just our ocean, but our entire planet. host: juliet eilperin, can you talk a little bit more about what the obama administration is doing on the issue of climate change, specifically as it relates to the oceans? guest: they have had a pretty active program in recent years, so they've been researching the impact the increasing acidity of the ocean on shell fish, on other commercially important fish, particularly in the pacific northwest, in alaska, so that's one thing they've been doing for quite a while.

host: how does it relate to acidfication? guest: sure. the ocean absorb a large amount. estimates vary, but let's say roughly 40% of the carbon we emit into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. in some ways that's good, because it curbs the warm we see. but what it's done is, over time, it's changing the p.h. of the ocean. when it becomes morass sidic, it's harder for calcium carbonate creatures to form their shells, and there's real concern over about what this does to oysters that are being farmed off the coast of oregon and washington and so forth. and so not only have we seen research and more money announced by the united states to support research into this issue, but also a support for both our own program, but global. there's a global ocean coordinating center based in monaco. we're supporting that, too. they're going to start with that, and they also say that, clearly, a number of countries, including the united states, need to reduce their carbon emissions to make sure that that is not accelerated.

host: time for a few more calls this morning. let's go to john in oklahoma city, oklahoma, on our line for democrats. caller: yes, thank you. i'm really concerned about this lady. she seems so unconcerned about the fukushima radiation. there's a picture of a two-headed whale that was on the shore recently. i realize that when i was in hawaii, that fukushima will affect tourism in hawaii down the road. this is a very unique and very convenient timing to do this protection, actually it's to hide what's going to happen with that radiation once it starts hitting hawaii. host: very concerned about fukushima. guest: there's clearly a lot of concern about folks watching this program. i've not seen reports of what impact that's had on this area from the researchers and the experts who have traveled to this area. none of them have described that as one of their concerns. it doesn't mean that it's not affecting things, and certainly

we've also even seen debris from the tsunami in japan wash up on american shores. it certainly has ripple effects, and in many ways, it's a reminder of how the ocean is interconnected and something that happens very far away can actually have effects much closer to home. host: how much travel have you done through that area? did you do any when you were writing your book? guest: unfortunately, i did not have a chance to go to this particular part of the world. i did spent a significant time in the pacific, both off the coast of papua new guinea, indonesia, china, japan, to, in fact, i went to the area that was hardest hit by the tsunami in the course of researching my book, but a few years before that happened, because that's actually the center of shark fishing in japan. i traveled a great deal, but one of the things that i wrote about in my book is how i've not had a chance to go to some of these areas, including in the northwestern hawaiian islands, but it's on my list to do. host: "demon fish travels through the hidden world of sharks" is the books.

let's go to edward in virginia on our line for republicans. edward, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, edward. caller: ok. i know you have a brief time. i'll try to make it quick. over a period of time, i picked p from the news on fox the plane that disappeared made it more obvious to everybody in the ocean as they searched, they said the indian ocean was full of debris, so much trash in there, and several months back last year, they showed debris, the water on a lot of the islands around the world, so much debris. on top of that, in the newspaper, the "usa today," it said that there's -- the chemicals that are run down from the mountains from san francisco into the bay, and i called and talked to a federal agent out there in california, and i asked her, what are you going to do with the mercury that stays around longer than 10,000 years? she said, sir, just eat fish sparingly. and i said they're still getting the mercury.

she said mercury causes your they're fall out and cause yous to tremble. i don't know in the plant that i worked in lynchburg, virginia, when they take all the mercury boxes out of the ceiling because they said they were poison. host: edward, we've got about a meant left. i want to give juliet time to respond to his concerns. guest: he's absolutely right. in fact, i believe secretary kerry referred to this idea that the search for the missing airliner did highlight the level of debrees there is in the ocean, as well as the limits of our understanding of what's going on there. there's just no question, and you've seen debris, again, not as much of an issue in the area that we're talking about for this designation, but there is a great deal of debris that affects sea birds, as well as fish. in terms of mercury pollution, certainly that's an issue, again, mercury ends up in the sea, and particularly accumulate in large fish, which is why when people are concerned about that, they might want to consider eating smaller fish as opposed to, when you do eat tuna, swordfish and other large, predatory

fish, keep in mind there's a higher amount of mercury in those fish as opposed to smaller ones. host: juliet eilperin, white house correspondent for the "washington post," author of "demon fish travels through the hidden world of sharks." thanks so much for getting up with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: that's our show for this saturday morning. we'll see you right back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today on c-span, a senate hearing on high-speed stock transactions, followed by some of the

on the health care launch implementation. the thesis of the book is that there is a whole group of people in america that is being ignored, let he high-end, not included in the discussion. . i would argue the republican party. i collect blue-collar conservatives. most of these do not have college degrees. they still understand the value and importance of work and family andity and fat those aree. conservative