about whether congress shut reauthorize the export-import bank. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. good morning, everyone on this wednesday, august 6th. president obama at the first africa summit announced $33 billion in new economic partnerships between u.s. companies and african countries, about 100 u.s. countries were represented at tuesday's event. the summit continues today with discussion on african businesses and politics as well as social issues. the president will close the summit with a news conference. look for coverage on c-span. we'll begin here today on the "washington journal" with your thoughts on the southern border, whether president obama should act alone on the issue. republicans (202) 585-3881,

democrats (202) 585-3880, and independents, all others, (202) 585-3882. you can send us a tweet. or you can go to facebook.com, or send us an e-mail. before the house acted on their border legislation last week president obama held a news conference on friday, and this is what he had to say about executive action. >> we all agree that there's a problem that needs to be solved in a portion of our southern border. and we even agree on most of the solutions. but instead of working together, instead of focusing on the 80% where there is agreement between democrats and republicans, between the administration and congress, house republicans as we speak are trying to pass the most extreme and unworkable versions of a bill that they already know is going nowhere.

that can't pass the senate, and that if it were to pass the senate, i would veto. they know it. they're not even trying to solve the problem. this is a message bill that they couldn't quite pull off yesterday so they made it more extreme so maybe they can pass it today. just so they can check a box before they're leaving town for a month. without additional resources and help from congress, we're not going to have the resources we need to fully solve the problem. that means while they're out on vacation, i'm going to have to make tough choices to meet the challenge with or without congress. host: president obama at the house yesterday talking about the issue of unaccompanied

minors. what are your thoughts? should the president act alone during this august recess while congress is back in their district? and then they come back for 12 days in september and adjourn again before the november elections. joining us on the phone is lisa herrer, white house correspondent. obama eyes limits of executive power and immigration move. lisa herrer what is the president thinking about doing . >> he could say, for example, that the parents of the so-called dreamers, minors that were born and brought to the state, brought to this country when they were young children illegally, that were given permission to stay by executive order, the president issued in 2011, that the parents of those kids could remain in the country and have work permits basically that they wouldn't be a high

priority for deportation while other illegal immigrants potentially people with criminal record or something like that would be prioritized, focused on more strenuous. so he could do things like that, change various programs. what he can't do is really do a lot of the things that the senate and house wanted to do when lawmakers were talking about doing legislation, changing how the visa system works, things like that, are not within the president's power. but he can -- host: it sounds like he can tweak law that is on the -- that are on the books now. >> well, he has to enforce the law. he said himself he can't not simply not deport anyone. has to enforce the law. the question is how he prioritizes doing that. host: okay. what about money? how would he address that issue? >> right now, the money issue, there is, you know, he requested $3.7 million to help with the

minors who have been coming across the southern border. the influx of over 50,000 new illegal immigrants who have come down there. he didn't get that money, it didn't pass through congress. that's what he was talking about in his press conference. they left for a recess. he didn't get that. what they're doing to deal with that problem now is reallocating the resources they have. the white house says they should deal with the problem. host: when will the president decide on what action he's taking and who in the administration will give him those options? >> well, right now the department of homeland security who has been conducting the review for several months of what his options are that process was complicated slightly by this crisis at the southern border with these migrant children coming through. that's still going on. so the president said he will review his options by the end of

summer, so the expectation is he'll get that report back sometime in the next couple weeks and we'll see a policy with sort of a big question about whether he would do something like this before the midterm elections. some democrats in his party, particularly those running in competitive races, like arkansas or louisiana have urged the president not to act unilaterally. they said he should wait for congress. others, like people running in colorado, governor's races in florida, you know, areas with a larger latino operation said the president should act unilaterally. the party is split on what he needs to do. that's a reflection on the politics. but the expectation now is that he will come out with something before the midterms. host: what about immigration advocates? what do they want the president to do? >> they are pushing for legislation for a long time. they still would prefer legislation because that gives more certainty to people, but at

this point a lot of them, not everyone, but a fair amount said look, this isn't -- we understand that legislation isn't going to happen, there's no way. maybe there's a window after the midterm, you know, in the lame duck congress but probably not going to happen then. so they just want relieve now. so they would like a lot of them, many of them would like the president to stay off deportation for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who would get relief under the senate bill. they're pushing for the president to give work to a large number of illegal immigrants. we'll see if he goes that far. the question at this point is what the scope of his ruling is, how many people it includes, what are the categories of people included. many add very it cats would like to see him do everybody. >> all right, lisa lerer. thank you for your time. we return to all of you, what

are your thoughts on this? should the president act alone on the southern border crisis? trisha is up first. independent caller. what are your thoughts? caller: hi, good morning. i am not in favor of the president acting alone on this. i think that that is not what his decision would be, the way that he's leaning, he's wanting to move is not going to be in the interests of our country. but i'm also very disappointed in our representatives who have decided to take a six week holiday instead of dealing with this issue that we need to get taken care of. i'm equally disappointed in the president and our senators and congressmen, and we need leadership. we need leadership on this

issue. i'm sure we've heard a lot about the ebola and different diseases coming in, you know, the different countries, and they are a real threat to our country if we are having illegal immigrants coming across the border, we don't know the threat that these people can pose to our country, and just that aspect alone. host: okay. caller: so -- host: you think they should have stayed and dealt with the issue. trisha what do you want -- what would you want congress and the president to do? do you want deportation accelerated? do you want them to be sent back? caller: yes. i think we have, you know, we have a system in this country for allowing immigrants to come in who want to build a better life for themselves, for their future generations, that's wonderful. that's great. we're -- all of us, most everyone except for the native-americans are immigrants

to this country. no one has a problem with that, if it's done legally. if not, it just poses so many problems, and so much of us are -- our national security that we don't know who is coming into this country or what their agendas are. host: okay. all right. trisha, we'll hear from richie next in new york, republican caller. what are your thoughts? caller: yes. my feeling is this. we black people we have been hoodwinkerred all these years and now they're getting ready to do it to mexicans. this immigration nonsense is about november, and the votes. if mention i can't voters say we want to listen to the republicans for a few minutes before we make our decision that border would be shut down quick, fast and in a hurry. host: robert in, arizona, good

morning, robert. caller: yeah, this is democratic caller. please do not shut me off. host: democratic caller from, arizona, go ahead. >> i would like to state some facts and have people listen to me, okay? there's always going to be problems about borders, okay? s there always going to be issues about several rights and rights of people of humanity. but let know say this, okay? when people get steve felled so much, and initially this land or this -- what we're talking about set up as borders, actually belong to them for many, many, many years, it's very discouraging and it's very, very discomforting to have people that -- and we experienced this here in southern arizona. i'm making examples, okay?

one good example is when our culture has been here for many years, our culture has derived in many cases from what people have been noted to call indian, okay? >> the people that are called indian are not really indians, they're americans. they were here. they should be americans, is that correct? host: that's what you think, robert. >robert. caller: okay. and if they are americans, i detest the fact that they continually get called indians, okay? everything is political, and that's the slickest political move i ever heard of. host: robert what does this have to do with the southern border and the situation there? caller: d don't you understand ? it's an idea of giving a little bit of dignity, having been here. your relatives, your culture, everything has been here before. okay?

now, don't screw up everybody's life on account of political votes. host: okay. got it, robert. daniel in reno, nevada. independent call. caller: hi. i'm in support of the person that -- giving -- host: you want to act alone, executive action? caller: yes, because congress have created bad example. yes. host: okay. all right, danielle yule you got to turn your television off. a reminder to overone calling in today. we're getting your thoughts from president obama whether or not he should act alone on the border. he said friday before the houseage passed legislation that he would now have to take action before -- he'll get recommendations from the homeland security department by the end of the summer and take some sort of action on his own ahead of the midterm elections. so here is what senator jeff

sessions, republican, who is the top republican on the judiciary committee had to say, used to be on judicially committee, he said on the senate floor yesterday about this. >> now the largely covert actions by the president are open and blatant and he's announced them. he's told the world that with a stroke of his pen he will by presidential directive, by executive order, provide legal status to 5 million to 6 million people unlawfully in the country today. all this contrary to long established law. but there's more. he has said that he will issue in effect legal work authorization cards, identification cards, and allow them to workings give them work permits. surely we know that the president cannot make law. congress makes law. as chief executive the president

executes, carries out and enforces law. this we learned in grade school. this constitutional construct is not a small matter. host: senator sessions on the floor. republican yesterday talking about the president acting on his own, saying he should not do that, that it violates the constitution. before the president made those comments on friday, the house later was debating their own legislation, then later they approved it. here is what is in the house package. $694 million for the southern border, $35 million of that would be for the national guard. $22 million to hiring new temporary immigration judges. $197 million for the department of homeland security to house these unaccompanied minors and take care of them. and it would also prevent the president from expanding daco, the deferred action for child arrivals.

that is the legislation, the rule the president made, which provides a two year work permit for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the u.s. as children before 2007. so the house acting to limit the president's powers on that issue. but also putting some ideas out there of what they would like to see happen on the southern border. we turn to all of you. if the president does act alone, what do you think he should do? vincent in tacoma, washington, democratic call her. hi, vincent, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i think the president should include these refugee young people on the border into our country, to be honest with you. i think this country is a humanitarian country. we've always been that way. the original people here was native-americans, and all of us

who was forced to come here on a slave ship, whatever, came from other country, all of us. and then there are those who came from ireland that had a pretty rough start to their stay here. but there's always been problems with any kind of new immigrants coming into this country. but this is a for giving country, and we welcome all who come to this border. that's what it says on -- on the statue of liberty, pretty much. host: all right, vincent. mark in kentucky, republican caller, what do you think? caller: i don't think there's any question ever put before this country that one person should ever make. i think that we're better than that. i think that the framers of our constitution had no intention of ever any one person making a decision. but, no one talks about it, but all these people from the panama

canal north wants to come to america. i think our mill irteary should invade their county and i think we should take it and they should all become american, and i think we should take the corrupt governments and put them out of business. there would be plenty of workings plenty of business and all the jobs would be down there so those people can stay down there. host: all right, mark. rand paul, the republican from kentucky is on a swing through the state of iowa, and the "washington post" reporting on it this morning saying it's no secret in iowa that he's contemplating a run for 2016. the reporter says that paul made a hasty exit. he was visibly chewing as he stood up to leave. it goes on to say after paul executed himself from the situation he talked with a handful of reporters about ten feet away. the moment that paul and any

other republican aspirant will face in building a coalition, while inincorporating the party's more extreme elements. was to blame president obama and focus on his vows to take executive action. his report from rand paul saying i think we could do some kind of reform but you don't do it by royal edict, he said. you can't have a king doing it. that is from senator rand paul, republican. and then you have martin o'malley, the democratic governor of maryland, who is also a potential 2016 contender telling fusion tv he's seriously considering a run, and here is the headline on him in the "washington times" this morning. o'malley works to aid border children. the governor is courting hispanic votes. the state of maryland is the sixth state on the list of states taking in these unaccompanied children, these

minors and also the mothers of thein had. he said tuesday that the governor is working to try to get the children legal assistance and working on ways to make sure they can get health care. the court rulings have previously established the children have a right to public schooling and the aid said maryland is offering assistance to local school districts. goes on to say that mr. o'malley said he's looking at a run for the white house with hispanic voters expected to be a major focus for both parties. his stance on keeping the children in the u.s. could separate him from others in the field. the potential candidate, clinton initially reacted to the surge by calling for children to be deported as a way of sending a signal that illegal immigration wouldn't be tolerated. a little bit of the politics for you this morning in the paper. let's go to christopher in illinois, independent caller. what do you think? should the president act alone? caller: that's an interesting

question. first of all, i'm an independent, and i -- thank you for my call, by the way. i don't think that the president of the united states actually makes really 100% of any decision, not really. it's of course because he has lots of help to do these things, and he stepped into a very big problem that's been going on with this country for a very long time. and i also in my opinion think that the crisis at the southern border, there is a problem and so what do we do? we have two choices, right? either we take these children in, we take in all these people's children, and we take care of them, which we don't define everyone -- america does

not have the money to afford this, but on the counter side of this problem, how do you think they would feel if we sent our children there? do you think they would take care of ours? host: okay. all right. caller: that's basically my point. thank you. host: ann in new hampshire, democratic caller. what are your thoughts? caller: i just think he's doing the right thing. the only time president obama can get anything done is through executive action, because of the congress that he's stuck with. so in order for him to -- i wish he had used unemployment benefits for people that are going down the tubes that way, and i just agree with what he's done. i used to be an independent, but it was harder and harder to find a republican that was worth voting for, so i am now a democrat, and i hope everybody remembers the no congress when it's time to vote in their congressman. host: saying that the president should act alone. using the executive power on its

immigration issue. she says the president -- she wishes the president had done more on other issues. this is from the "washington post" this morning. the u.s. officials good for rash of corporate -- bracing for a new wave of corporations to renounce their citizenships, depriving the federal government of billions of dollars of tax revenues and stoking public outrage ahead of the elections. so far this year about a dozen u.s. companies, including metronic and others emerged with foreign firmed and shifted their headquarters offshore to avoid u.s. taxes. treasury secretary jacob lew yesterday announced that the president could take executive action on this issue. here is what he had to say. >> let me be clear. we have made clear for years we want our tax code to have incentives for investing in the united states and disincentives for taking business out of the united states. on the question of conversions, i use language in my letter that is pretty strong. i said we should have checkmate

rotis im here. it's not right to taken an america firm to benefit from all of the things that we do in the united states to make it a safe place to do business. but to say i don't want to pay taxes here, to shift my corporate address overseas to pay a lower tax rate, my letter says the best way to deal with this is through comprehensive business tax reform and we have a plan out there that would accomplish mum tie bell goals, as you and i discussed, that we do business tax reform, lower business tax rate, provide resources to pay for infrastructure investment and fix the problem that is causing inversion. my letter yesterday night said was that we cannot afford to wait. we need to send a signal that if we can't get comprehensive business tax reform done we need to act on this question of inversion and we need to do it now, and we need to do it retroactively so businesses don't rush to do those transactions. host: treasury secretary jacob lew talking about the admin taking executive action.

here is the headline in "usa today's" money section. walgreen expected to reject tax inversion. that in "usa today" on that issue. we're going to keep taking your thoughts this morning on whether president obama should act alone on the southern border, dealing with that situation down there, the influx of unaccompanied minors and mothers and children crossing the border from central america. but first let me go through yesterday's primary results in kansas, we'll begin there, with the hutchinson news. the headline, voters go with incumbents, long serving roberts, senator pat roberts, prevails over the tea party challengerrer, milton wolf. you have in the fourth district, mike pompano beat back a challenge. and in the first district,

people watching tim hills camp, as well. the incumbent, congressman there, who lost some high profile seats on the agriculture committee and budget committee after disagreeing and opposing speaker john boehner. so he holds off a challenger there in kansas. politico.com has the results if you want to go through there, you can click through all the different ones, you can see there pat roberts beating his challenger by about 8% there in kansas. you can click through all of them to see the different results. if you go to michigan, you can go through the different districts there, debbie dingell is going to be going to congress to replace her husband, who is retiring from his seat. so those are many of the election results. if you go to political.com. let me show you other headlines. here is the detroit free press out of michigan.

congressman john conyers easily survives his primary challenge. many of you might have known he didn't have enough signatures that he was working on signatures to get on the ballot. he's poised to become the dean of the u.s. house. he defeated his opponent in the 13th district in michigan, "detroit free press" with their front page this morning. and then out of missouri, you can see here that in the fourth congressional district, the incumbent wins with 74% of the vote. again, go to political.com if you want to see more of the election results, get into the numbers of those primaries that folks were watching. we'll go next to kenneth in allentown, pennsylvania, an independent caller. we're talking about president obama acting on his own. kenneth, what do you think? good morning, you're on the air. kenneth, in allentown, pennsylvania, your last call. all right, let me move on to

david in louisiana, republican caller. hi, david. caller: i would like to -- host: david, i'm going to have to have you call back. mike in georgia, democratic caller, hi, mike. caller: yes. i think one of the worst -- i think you're not evenhanded in the way you handle calls. i think you notice when republicans call you allow them to voice their opinions to the full measure, and even the last republican was speaking about another country and taking it over, you not your head. once a democrat starts speaking about president obama your hand shoots to the right and you cut them off, saying you got their point. my call really is to answer some of the comments i've heard, the caller a couple days or yesterday talking about how white people are on the siege,

and there was a white congressional congress, people would be calling it racist. and seeing the immigration policy that people are clamoring for hispanics, white people did that, they would call them racist. it demonstrates the lack of historical knowledge and the ignorance out there. for centuries it's been almost a white only immigration policy in this country. and as far as the congress, the entire senate is made up of mostly white people, only a couple black people. one was actually appointed. and this is ignorant of all these facts, really. congressional black caucus, the tea party is white caucus for the most part. you know, i mean just a lot of ignorance out there, and they

make the white victimization comments. i love all people. host: to your point, let me read this from allen gomez, to your point, this is a column in usa today. the gop won't face immigration backlash. there are two reasons for that, the first reason is immigration. hispanics don't make up a beg enough segment of voting block. in the vast majority of congressional races to make a difference. democrats and republicans are in an all out battle for the control of the senate. theories 12 senate races wheres to ups are close. hispanics make up 12% of the race. identified just 24 republican held house districts where hispanics could play a pivotal role in the elections.

the firm found the incumbents were unlikely to be heard by their immigration votes in november. and it also goes on to say, that democrats don't do a good job of getting the latino vote out, getting them signed up to vote and getting them to turn out at the polls. those are two reasons why the gop won't face immigration backlash at the polls. we're asking all of you, what do you think? should president obama act alone on this issue of the southern border? the "washington post" editorial weighs in this morning and says no. congressional paralysis does not empower the president to act unilaterally. hopelessly party sanity and incapable of problem solving. that doesn't grant the president license to tear up the constitution. goes on to say -- he is considering extending temporary protection from deportation to millions of illegal immigrants,

including the parents of u.s. born children. conceivably this would give democrats a political boost in 2016. just as conceivably it would trigger constitutional showdown with congressional republicans who can make argument that mr. obama overstepped his authority. the "washington post" editorial saying the president should not act alone. barbara in texas, independent caller, barbara what do you think? should the president act alone? caller: no, he should not. host: why not? caller: okay. if people would study our constitution, study what the president supposed to do, we have passed laws, the laws are on the books. the only thing he can do by executive order is to carry out those laws. this is what executives orders are. only to carry out the laws that congress has passed.

and this is where most people they hear stuff on the news, they hear their congressman talk, but they don't know the law. and if people would study the law they would realize we have three branches of government, each branch does a certain thing. and if the president goes in and does this unilaterally he is overstepping his authority. host: okay. republican caller, what do you think? caller: i think the president doesn't have -- we shouldn't have the power to be able to do this. this country accepts over a million people in this country legally. that's a slap in the face. when we already accepted over 500,000 people that we can't afford to keep, we can't afford to feed them. we have our own problems here that he's not fixing and he's doing this for his purpose. he knows exactly what he's doing. i don't think he has the authority. let me set one thing straight.

everybody is calling him out the first afro-american president. he's not. he's not the first president. he's the first buy racial president. >> lisa, texas, democratic caller had. sosa, did morning. caller: good morning. i don't think president obama should take executive actions like that. i think he -- he's not very popular right about now. and my heart goes out to those kids and the comments from off the border, my heart really does, but i look at it, the people that's trying to come here legally, and it is making it harder on them. by him doing that that's creating more problem between republicans, independents and democrats. and i really don't think he should do that. he should wait on congress, doing something like that is going to crow ought a bigger problem. host: okay. in south plainfield, in, independent caller. good morning.

what do you think? caller: i think a now -- i think it was last year that they was immigration bill passed in the senate, and that bill was going to take care of all the problems we are having on the border now. the republican house refused to take that bill up. and if they take that bill up there would have been more people at the border, more guards at the border, we would have been able to stop people from coming in. they did not do it. they refused to do it because they don't want to work with the president. but the president in his sense i would not -- i would not take executive action, not because i disagree with it, but because the house has to take responsibility for what's going on in the border. they don't want to take it. but what's going on in the border now lies clearly on the shoulders of the republican held house. they did not pass that bill, and

they need to take responsibility and those children need to be taken care of, and they need to be represented, maybe some of them will go back, and maybe some of them will stay. and whatever we do in this country, there is going to be a backlash against us because we don't have faith in our selfs, we don't have hope, and we are not charitable anymore and it makes us look so bad. host: here is reaction from capitol hill from members of congress on twitter last week and recently. here is the congressman who says in the dark of night republicans are voting to deport dreamers and make every undocumented i'll grant deportable. you have other congressmen weighing in, as well on twitter, and that's from congressman who you know has been a big advocate for immigration reform.

john cornyn, a republican from texas. you are in a hole, quit digging. and then representative barbara lee from california, house gop border crisis is heartless. here is a better idea, pass immigration reform. and a congressman says i voted against anti-dream erbils, republicans pointlessly passed through the house late last night. some of the reaction from capitol hill from members of congress on twitter about this debate over what to do about the southern border. president obama on friday saying that he thinks he's going to have to act alone and could do so by the end of summer. we have a few minutes left. we'll keep taking your thoughts on this. first joining us on the phone is deon this enbaum, u.s. general killed in afghan attack.

>> let me say there is a lot of shack and sadness in afghanistan and washington over the incident, what they know is a man and a -- an afghan army uniform believed to be a soldier opened fire on a group of high-ranking western officials who were visiting a military training center in kabul yesterday. and at least 14 people were injured, and major general harold green, who was one of the key u.s. generals over there, working on the transition plan, was killed. the attacker was killed in the incident, and the military sort of trying to sort out the facts about exactly who he was and what his motivation was and what may have triggered the attack.

host: one of the papers noting this morning this is the first time since the vietnam war that an army general has been killed in combat. was there adequate security for this event? >> the pentagon isn't saying, you know. these kinds of attacks, they're called the insider attacks usually, really spiked in 2012. that year there were more than 60 attacks like this. primarily americans, and at that time, the military tried to enact a bunch of changes. they added the so-called guard and angle so that you would have people on military bases that had weapons, when they didn't before. and that really had reduced the number of attacks like these in recent years. so we don't know exactly what happened here. the early indications were that this soldier fired from a

building down onto these group of officers, including general groan, as they were touring the facility. that's the early indication. i think everybody wants to know if enough protection was provided. host: what do we know about general green? >> he was a career army officer. he had been in the military for 30 years. he was a military family, served in the civil war, his son is in the military, his wife is retired military. he was sort of a quiet warrior, i would say. this was his first combat mission. he went over there in january. he was -- he was one of these people that helps move things around and was training the afghan army to do the same.

so. host: what impact does this have on the draw down of troops in afghanistan, and what was the response from president karzai. >> president karzai came out and condemned the attack pretty quickly. we did see a lot of talk in the pentagon yesterday about what this would mean, and both here and in kabul the u.s. generals were saying this was not going to have an impact on the draw down. we are in the process of scaling back the operations, winding up major operations by the end of this year, and the plan if the next afghan president agrees to it is have about 10,000 american troops in the country for the next two years at least, to conduct limited training operations and limited counter-terrorism operations,

countering al-qaeda in the region, and at this point american officials are trying to assure us it won't have a significant impact on that. i think this is the beginning of a new state of insider attacks, and if these grow maybe there would be more of a significant evaluation. for right now, they're saying that they're going to continue with the plan even though it's a very tragic incident for the u.s. military. host: all right, thank you very much for your time this morning. appreciate it. >> anytime. host: we have a few minutes left here and we'll get more phone calls in. first a quick walk through some of the morning headlines this morning. front page of "the new york times," you probably heard this, the russian hackers have stolen the passwords of over a billion users. the data is still vulnerable, 420,000 sites big and small were targeted. inside "the new york times" it has a q&a about this story, and

it says if you are worried that you might be one of those whose password was jeopardized you probably are, it says, and to go and change your passwords. business day section of "the new york times," after push back fox abandons pursuit of time warner. the chief executive of time warner received an unexpected e-mail. i'm writing to inform you that we are withdrawing our offer to acquire time warner, effective immediately. sincerely, ruppert murdoch. the hand-delivered letter bearing the same message arrived soon after. thus ended the what was shaping as the biggest media meringer. that in the papers this morning. on russia, the "wall street journal," defiant putin steps up

pressure on the ukraine and putting more troops along the border there. you have this headline in "the new york times," putin urges economic retaliation for sanctions over the ukraine conflict. so that is the latest out of russia. republican caller, darrell you're a couple phone calls here, one of the last. what do you think about this? should president obama act alone? caller: no, ma'am, i'm retired military, and i'm appalled that the coverage of everything, the senate, harry reid gets up and says, you know, the do nothing republicans. well the republicans sent over 240 bills that he has pushed forward but yet the ignorance of most american people in the states that -- blue states that elected -- basically you're not the president of the united states with the electoral college, which is another ignore apartment thing in this country.

he is the president of eight states. but you hear congressman go on about the border patrol sits about 15 to 20 miles off the border. i grew up in south texas. they don't really do anything anyway. as far as unilateral actions, basically it is the -- those of us who care against the majority of people that will not get educated on laws. we have a do nothing attorney general who is basically declared war against the constitution. and we have a bell at court system that is fractionalilized, and you know in different things, and it just -- it's just not working anymore because they will not do law. look at the price of your house. look at the cost of your jobs. i just want to thank the educational system for making these such ignorant people because all they do -- host: we got your point. we'll move on to eric in

maryland, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just calling because i definitely disagree, you know, i agree with the last caller, i grew up in old town, and you know, the fact is right now it's -- they allowed over 700% illegals into maryland alone. 135,000 in virginia now. the old town that i've grown up in i can no longer -- this is a fact. it is completely taken over all the stores have changed over to spanish stores. if i walk down the street there i'm looked at as a foreigner myself in the united states. i was trying to get an apartment in the local area here. i had to call at that point i guess -- host: but eric what does that have to do with the southern border? caller: it has everything to do, because everybody wants to talk about this compassion. first of all, the majority,

whether they're children or not, they're -- most of the illegals that are coming in here don't care about the country, let alone children coming in here to be with parents. an illegal that saved up her money in the united states to have her kids brought in ear. i mean, what are we saying? host: okay. all right. we're going to take a short break. when we come back we're going to be talking with weekly standard editor, brings kristol about foreign politics. toledo ohio has become the latest city impacted by major disruption of its water supply. we'll talk with melissa harrison about why it happened and if the problem is spreading. we'll be right back.

on the situation in ukraine. sunday on q a, ronald reagan biographer, edmund morris. c-span two's become tv this weekend, friday night at eight earn, with books on marriage equality, the bam's firsts the clintons and the autobiography of marion berry, junior. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, bob woodward interviews. sunday afternoon at 5:00, anthony marks, president and ceo of the library sheds light on the libraries past, frequen pred

future. american history tv on c-span three this weekend. friday night at eight eastern, watergate, 40 years later with a cbs special report and president nixon's address to the nation. saturday at noon eastern, a live call in program, with author and journalist john ferrel on nixon's scandal that ended his administration. sunday night at 8:00 on the series, the presidency, gerald ford becomes the 38t 38th president of the united states. this weekend on c-span three american history tv. we ended with our viewers, and that is the immigration bill. congress didn't do anything. so i'm going to act alone. should the gop -- how should the gop respond, if he does that? >> first of all, the "washington

post" reports out, it's not a question of whether you like or don't like particular policies, it really is a really radical and i think almost unprecedented and illegitimate use of presidential power to suddenly amnesty, four or 5 million people, no one ever thought -- president obama himself never said it one or two years ago. it's not an excuse if congress chooses not to go along with it. secondly the house of representatives did pass two bills that address the border crisis. president obama doesn't like them, he threatened to veto them. the house of representatives did pass legislation. let's see if the senate takes it up. i think what republicans will say if president obama does this, this is kind of presidential amnesty and why we need a house -- and really not just excessive but as i say

really almost unprecedented and not the kind of use of presidential power our system envisions. secondly, i think the house will say we passed legislation that stops the president from doing this, that sort of reverses this executive order ahead of time, and let the senate take it up. host: the paper yesterday "washington post" i believe it was, today "usa today" notes when you look at how the district breaks down there's not going to be a lot of backlash for the gop on this immigration issue because the hispanic vote makes up a very small portion. and even less so in some of these contested races. so what does that mean for beyond 2014, and 2016? guest: presumably people who believe in it don't believe because hispanics may be more inclined for it than other americans. i'm not sure that's true. let's have a national debate on the policy. i really don't like the kind of

ethnic politics here. the immigration bill the senate passed, which i don't like, is not just about hispanic immigration, it's about immigration for all others. i think having a healthy immigration debate is a good thing. we have different views of the way ahead right now. that's one issue, the immigration debate. there is this border crisis. i think on the border crisis president obama has a weak hand, very little question that his amnesty, first the announcement of the so-called memos in 2011 which basically indicated he wasn't going to enforce the law against youngsters, and the official announcement in 2012 spurred on people in central america to go ahead and try to send young people to the united states. they may have been miss reading the technicalities of what president obama did. and so it turns out giving people amnesty is a magnet, even if they miss read the details they think if he gets in there

they'll get amnesty three years, five years from now. so i think the conservative worries about amnesty turned out to be vindicated. and let's debate this going forward the next few months. host: the headline, last week, was business kristol to house republicans, what didn't you like about the first draft? guest: they give it a better headline than i do. i like that. the first chapter was weak, it really was. it wasn't as strong on either president obama's forthcoming executive order, or on toughening up the amnesty provisions so we can send back these kids and not just kid, adults, as quickly, obviously humanly but as quickly as possible, cut back the length of time they can delay the process and their advocates can delay the process.

they toughened up the bill. the leadership was all upset with me and overone else who was saying the bill wasn't any good. i heard directly from leadership. another objection i had to this, both parties are guilty of, and it's one reason there is so much discussed with washington this bill was drafted by leadership. unveiled tuesday, and the house republicans, the whole house to vote thursday. what kind of way is that to make serious legislation? this crisis has been going on for a month. there are committees that are supposed to have jurisdictions in these areas. you can mark up legislation, have amendments, that is the way the legislation should be passed. both party dump it on the members, and say hey, you have to vote for this. i think i was pleased that the conservatives in the house were improving the bill, and hopefully in the future we can get back to for of a regular legislative process.

the republicans in 2010 as you recall ran against this. we're going to get back to normal house. i got to say they veered away from it pretty badly. i don't think it produces good legislation. i've been involved in this a little bit over the years. if you think they're going to draft well thought through legislation in a back room without having -- the reason we have hearings, the reason we have open mark up in committees, people discover things, and there are unanticipated consequences. it's a matter of process that the conservatives derailed this and made people take another look at the legislation for 24 hours. host: let's get to callers. democratic caller you're up first for bill kristol. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. kristol. guest: good morning. caller: i watched you on the sunday shows, and i went to -- i

went to a meeting just a little while ago, and i like talking to the republicans shall and i asked them why don't we have a front door instead of a back door for all immigrants? and you had no answer. and everybody wanted to get rid of the irs, was in the audience, and i just said well, you know, are we -- they didn't want any taxes but i'm sure you have emflowers and workers on your house, i bet that their payments, their requests from you go up every year. host: ron we got several people waiting to talk to mr. kristol. can you get to your question here? caller: my question is, is that life is a moving and evolving thing and republicans think that it's stuck in the pass with everything, and they don't

allow -- i want to know why they don't allow with the world. host: on what issue specifically? give us an example. caller: let's go with the health care. why won't you allow with the health care? host: all right. guest: i mean, spent an awful lot of time with health care in the last couple years. i spent an awful lot of time, laying out a republican health care alternative, which is a pretty big change in the current system, guaranteed that you won't lose your health care if you have a preexisting condition. the real alternative to obamacare, i think a, republicans have been evolving like everyone else. these days republicans are trying to set forth a conservative reform agenda. it's the democrats who are trying to still replicate society programs, that don't

work very well. the veterans, the va is in the way, you know, it was held up by a lot of liberals. i think -- i'm happy to have a debate about which party is more committed, and which side of the aisle conservative or liberals are more committed to reform over the next two years. i think that's a good debate for conservatives. host: the recent edition of the weekly standard, the call to duty, join the army for home and country why we fought. what's this about? guest: 100th anniversary of the start of world war i. it's an interesting piece about the u.s. involvement, which obviously didn't come until two years later. and it challenges the notion that it's easy to say some wars you have to fight and other wars we choose to fight. and we shouldn't choose to fight wars. it isn't a war we had to get

involved in. the world paid a pretty big price. if you look back at the arguments for why we had to fight the war i think those arguments held for world war ii which we sat out for much too long and the cold war. interesting historical piece, i think. your

hacking armed thugs and then shoot down civilian lanes over airspace and so forth. tin feelsid that pu emboldened. to have that happen in europe is bad. andent to war in the 1990's i supported president clinton on lives, ande a lot of to establish the principle that in europe you cannot go around invading other countries or doing ethnic cleansing, even in a country that is your own. n getawaytting puti with something, and we sovereigntykraine's

when they got rid of nuclear weapons. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- theyblaming congress played it out so long with leaning bush, they are being left that. they do control the executive branch in the senate. why there is a question why our border should be controlled 9/11, this could be a smokescreen where we have a flood of people come through that is organized and 20 miles, 30 miles away, there could be some type of event taking place that is planned. --question is, do you think in your opinion, do you think president obama is incompetent or he does not care, or is it part of the plan?

some of the things happening in this country, it fis logic -- defies logic. he is the president of our country and we try to respect him and understand, but it is getting to the point where it is foggy, i doic -- not understand any of it. host: thank you. mr. kristol? run -- ithink he has do not think he is on a very tight ship. i think it is his view on things. with foreign policy, we can disagree, try to stop him -- foreign policy, he is the only president we have, and some of the stuff that he has done and not done is damaging to the country. that -- i supported intervention and ethic i was right, and a lot of republicans

did. to intervene, and then lose interest, it was too hard. there was benghazi, where we already lost interest to some degree, and now the place is in total chaos and god knows what kind of terror breeding ground it is going to be, but that is a place we intervened. that is not a war he inherited. i supported the intervention. you have to be serious once you go into somewhere. you have to expend some effort to try to see that it comes out decently. i was traveling abroad late last year, and the world thinks libya, they don't not even care about it. syria, hugely redline, an and american president, and did nothing. , john kerry flies around the middle east, president obama says he will be and he kind ofn

mocks him. i hope the republicans can win the senate, do some things on iran and prevent a bad deal there, but we basically have only one president and i worry a lot about the next two years in foreign policy. host: senator bob corker, the top republican on the foreign relations committee in the senate has an opinion piece echoing what you just said dealing with libya, syria, and situation in russia. then there is this article in "the washington times," the u.s. terror suspect list has doubled onee 2009 to more than million. chuck, you are on the line with bill kristol of "weekly standard ." go ahead, chuck. caller: i think the president has done a good job. if you read what is going on as

far as this foreign policy, there is not going to be another out liker to get stuck bush stuck out with england, and he has to get a job at the world bank. that is not going to happen. is standing alone, and he is getting a sandwich. that is all he can get. host: let's take that point, chuck. not getting cooperation from our alleys -- allies. guest: i think our allies would want a stronger presence. france would like us to be stronger. canada and australia have been strong on russia, israel, and other parts of the world. -- europethink rick has been strong on russia? economic, they have

interests at stake, but if the u.n. -- u.s. is going to go only in the median position where the u.n. allows us to, the world is gotten more dangerous. we have taken for granted american leadership that is produced on a whole a peaceful world in a much more prosperous world, and where the guarantor. -- we are the guarantor. we have taken that for granted and i think we can see how dangerous things can get and how fast when the american guarantee is viewed as not serious and not reliable. host: frank, largo, florida. independent caller. aller: i have a comment and question -- i was curious about the origins of modern i cameervativism, and across some quotes from your father in which he described himself as a neo-marxist and a

leads to theo that question couldn't the modern neoconservative movement, which until has just recently taken over the republican party, be described as nothing but a commieof this placed trotskyites? we have read your project for a new american century, and every country has either been attacked or is under attack like syria or is about to be attacked like iran. the cia is softening them up. host: let's get a response. guest: that was a document from defenses havesaid slid, terrorism would be a threat, and one year later was not 11. my father was a trotskyite as a very young man in his early-20's .

he wrote a lot of things that the caller is free to read and judge, and then became a little more conservative and the world changed as well. he became the godfather of ,eoconservatism in the 1970's which i think did help change the conservative moment in certain ways, get it to come to grips with the modern welfare state, and ended up supported think he 1980, and i has been right about a lot of these issues. not have to go back that far where -- to see where today's conservatives are coming from. i'm happy to debate foreign policy. there is no conspiracy. if we had a conspiracy to do things, as people alleged them everywhere not have published .hat document i am happy if people go back and look at the document i think it stands up and well. host: sheila. oklahoma. republican caller. caller: hi.

thank you for taking my call. my question is about the children that are coming over -- the legal children. oklahoma steel closes this friday. there were 1200. they have no idea where the children have gone. i think they're being sent to other people to take care of them. we have foster care in oklahoma where they check up on them. nobody is checking up on them. s that heard some blog they are trying to send six children to a home, $8,000 a year they will get for taking these children and -- medical care, dental care, and if they're only taking them in for the money, my concern is the children will be worse off here and there is nobody checking on them. how will anybody know what happens to demo where they are? host: all right, sheila. guest: i think that is a legitimate concern and i hope the government is keeping track of them.

obviously we are not set up to do this kind of thing, foster care -- we already have difficulties with some of the systems we have to try to take care of kids in distress already here in the u.s. and kids that are immigrating in the normal way. we have one million immigrants a year. how thealk about conservative position or the status quo is anti-immigration. it is not. we have 11 million illegal immigrants, and most relatives did not expect them to be deported -- republicans do not expect them to be deported, but that is different than holding up a sign at the border, show up, you will get in the u.s., maybe there will be a hearing. you cannot run a country that went. -- that way. if vietnam falls and cambodia as a genocidal communist regime,

how to take care of them, but when you are just border, thesethe people are going through mexico. why don't they stay in mexico? mexico has funneled them into the u.s.. mexico could closes border. should the secretary of state be talking to mexico about the fact that they're throwing open their southern border? a lot that can be done, not in an inhumane way. article inen powers "usa today," as a quote from director ofy, immigration policy of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, who says

the causes violence, they can go to mexico. some of them are preyed upon by gangs that have difficult situations, but our immigration policy is to let people being that are genuinely persecuted. the republican bill does have hearings and some percentage will get asylum, the current system allows them to disappear into the u.s.. -- i like kristen powers, she is well-intentioned, but i have to say these arguments are playing into the hands of really bad people were -- who are getting

$6,000, $7,000 apiece from parents who believe that their children are going to have a brighter future. host: atlanta, georgia. steve. democrats find. caller: how are you doing this morning? how are you doing mr. kristol? democrats have been saying this is the right thing to do for the children, but we voted god out of our platform four times. nancy pelosi is suffering from a progressive disorder, and i would like to say we are sorry about the religious thing because we do not believe in god. we voted him out, sir. i would like to hear what you think about that? thank you. guest: there are people with strong religious persuasions in both parties, and i do not think it tells you what to do about immigration policy.

there are plenty of devout christians that have -- that think we should have 2 million immigrants a year, one million a year, this system, or that system. if you have concrete grounds for asylum, you can stay. again, if they are being persecuted in honduras, why don't they go to guatemala, mexico? presumably the mexican government has care for people from nations next to them, and if they want to come here, they need to have a specific explanation of why they want to come here. we have u.s. embassies. they can go to those embassies. none of that is happening. we should not kid ourselves. they were not peaceful countries that suddenly became violent and 80,000 people showed up here. it is because they think they can stay in the u.s.. host: charlie is watching us in new jersey. independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: i can speak now?

host: yes, you can. caller: ok. i am concerned by the influence, mike bill kristol has on our country. one people wrote a letter to -- when people wrote a letter to president clinton asking him to 25,000 to 40,000 americans were killed or wounded and it literally bankrupt the country. there was no reason to go into iraq. to involve all over the middle east and all over the world. i have four grown sons. i do not want my neighbors son to be fighting in the middle east or get killed in the middle east. there is no reason for it. we are getting like the roman empire -- we have sons

everywhere, and it is weakening the country, hurting the country. we make enemies everywhere because we are in. people's personal battles. host: all right. we will have mr. kristol respond. more: i wish i had influence, that the clinton administration, the obama administration would just hop to it. the bush administration did not do a lot of things that i suggested. i do not think the problem is we are to involve. look what happens when we do not get involved. look at syria. look at afghanistan. how did that work out 10 years later? i am fearful of what we are not doing in syria and now in iraq, has led to a caliphate, a jihadist state and it could be the basis for further attacks. in any case, if we could secure the homeland and put up huge walls and build an iron dome of

our own, which would not be a wantdea, even so, do you to live in a world where people are just slaughtering each other ? that is not a world that ultimately will be good for us, and not a world and a great partner -- power wants to sit back and say we cannot do anything about it. individual decisions and interventions can be debated. i would be happy to defend the intervention in iraq, which i think was the right thing to do, necessary, and a just war. it was a difficult war, not fought well, anyway criticized the word in real time. in 2003 i called for rumsfeld to be fired or resigned. i might be wrong, but i have tried to be honest. i do not think saying the world is a mess let's get out of it does not work that well. world war i did an unbelievable amount of damage to western

civilization. could not have stopped that from happening, but it is a case study of what can happen when we are not involved. and world war ii, we did not get involved -- we were directly attacked. if that is a criterion people want to use -- we do not get involved until we are directly attacked, you will let 49 -- you will let 1939, 1940, 1941 happen, and if that really a will you want to live in? host: on the domestic side, from twitter, and do you think john boehner is an effective leader, would you vote for him to be speaker? guest: i like john boehner personally. he has a tough job. there are 232 republicans. 218 is a majority. a lot of them can cause trouble if you can hold 15 back. the democrats are not any help. on the whole, he has been a good

job. having said that, should he be the face of the republican party? not particularly. i think he will be leader. house republicans will pick up some seats, and it would be difficult to dump him after you have been successful off-year election, which will happen likely. it is important that young republican leader stuff for as they have been doing -- step forward, as they have been doing. one thing that has been underreported about this coming election is the quality of republican candidates, many of whom are likely to win, how young a lot of them are, and how many are not career politicians. if you look at tom harkin, judy leenson, house candidates, zeldin and celfin connie -- suffolk county, you're looking at people in their 30's,

veterans, somee , and theye physicians are age thing group of candidates and an impressive group of candidates. i think the republican party is going belatedly through a generational shift. not able towolf was roberts.t who would you have voted for? guest: i think wolf is a flawed challenger. we will see what happens in tennessee tomorrow night against lamar alexander. pat roberts, who has been elected and reelected without any problems in decades suddenly wins by seven points. i do not think anyone should underestimate the anti-incumbent, anti-washington feeling, including among republican primary voters.

it is really striking. i think it would be a big mistake. it will be a big mistake if republicans around the country decide we can run as establishment republicans, probable we are doing, no change , romney, the dole bush, mcconnell, john boehner party -- that is a recipe for failure. it really has to be that marco rubio, ted cruz, kelly i got, republican party. host: john in maryland. republican caller. caller: good morning. i do not hear --did not hear the thing,. host: no worries. bill kristol,r: you are euro of mine, it is a shame -- you are a hero of mine,

it is a shame gets it, not defend your father. guest: i'm happy to defend my father. a book aboutd world war i, and you said we got in late, you are right. we made the difference. our performance in both those world wars is the reason why the 20th century was called the american century. that thinksesident we are not exceptional. i do not know who could have been more exceptional in the previous century. anyway, the thing about getting in at the last minute, the germans were winning in world war i, and actually, they were winning and world war ii when we came in. so, we turned the tide. i guess we declared war somewhere in 1917. by the time i got the american expeditionary force to europe, it was already 1918, and this

feat that alvin york performed, capturing, almost single-handedly 132 of the imperial pershing guard, these were not just any old german soldiers. he captured the best. it is a wonderful story. he was a tremendous guy. i ordered a book -- there is a new biography out about him that just came out this year. so, i'm not know what happened to him after this heroic deed. host: and john -- caller: let me finish. he did this on october 8, which happens to be my mother's birthday. the war ended on november 11. he did it on october 8. within almost all month, that ms. oregon -- news oregon

offended -- offensive brought a war to end. host: i will leave it there and have mr. kristol jump in. guest: i actually do not know -- like many americans, i know a little bit about world war ii, but that was the war we all grew up reading about or watching movies about. the caller is right. the heroism of american troops in both wars is remarkable, especially given that we were not fighting to directly defend our homeland and fighting thousands of miles away. i visited the d-day beaches to your four years ago and it is amazing to see what they did there. world war i is the forgotten war -- we forget the many americans fought and how high our casualties were, actually. if one studies what happened in 1918, there was some gray generalship and finding by an awful lot of people below the recs -- ranks of general.

those are both wars to be proud of in the sense of the u.s. contribution on the right side and bring about a good outcome. i think this 100th anniversary might lead people to read up a little bit world war i. it is an interesting war. from our point of view, world war ii, since we were directly attacked and all corners of world war ii are fresher in everyone's mind -- the horrors of world war ii are fresher in everyone's mind. "why we fought in world war i" is the cover story of the most recent edition of "weekly standard ." we will go to robert next. it's buried. -- pittsburgh. democratic caller. caller: i have been watching ,ill kristol for a while on fox and it seems like we forget history.

the constitution -- when it was first presented, slaves, we were not even part of this country. we always talk about liberals and conservatives. were notcrow, if it for liberals, we would not have gotten rid of jim crow. my brother was in the second world war, he tried to buy a home, and they were redlining people. if there were no liberals, we would not have a chance to buy homes in certain areas. as far as the iraq war, i do not has beenill kristol in the military, where i spent 20 years, and i do not know thea spent a day in the military, but the iraq war, a lot of people got killed, but i'm a military person and i did not support that war. host: i'm sorry, robert. i thought you were finished. guest: thank you for your service. the republican party, as it happens, was more anti-jim crow

-- hyatt -- provided a for civilore support rights bills. that is why my father was a liberal. not go along with they goldwater who thought constitution did not support the civil rights act. that is why many americans voted for lyndon johnson and state democrats with humphrey in 1968. in all of american history, i do not think conservatives have been right and liberals have been wrong, but the question is now who offers better hope for question reich which is the party of education reform? which is the party that wants to provide upward mobility? i think republicans can do more

to think through those issues and be more aggressive in i think it is the democrats that are -- aggressive? i think the democrats are not providing a probity. about this article with purposel," and abraxane only whites can be lawfully discriminated against books --entative brooks saying only whites can be discriminated against lawfully. is a stupidnk it thing to say. there is not a war against whites going on. i think it is a stupid thing to say, and if you look at a republican candidates, this comes back to my point.

look at the republican candidates running. --ahoma, nebraska, arkansas than up the status quo republicans, and people will look at republicans over the hopefully thears, republican presidential candidate, and see the characters do not hold and the republicans are the party of reform much more than democrats these days. host: donald. cleveland, ohio. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: it is actually the united states environment that makes things -- involvement that makes things worse. in russia, we overthrew the government, stoke the fires to overthrow the elected government. it might be a bad government, but we overthrew it, and now we have what we have. as far as our allies ago, it is our allies -- saudi arabia, qatar, and the emirates that isisce isis, that make

happened. it is our allies, france, that is selling russia two aircraft carriers. our ally england takes all of their money in their banking system. we should never worry about our allies because our allies do not worry about us. we should do what is good for america. host: all right, mr. kristol guest: i agree we should do what is right for america. i do not think we overthrew the government of the ukraine, i think the ukrainian people did that and we were right to support a change of government there, and a peaceful, democratic, and pro-western government there. i agree that our allies do not behave very well, but what is the choice? we cannot trust anyone, we cannot work with anyone? it is hard to run the world just by ourselves. it is good to have nato and western europe on board all of those years. even though they were a pain in

a difficulty to deal with at times. i think there is no alternative for leadership. i will say this -- this administration, one thing i thought they might be able to do is be more effective in diplomacy, which is a little ham-handed, and fairly or unfairly there was so much baggage by the end that was hard for them to work with some countries in europe, but they dropped the ball on that. there is no evidence that president obama, secretary clinton, or secretary john kerry have been effective diplomatically. if you talk to people from europe, european citizens, citizens from different nations in europe, diplomats here in washington, the obama administration is not doing a good job of roping them into do more effective things with regard to russia were the middle east. from that respect, i think the obama administration has just neglected, basically, some of the basic tasks of foreign policy, whatever their ideological problems. host: on the israeli-gaza conflict, cnn is reporting the

cease-fire seems to be holding. you had david ignatius yesterday in his column say that the israeli prime minister mr. been -- mr. benjamin netanyahu should negotiate and the get a deal with moderate palestinian leaders. guest: i think he would love to have a deal with moderate palestinian leaders if there were moderate palestinian leaders or if there were strong enough to deliver on the deal, but they do not control gaza. they denied the control entirely the west bank. look at that deal. the u.s. was involved in totally messed things up. john kerry infuriated the palestinian authority, we can the moderates, try to cut egypt out, met with the qataris and the turks in paris. i mean, really? that drove people crazy. he was denounced. goes home. isn't he literally bicycling around nantucket and martha's vineyard or someplace? that is when they cut the cease-fire.

does not wantyahu soldiers fighting in gaza if he can deal with the tunnel threat and the rocket threat and provide peace and security. the last thing israelis want to do is go back into gaza. they did it because they had to. it took casualties. they are out of there. no thanks to the u.s.. it is embarrassing almost. at all. has been no help in resolving the conflict over the last month, and it now looks like it might be result at least lease for a while because of benjamin netanyahu's hard headedness and his willingness to take a cease-fire even though he knows it will not last forever and you cannot trust hamas, and because of egypt, when the u.s. mistreated through the crisis. the u.s. has not played a role. david ignatius thinks john kerry should get involved. that is the last thing we need. you also have this on your

website that former president jimmy carter says hamas is a legitimate actor and should be negotiated with. guest: the entire world thinks it is a terrorist group and it is a terrorist group. it hosted about killing three ofnagers, the destruction the jews. why is it a legitimate group? host: thank you for your time and talking to our viewers. guest: my pleasure. host: next we will look at the situation in toledo and the loom that shut down the water. .elissa harrison joins us later, your spotlight on magazines continues with a look at kevin williamson's piece in "national review about extinguishing the xm bank. we will be right back. ♪

c-spanover 35 years, rings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and often gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of five industry, c-span. cable industry 30 years ago. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. book tv this weekend -- friday that 8:00 eastern, books on marriage equality, the obamas versus the clintons, and an autobiography

on the foyer -- former mayor of washington, d.c.. woodward interviews anthony galen -- and -- john dean. booktv, television for serious readers. >> "american history tv" on c-span three this weekend -- friday night and :00 p.m. eastern, watergate, 40 years later, with a cbs special report and president nixon address to the nation. a live call in program with john farrell on nixon's life, legacy, and the watergate scandal that ended his administration. 7:00 p.m., gerald ford becomes the 30th president of the united states. 'sis weekend on c-span3 american history tv.

"> "washington journal continues. host: we are back with melissa harrison of the national defense -- national resources defense council. what happened with toledo's water supply? guest: thank you for having me. the reason i'm here is i'm actually from ohio, work that ohio epa and was at the forefront where we found these toxins for the first time and realized this was happening in lake erie. in toledo over the weekend, it was a perfect storm of algae. it is a bunch of different contributing factors. think about it as ingredients in fixing a soup. the western basin is a shallow area of lake erie. the water temperature tends to be warmer. , the some rain previously few days leading up to that, which washes nitrogen and phosphorus off into the water. when it says to mix together in

the warm water, that is where these type of algae really thrive. what is interesting about the weekend is whether has been warm water in the rain and the runoff, this is not the worst algae bloom we have seen in lake erie. a few years ago we saw one that stretched from toledo all the way across the top of the state to cleveland. what was difficult about this one is the toxins being formed were concentrated around the toledo drinking water intake valve. host: what toxins would cause the algae bloom? guest: nitrogen and phosphorus runoff,an and suburban failing septic systems -- there are a bunch of different ingredients that go into the nitrogen and phosphorus that end up in the water and create the blue-green algae, which thrives in the warm water, which is difficult for the what -- typical for the western basis. host: you are talking about

farming. >> not only livestock, but runoff from the urban sectors. there are a number of different ways this can end up in the water. host: how does he get into the water supply? guest: what we see from climate changes we not only see warming weather, but more increased severe weather events like heavy rainfall, and when the rain comes down onto the land, it washes those nutrients into the rivers that feed into lake erie. be due tocan it climate change if you are saying at the same time when it rains a lot, or you have the runoff from human activity? we have seen that in the past. host: right now what --guest: right. what we are saying now is there is more extreme temperatures due to climate change with warmer wateratures, warmer temperature. two years ago, ohio was suffering from a drought. host: this gets into a water

supply. half a million people are not allowed to drink their water. how does the city go about deciding we will put a ban on drinking water? from: from what i read media reports they do two testing -- one is from the raw water coming in from where they drive in from lake erie, and they saw a huge spike in the microsystem, the toxin that they shut the water down for, and because it is a toxin that can affect the liver, make you very sick, cause diarrhea and vomiting. they saw a spike in the raw water and also in the finished water. the finished water is what we get when we turn on the cap. they saw what there was a significant spike and waited a second round of testing. it looks like early in the morning, friday morning, saturday morning, the mayor made the decision they need to do a full do not track advisory. the other thing to keep in mind that is difficult about this is

that it is not like you can boil the water. it actually makes the microsystem escape faster and more concentrated, so this is a full do not drink order for nearly 5000 -- 500,000. s specificalgae bloom to lake erie? could they have been in other places in the country? was in ohio, the first time we saw it was in an inland lake. i stood and watched as the algae bloom was growing and coming in. the water is the consistency and color of pea soup. i have never seen anything like it. it is not just in ohio. it is happening across the united states. we see this in lakes and streams in florida, north carolina, california, kansas, new york -- this is happening all across the united states. host: is it a good bodies of

water, smaller bodies, does it matter? guest: it varies. it is about the runoff, the perfect mixture of warm water and potentially heavy rains, things like that that are contributing factors. host: what are federal and state regulators doing about this and what can they do -- what laws are on the books? guest: right. working leaders of the closely with the communities most affected by this issue, trying to do voluntary measures, but we believe the only way to effectively make change in this area is to do some type of standard, standards not only an industrial stock run-up, but urban and suburban pollution. we also believe that we have one of the best tools in our pocket right now, which is the clean water protection rule which is pending with u.s. epa. andould protect the streams wetlands that are the best filters for these types of pollutants before they get to our drinking water system. host: our first phone call comes

from paul in north carolina. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have worked for almost the past 20 years as an environmental activist and conservationist in regard to water and protection of the water here in north carolina. reef for on the water the central carolinas largest population of municipalities, and we are suffering from this problem now. it is largely with development practices, as she said. another threat we are facing, and it is going to be faced throughout the nation, is this last rush for what is left in the ground -- fossil fuels. here, they are getting ready -- they are doing a geographical study on the upper appellations upper appellations

and is going to be devastating because our water is different than other places and you cannot drill on top of these mounds and not affect the water in the basins. water should be the most effective thing that we have, the way water is treated throughout this nation is just insane. we allow all of these corporations and industries to treat water like it is nothing. people are fighting in other places in the world right now over water. we are contaminating our water at an incredible pace. host: ok. paul, let's have melissa harrison jump in. guest: paul, thank you for your call, and i'm incredibly thankful for the work you're doing in north carolina. i could not agree more. water is one of our most vital sources, and one of things we have to think about -- paul, you mentioned fossil fuels. right now we have the clean

water plan an opportunity to move this country forward, and find true economic prosperity and environmental protection at the same time, and ensure future generations a cleaner planet. i do think we have that opportunity, and any time america has been challenge with a problem like this, we have risen to the occasion. host: mike. pennsylvania. independent color. though ahead, -- independent caller. go ahead, mike. caller: yeah. one of the main concerns with pesticides,y cause weedkiller, to build up into the soil and flow into the water system. i was wondering why this buildup till andcides from no all types of farming does not act to control algae, which is also a plant. guest: it is a great question,

but unfortunately i'm not an ,xpert on gmo or that subject so i'll not able to help you out there, but i will say one the things we're most concerned about is the runoff going to these lakes and streams. in ohio alone, nearly five point 2 million people rely upon the streams and rivers that would be protected under the clean protection rule, and a reliable streams for drinking water services. we are wholeheartedly supported the clean water protection rule and hope that will katie -- will be completed soon. host: what is the state of u.s. water infrastructure? guest: in what regard? host: in cities like toledo, where you said there is no over, in other areas -- is the official tree in place for taking the water, clean it for the water supply, is it adequate across the country? myst: i can tell you from time in ohio epa where we went through a substantial

infrastructure review, there is definitely a need for local communities to receive more funding to help grow as their communities are growing, both their water treatment plants for drinking water, and for sewer issues. a lot of the issues we are seeing now -- one of the things i did not mention earlier was combined sewer overflows. when there are heavy rains, water treatment plan cannot handle the influx of the water, so we actually have instances where raw sewage is being spilled out into these water bodies which contributes to the nitrogen and phosphorus and tank. dennis in pennsylvania. good morning. god for c-span. i have been fighting agriculture and this major problem here for so many years. president clinton, on his last day in office, he signed legislation to take care of agriculture because it is over-fertilizing by farmers.

my well has been polluted since 1987. that is for the whole country, from the chesapeake bay to the gulf of mexico, and everyone blames surge. how have you seen your water change over the years? i saw a change in 1987. clinton, and president sent the epa. today it is still going on. that was 1987 and it is still going on. host: do you get the epa to visit your area frequently? they came into my business in 1999, tested my water, and they lied about it. host: how long other federal regulators going to the site along with state epa to test? guest: when i was in ohio we

were visiting some farmland in the northwest part of ohio, and we were standing on the land with a farmer, people from the ohio department of agriculture, the department of natural resources, and we had done some soil testing for him. we were reviewing the results and showing the farmer that there were enough nutrients on his farmland that he would not need to actually lay anymore down for about 17 years. when we were talking with him, the hard part to overcome was that that is not how his father farm the land, how his grandfather farmed the land. there are traditions that are well respected within the farming community. so, we really were trying to overcome that hurdle, and honestly, i appreciate dennis' and understand the agriculture community is part of this problem, but they can be part of the solution. for that one farmer, there were three day we met with that are trying to government promising

practice -- that were trying to implement promising practices to reduce potential runoff problems. host: magnolia, texas. david, independent color. caller: how are you all doing? do you remember the olympics in china? olympianso clean the because the algae was of foot thick in the rivers in china. this is all over the world. i've bought me a small farm 10 years ago, and i spent more money cleaning my pond clean from the algae. it spreads. as soon as the heat of the sun hits, i can see that stuff grow. it is all of these people that want their yard perfect. they fertilize their yard, the golf courses, and all of this runs. what i tell people here all the time is you had better get ready and learn how to drink oil.

thank you. host: is there something to be done on this side of it rather than trying to lower carbon emissions -- regulations and need to be done on the federal and state level without people treat their lawns, how farmers farm their land -- is there something that needs to be done there that would be more economical, cheaper than lowering carbon emissions? guest: absolutely. this is not a problem that started overnight. it is not a problem that will be fixed overnight. there are tools in the tool belt we can use. what i mentioned earlier, setting standards for industrial runoff, urban and suburban runoff, which the gentleman talked about, it is exactly right. there is fertilize a comment from lawn treatments, suburban runoff, golf courses, just like he mentioned. we are all part of a problem, but we can all be part of the solution as well. show you some reaction from the ohio

delegation on capitol hill. saysod brown on twitter the drinking water ban may be lifted in toledo, but i'll work to ensure safe drinking water will continue. sayingu have rob portman we must quickly pinpoint how these elevated toxin levels occurred and work to ensure this does not happen again. john kasich, the governor there, crown lake erie is ohio's jewel, we must remain vigilant in our ongoing efforts to protect, and we will, and the congressman from ohio saying the region fiveu.s. epa should make public what it knows about the toledo water, the public has a right to know. we'll talk about that in a second combat first, both republicans and democrats -- in a second, but first, both republicans and democrats say let's make sure this does not happen. easy consensus and laws -- do you see consensus that laws could pass?

it is very encouraging to see these tweets. bipartisan support is not something we use a lot. i was encourages them coming together. toledo was a wake-up call. 500,000 people without drinking water. mayoresterday the toledo came out and asked for voluntary conservation measures because they are concerned this is not the worst. they have not seen the worst yet. it continues to be warm. they could see an algae bloom even larger than what they had. toy are urging residents take shorter showers. these are things they have asked local residents. timesman cap for is from toledo r is fromsswoman kaphu toledo, and was pushing this forward. it is encouraging to see bipartisan support, we need to take that action and support the

clean water protection rule. host: what is she talking about in her tweet -- why are they not letting the report out for people to see? guest: i am not totally up to speed on everything she mentioned. i know there was a delay on getting test results over the weekend, and i'm not sure if that is what she was referencing or not. they're in a time of crisis, people want information, -- during a time of crisis, people want information, especially when you cannot trick the water, and i know there was a slight delay people were anxious to find out what is going on. said the toledo mayor said they have not seen the worst. nasa captured some satellite images. i want to show viewers the image they captured. the top image is the view of the algae bloom in the west end of lake erie. inge of the coastal waters southeastern ontario. this is taken at about 2:50 p.m. on august 3, and the second

image is a closer view of the same area as the the -- as viewed on august 1. it could get worse. how much worse could it get looking at these images? when i was in ohio and we were looking at similar images a few years ago, there was an algae bloom bloom that -- that almost from toledo to cleveland. cleveland is almost at the top of the state. they could get worse. the mayor of toledo is properly repairing his constituents to do that -- preparing his constituents for that. nasa is sending out more to make sure they have the best equipment available. one of the lead scientist in ohio, i was reading over the weekend, he actually on friday morning got up, but the satellite images like he does almost every morning, and thought it does not look as bad as i have seen, but what they did not realize at the time, and

as he said to dive more deeply into the data, was that it was severely concentrated right around the water intake for their drinking water system. host: as you said at the top, this could happen in other cities, other areas around the country. guest: absolutely. think progress came up with the five next toledos and focused in north carolina, kansas, new york. host: john. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. i just wonder -- i have heard her talk several times about farmers and livestock, and i would like to know if she has any idea how many head of livestock are in southeast michigan and ohio there versus all of the practices at the golf courts -- golf course, the arts, the contrary to this problem, and as the water flow from lake ontario into lake erie, or does it flow the opposite direction? [laughter]

a great question, and i will start with the fact that i do not know which direction the water flows from lake ontario, it is not my area of expertise, but i have mentioned this is a problem that we are all contributing to. it is a solution that we can all contribute to. while i do not know the number of livestock versus people, i can say that these are issues -- all issues. it is not just a livestock operations. it is also urban and suburban runoff. there are failing septic systems in this area as well, sewer overflows. so, definitely, this is a human problem and we can all work together to fix it. one of the main tools we have in our tool belt right now is the clean water protection rule, and that would help us significantly improve detection around the streams and wetlands that are the best buffers for these types of pollutants. host: will go next to new orleans, louisiana. democratic caller. go ahead.

you are on the air. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. we have a similar problem down here in new orleans. downriver, the further you go down river, when the river does paul, we actually have a couple of cities down there where the salt water comes up the river, and they have to shut them down because of the salt water. , i bet a lot water of the audience does not realize the thingburton has on fracking, and they are exempt from the clean water act, and they refuse to give anybody what chemicals are being pumped into these wells that they are drilling thousands and thousands of feet below the aquifer.

algae causesd the a bigger problem if you look into the golf for the river pours into the golf. is now increasingly, every year, a dead zone. it is a direct result from the fertilizer runoff from, you know, coming down the river. anyway, you all have a good morning. thank you. host: all right. guest: this caller makes an excellent observation and that is one of things we have not talked about, we have been focusing on the algae blooming, but will what happens when it dies? when it dies it sinks to the bottom and sucks of the oxygen and creates all of these dead zones. he is right, in his area of new orleans. i was also recently reading inut travers in -- crabbers maryland. we do not have to look around the united states. i read that the dead zones are

preventing the growth of 75,000 metric tons which is enough to support half of the crab harvest. i was talking to a colleague. he was with a gentleman who only found one. the gentleman said, 20 or 30 years ago i would've pulled out 50 or 60. this is a real crisis hitting home. host: jim in ohio. where is pioneer, ohio? caller: about an hour west of toledo. during this crisis we made 630,000 gallons a day of clean drinking water. water is practically free. t fee per pay a fla

month. i have family and friends in toledo. if there's anything that can be done to prevent the concentration of buildup. i know your answer about the satellite monitoring. ifould be more comfortable they send somebody down there to have a look. that is my question. guest: nice to talk to a fellow ohioian. thank you for everything you did in your community. to be able to tell the story of however body rallied around toledoans. people were driving bottled water from all over the state, for michigan to try to help out during this crisis. the fact that your community was so welcoming is the sure nature of ohioians. the monitoring is not just the

satellites. the water treatment system went from monitoring this from once a week to now every day to ensure the water will be safe. i don't know what other ideas would work. the algae grows where the algae wants to grow and it tends to be in the most inconvenient places. host: here is a photo of a neare glass of lake erie toledo, ohio, on sunday, august 3. feel in new york -- bill in new york. caller: good morning. looking toward a biologic solution, do we have anything that would eat the algae? guest: that is something we contemplated. we were faced with the situation.

do?" are we going to we were seeing that glass. that class is what i saw. there is a significant pungent odor to it. i would describe it as an outhouse in the hot summer. you can imagine thick pea soup. it is really not thousand. -- it is really not pleasant. i don't know there is anything commercially available that will take care of the algae. i think everything is on the table looking for solutions. host: melissa harrison is with the natural resources defense council's action fund and served in the ohio epa to address the harmful algae blooms that were threatening communities. she implemented a plan when

hazardous conditions arose and has worked on the ground in ohio on this issue. robert in louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. people toke a ban for not drink the water. what effect does it have on birds or domestic animals that drink the water? you cannot affect them with a ban. how does it affect the food chain long-term? guest: there is two issues. one is the water itself. when there is a harmful bloom, people and animals. we had a few dogs who ran off and jumped in the water and died

from toxicity from being in the harmful algae bloom. wateralso the finished that dogs and cats should not be drinking the water, which is a compounding problem with all the people not being able to drink the water. one think we looked into was the issue of fish consumption. there was not a lot of research about how fish intake this toxin. are there potential risks? there were not a lot of studies on it. we had an advisory that you should at least monitor where you are fishing and be prepared to remove vital organs from the fish prior to eating it. i haven't seen recently if they have updated that advisory.

that was our recommendation a couple of years ago. twitter.ie on you pointed viewers to think progress.org. it might strike next. take a look at the list. you have water in florida and california, north carolina, york., and also in new toledothis isn't just that gets their drinking water source from surface water. it is 124 million people who get their drinking water from these sources. it is possible that this could happen again and it could be worse. host: susanna from ohio. caller: this is pretty

remarkable. i am noticing there is not one republican that is called in. it is funny they: for bashing the president. something that affects all of us, there will not call in. you mentioned climate change. there are so many climate change deniers out there. we have the tracking in ohio. this affects all of us. the president has wanted money for infrastructure and he talked about the sewers. what about water treatment plants? i know it is very costly. that is something the government could help, too. guest: nice to hear from another buckeye. i live in columbus before moving to washington, d.c. she is right.

this is a problem we all contribute to. it is in need of a bipartisan solution. it is blooming and we need everybody to come together to find solutions. two of the tools we have to fight the algae and also the fact that we have the clean power plant right now. that is a significant step toward healing our planet and protecting future generations from climate change. host: when my there be a decision? guest: they are pending right now. they are taking comments. viewer should submit their comments about those rules. they will move forward in october. host: lori, republican caller. caller: hi. i wanted to make a comment about the possibility of using rain

water harvesting. i am a republican and have worked as a scientist. we do a lot of rain water harvesting. we do not get a lot of rain. i just don't understand why people aren't using the rain water that is falling on their roofs. we can collect 900 gallons of rainwater through the gutters that we have purchased. there are a lot of home improvement stores that do have rainwater tanks available. which is prominently republican, they have managed to push through a rainwater conservation, water conservation bill where you can get a tax credit for putting in rainwater tanks. the rainwater that we do collect

is a lot better than the well water we are playing up through city water. we are able to use it in the gardens. host: how much does it cost? caller: some tanks run several hundred dollars. we are saving on floodwater, too. we are collecting the water and authority so it is not flooding in the streets. it can be used as a minor form of flood control. we use the water for the gardens, vegetable gardens and for trees and landscaping. there are homes in our county that have water filtration systems. they can use the water inside. guest: lori makes a great example. she is collecting her own rainwater and using it for her garden.

one of my friends who live in toledo had just installed one of the systems and posted on facebook and said, "i have enough water collected if people want to get some." there is more and more technology available for personal use to help solve the situation. next.will is caller: good morning. i live in northern ohio on lake erie. i spend a lot of time in central and western ohio. i have a degree in chemistry. one of the biggest problems is farming practices. i am talking about the practice of farmers taking animal waste, big tanker trucks filled with animal waste, and they spray it

on to their fields. they just leave it on top of the fields. that are runs right off when it rains and the river goes into the lakes. guest: driver cultural use is part of the problem -- agricultural use is part of the problem. it is a whole mixture of things. ohio is trying to work with voluntary measures with farmers to talk about applications with these fertilizers. these farms are creating a lot of animal waste. the most resourceful way to utilize it is to put it back on their own farms. that is a product that you essentially paid for. when it rains and runs off, that is a lost cause. ohio is working closely to try

to address these issues. last -- you are last. caller: a lot of good points. you're only allowed to build so many houses to absorb the waste and you're not allowed to overbuild and maybe there should only be so many heads of cattle. it could be valuable if they can handle it the right way, away to flash radiate or knock out the biological stuff and have a good part of the fertilizer so it would not be dangerous. some of the drugs we are using could be affecting our ability to treat them. that are the bugs resistant to being able to be killed.

either people dumping them are treating animals with a lot of drugs could be part of the problem. guest: nice to hear from you, rich. a lovely town in ohio. lots of buckeyes this morning. one of the big issues is antibiotics, overuse of antibiotics in animals. i agree there are lots of options on the table. we believe the best option is the clean water protection rule, which will make sure these streams and rivers and wetlands that need to be protected will be protected. those will be moving forward sharply at we support those. , thankelissa harrison you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we continue our weekly

spotlight on magazine series. this piece by kevin williamson. we will be right back. ♪ while congress is in recess, primetime programming continues on friday with the summit in denver. robert gates on saturday and madeleine albright on the situation in ukraine. morris.y, edmund >> book tv this weekend. the autobiography of marion arry, jr.

the watergate scandal. sunday afternoon, president of the new york public library sheds light on the past and future of the library. booktv, television for serious readers. >> american history tv on c-span3 this weekend. watergate, 40 years later. saturday at noon eastern, alive rell on theh john far watergate scandal that ended the administration. sunday night, gerald ford becomes the 38th president of the united states. this weekend on american history tv. >> "washington journal" continues.

>> on wednesdays we take a look at recent magazine articles. this week we are featuring a recent article in "national review." kevin williamson is joining us from new york to talk about this case. let's remind viewers about the export-import bank. guest: it is always kind of a complicated question. basically the export-import bank exist to give money to boeing. 90% of what it does could be replaced by simply writing a big -- boeing,nowing caterpillar, and general electric. it does this at a discount in order to subsidize exports,

mostly benefiting a small number of large companies, boeing being the biggest one. host: the white house kicked off the africa summit with over 100 companies represented. there was a panel with bill clinton and some ceo's. one was the general electric ceo. he talked about the importance of those banks. [video clip] >> there is a lot of things that do not work in government, but exporting is not oneof of them. the fact that we have to argue for is just wrong. there are 53 export banks around the world. the u.s. is less than a lot of what europe does or what china does. cares. u.s. i am not asking ge, caterpillar

four favors. these projects need the hand of the u.s. if the u.s. underwrites the deal, risk capital comes in. so we punch way above our weight. it speaks to the interest in the region that is a competitive weapon and it creates jobs, lots of jobs. host: kevin williamson? guest: essentially everything he said is wrong. there is no evidence that the export-import bank creates any jobs whatsoever. having jeffrey, say we need to care about ge makes me wince a little bit. they are a big company and has a pretty good track record. what happens here in programs

like this is it makes a lot of sense if you count the benefits but do not count the costs. the cost are serious and largely indirect. the government is essentially acting like a bank. the banks like jpmorgan do a lot of underwriting. so you transfer risks from wall street to the american taxpayer. you subsidized companies like boeing at the expense of their competitors. you subsidize some of the overseas firms at the expense of their competitors. delta versus air india. canceling their service after they underwrote some new planes. we have problems with the way

they account for their portfolio. the gao has said they are using the wrong method in understanding the risks. if we learn anything from the financial crisis, particular what happened at fannie mae and freddie mac, we should know when government and wall street intersect there are always going to be problems. the government isn't a very good banker. they are not good at managing complex financial institutions. if i were jeffrey immelt, i would certainly support it. if the government were paying people to subscribe to "national review," "national review" would be very happy about that. host: there are other banks around the country. the u.s. doesn't do it. you put our exports and jobs in jeopardy.

guest: yeah, this is one of the oldest arguments you hear. the same arguments we are forced to defend. that are lots of countries do lots of things to support their business. there are chinese companies that use slave labor to put together their export products. if it is a bad policy, it is a bad policy, even if other countries are doing it. it touches 1.8% of american exports, a pretty tiny number. companies get by fine without that. companies like caterpillar and boeing are not exactly babes in the woods. they can set up financing and secure deals. it is not hard to get the attention of the big financial

institutions. what is funny is that people who are concerned about the competitiveness of u.s. firms -- barack obama called the bank a giant corporate welfare fund and now he is the biggest fan. elizabeth warren is a big defender of it. the same people who were concerned about competitiveness of domestic companies also support the fact that we have the world's highest corporate income tax rate. why not adopt the swiss income rate, which is roughly half hours? that way you're not helping boeing but hurt delta in the process. byhelp caterpillar subsidizing the foreign creditors. you are simply changing the tax code. there are ways you could do

things to make the business climate friendlier, and friendlier for exporters. issidizing particular firms just the worst way of doing it. host: this debate is taking place on capitol hill. congress needs to reauthorize the export-import bank. they are off target on export-import bank. many in the gop do not want to reauthorize it. the vast majority is financed by small u.s. exporters who say they cannot interest private banks on affordable terms either because the dollar amounts or low are because the buyer is in a developing country. they need funding to satisfy big new orders overseas or don't have enough reserves to cover a form buyer not paying for the goods.

guest: it makes three claims about itself. a claims it doesn't compete with private finance. it claims it charges an appropriate price and it claims that it only works with firms that are good credit risks. all three of these things cannot be true at the same time. they are by definition competing with the private sector, which would be servicing those accounts. that you just they're not good credit risks. in which case why are we taking on that risk? are serving companies that could get financing. there simply doing it at a discount. if you had a car dealership and the government offered to finance your customers for 1%,

you would appreciate that. one dishonest thing about this discussion. 90% of our transactions are for small exporters and things like that. that is true if you can apply transactions. if you can abide dollars, 90% are going to a handful of firms, three or four companies. if you look at the portfolio, is concentrated in airlines. no surprise there. a large percentage have gone directly or indirectly to benefit boeing, caterpillar, and ge. host: let's get to calls. tom? caller: hello. myay need to be disabused of impression of the bank. it the bank as i understand

is guaranteeing that the inpment will arrive safely the foreign country and nobody wants to pay for either the items before they are received or the shipping cost. costis covers the shipping while it is being transported to the buyer. isthat way the seller protected and the buyer is protected. of course it is paid off in the end. areprofits from the bank returned to the united states government. so it seems to me like it is a good deal. guest: yeah. the bank does not make a profit. itsmakes a profit if you buy

fictitious accounting methods. it does finance. export insurance. if you are selling a boat load of widgets to someone in saudi arabia and you are concerned about getting paid, a lot of things can happen when the time and product leaves the port the time the check clears. you take out insurance on the deal. the product gets there and the buyer refuses to pay for it. this is insurance, a normal financial service. it is nicer if you can buy your insurance at a steep discount from the government. host: randy from arkansas is next. caller: hi.

thank you for taking my call. i am a user of xm bank. my company is a lumbar exporter. i don't consider it a gift at all. we use a portion of xm called the working capital guarantee program. we do not borrow the money directly from xm bank. we use a large commercial bank. if you go to a large tank and say i want tod start a business and export overseas, your invoice to a customer in western europe than a commercial bank will not back it. that is where the guarantee program comes into place. they do not loan the money to a customer overseas. back ourur -- they

loan. host: hang on the line. kevin williamson, go ahead and comment. guest: it is still essentially a guest: it's not true generally speaking you can't find a bank to back one of these deals. you can't find a bank to back one of these deals at the price you want to pay. there are two possibilities here. either you simply cannot get financing for one reason or another in which case you should be asking, why are we having the taxpayer finance this if no bank wants to, what's the problem underlying this? what's the risk we are not looking at? or simply you are doing it at a price that is much lower than you would through a commercial bank, which is what normally is appening with ex-im. host: randy? caller: i think kevin is way off base on that. evidently he's never checked out on his own to make a loan from a

commercial bank. we are a sound financial company with equity in our company. i'm just saying that if you go to any commercial bank as a small exporter and say, i want to have a line of credit for working capital, when it's a foreign receiveable. they won't back it. i have talked to many banks. that's where ex-imcomes into pay. so we pay a fee every year to our bank that gets -- that flows -im bank. -- ks guest: they are taking on a risk that a normal bank refuses to take on. and risk normally has price, that's why you pay interest on a loan. and the ex-im bank gets away not treating as a subsidy they doesn't have the risk. they provide you a discount where the market would bear. or the credit situation wouldn't justify it and pretending there is no cost involved.

there is no way getting around the fact it's either a subsidy to you, your customers, or bank. it's one or the other. host: randy, you still there? want to jump back in? caller: it's not a subsidy. it's a matter of we wouldn't be able to get financing for working capital loan through any -- guest: the question to answer there, is why wouldn't you be able to get financing? why wouldn't the bank make the loan? caller: i just told you the reason. the reason is because your receiveables are foreign receiveables and u.s. commercial banks will not back foreign receiveable because of the legality of the invoice being out of the jurisdiction of u.s. courts. guest: because there's a risk there they don't want to assume. due to the through the export-import bank they accept the risk.

host: before i go and move on to the next call, if ex-im bank doesn't exist, what happens to your company? caller: right now i don't have any options. i guess we would be out of business i would probably have to look at private investors to see -- to gather up some financing on that end. a commercial bank won't touch it. this is a very common situation for exporters, small exporters throughout the u.s. host: we are talking with kevin williamson, correspondentent with national review. e wrote this piece recently, extinguish ex-im bank, do it gently. whether or not you re-authorize the export-import bank. taking your phone calls on this. kevin covers many issues for -- economic issues for the "national review" debt, deficits, and intersection of finance and politics. sam you're next, democratic

caller, hi. caller: how you doing? good morning to you. i want to tell you something. i will make this very brief. i'm 62 years old. i started when i was 12 years old passing out flyers from fifth generation for barry goldwater, i was outstanding teenage republican in virginia when we elected holton the first republican governor since reconstruction days. i worked out of the nixon white house. traveled with the nixons when i was 16. when he ran against humphrey i was a die-hard republican -- host: sam, what does this have to do with the topic here? caller: i'm getting ready to tell you. i voted for obama twice and now i don't know why because he has got the head of j.p. morgan chase and the treasury department. this gentleman you have on is very simply one thing, i have been in this town. i have -- i know half the town. jay carney's home.

i have been to the gentleman who was just on earlier in his home. a lot of people. bottom line is, this city is the most corrupt, self-absorbed -- it is not the way it used to be where the people like lyndon johnson and dirksen worked for the betterment of the country. host: kevin williamson, is it because of washington, d.c., and how it works that we have an eximbank -- ex-i am bank? guest: sure this is what they call in economics the concentrated benefit and disburse cost. if you look what the bank cost the american taxpayer, even if you accounted for it the way it should be, not a huge amount of money. not compared to things like social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, and those things. but it's very, very important to a small number of people who benefit from it. so if the average cost to a taxpayer is a third of a penny every year, but the average

benefit to a company is a few tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, they are going to fight very hard for it. that doesn't make it a good policy. in fact, it almost ensures the survival of bad policies. but it is interesting to see the way the politics have shaken out on this where you have -- again barack obama used to be fairly vociferous opponent of this and describing it accurately for once in his life as a corporate welfare. you have people like elizabeth warren complaining about the cozy relationship between wall street and washington and at the same time defending this which is probably the best example of that relationship that you're going to come up with. it's good for fundraising, of course. democrats are going into some hard races probably here. and i certainly in 2016 they'll be interested in doing some fundraising from some of these big companies. yeah, they sort of turned 180 on it. it's strange and amusing thing to watch. the fact is that if you're

boeing, general electric, you can sit down in washington and get your concerns heard. if you are someone who thinks this is an example of bad policy, you don't write millions of dollars of campaign checks or employ a few thousand people, then it's harder to get washington's attention. host: jerry in new york, republican caller. what are your thoughts on this? caller: hi. it's basically a waste of money. i wouldn't consider any kind of subsidy, anything like that. i think the only people that use it are niggers. host: i apologize for that phone call. not acceptable. we wish people would follow the rules. we don't have the time delay. because we want it to be a town hall format. we want to have the feel of democracy at work. sometimes people don't play by the rules. i apologize for that. guest: unfortunately that is democracy at work full of stupid people. host: kevin williamson, here's a tweet from one of our viewers, who says, on ex-im bank wouldn't

a new rule limiting the size of the transactions or companies who can borrow address most of your concerns? guest: no. my fundamental concern here is that we shouldn't be subsidizing businesses, period. whether they are big businesses or small businesses. and that the united states government should be a government not a bank. it's not really very good at being a bank. you look at the student loan situation. you look at fannie and freddie. look at the financial crisis. you look at attempts to regulate things like structured finance. it's not very good at this sort of thing. so the real problem with the ex-im bank isn't operating costs, these are fairly small in the universe of washington budgeting, it's the fact we now have this $140 billion loan portfolio that's not properly accounted for, where the risks aren't probably waited, that's concentrated in a few very specific industries, mostly in airlines. it's a bad investment position

to be in. we have seen these things go south very quickly in other circumstances. notably fannie and freddie. essentially what you have done here is you have created a corporate fergs of fannie -- version of fannie mae and a other big companies heavily dependent on exports. i like boeing. boeing is a good company. they make great tough. i like -- great stuff. i like their products. they are one of the great manufacturing success stories. they are going to be fine without this. on the other hand, if we are going to have programs like this, we should honosly k -- honestly account for their costs, which is the costs imposed on competitors and u.s. companies whose foreign competitors are being subsidized through the ex-im bank. it's great for boeing, bad for delta. host: the other part of your headline here after extinguishing the ex-im bank is that you say it should be -- there should be -- the government should be sent about how it winds it down. why is that?

guest: well, simply because radical change is always disruptive. and i'm a conservative and inherently suspicious of it. the worst way to handle something like that typically is just have it on monday and not have it on tuesday. and even if we refuse to re-authorize the bank, you still got this huge loan portfolio that has to be wound down in some way. i would like to see this sort of thing -- general reform of corporate welfare. this is something republicans need to be talking about. there are a lot of distorting and unhealthy relationships between government and business. there's simply -- we need to start winding those down. you want to to that, i think, in an environment where you're doing other things to help business generally. i'm naturally with the republican philosophy needs to get itself out, we want to be a party -- they want to be a party, rather, that is trying to create a generally healthy economic environment under which american firms can thrive or they want to be a party that

hands out favors and subsidies to specific companies. one of these things is good and one isn't. so i would like to see things like regulatory reform peared with this, i would like to see reform in the corporate income tax. we have a really goofy corporate tax system, where we along with north korea and zimbabwe are the only country that attempts to apply our domestic tax rate to the worldwide operations of companies based here. that alone would be a huge important reform that would help exporters a lot more than doing a whole bunch of favors annually for boeing and g.m. -- g.e. host: roger green asks, do companies that invert and lose access to the ex-im bank, are any inverted companies receiving loan guarantees? guest: because of the way the works--i -- bank honestly don't know the answer

to that question. normally inverted companies end up having u.s. based subsidiaries which would probably be eminge for this. the favors and subs -- eligible for this. the favors and subsidies here, the benefits don't necessarily go exclusively to u.s. firms. when air india enters into a subsidized financing arrangement to buy boeing aircraft, it isn't just boeing that benefits, air india does as well. it's a -- if a company is entirely based in a foreign country, they wouldn't be eligible. the number of firms inverted tend to be small. host: will, macon, georgia. hi. caller: how you doing today? host: morning. caller: you guys sort of did touch on -- one of the problems i have is that as a conservative seems to me that as such as the ex-im bank is an outlet for businesses to go to, but you

sort of touched on it a little bit. as far as the regulatory and regulators, they have made it almost impossible for business owners to get into the commercial market. so this is -- ex-im bank is sort of a bridge to get capital. and until you take the fundamental approach of deregulating, smart deregulation, and make capital available once again, then taking away the ex-im bank is sort of like taking away opportunities for small business. guest: yeah. it's a fundamentally flawed philosophy. we put a bunch of burdens on businesses. we put a bunch of taxes on them. we put a bunch of regulations on them. when these have the effect of making those businesses less competitive we turn around and try to subsidize them. you would be better off not doing either thing instead of both at the same time.

the fundamental question that always has to be answered about the ex-im bank is they say, these are loans that the private market won't make. ok. if we take them at their word on that, then we have to ask the question why? there are only really two possible answers to that. one is the underlying credit risk is bad and banks don't want to touch it. the other is that the rate being paid is insufficient to justify the risk that's being taken on. either we are making loans to people we shouldn't be making loans to. or we are not charging them enough for it. if one of those things weren't true, this is something that would be served by private financial markets. host: let me show you a couple headlines. "washington times," obama says $33 billion bound for africa. this is a corporation, u.s. corporations that have made commitments to invest in africa. and you heard earlier from the g.e. c.e.o. saying ex-im banks it possible for his country and others -- makes it pore for his

company and others to do that. the financial times, u.s. is chasing china's lead in africa. if the u.s. doesn't take these risks with ex-im help, then a country like china moves into africa and -- which someone of the fastest growing economies, according to what we have read in the papers. how do you respond to that? guest: yeah. i think -- the underlying premise is sort of ridiculous. you've got a federal government that can't keep track of its own tax agency and what they are doing. and they are planning some acrostrategy versus china in african markets 50 years hence. it's essentially superstition to believe that sort of planning has any sort of predictable and consistent real world effect. it simply just doesn't. but in terms of manufacturing and exports, people often forget

this, but if you look at this on a population level, on per capita level, the biggest exporters and manufacturers in the world are germany, japan, and the united states. china comes way down the list. it's got a big total output, it's a very large country. the ability of u.s. firms to find good investment opportunities to do development deals, to do direct development in africa is not contingent on american policy. american policy is a fairly small player in that particular situation. certainly an american policy that elevates the interests of some companies over those of others isn't going to produce net gains for the american economy. so if you really want to make life easier for american firms who are looking to do business abroad, that are looking to make investments in places like africa, there's certainly things you can do. not have the world's highest corporate income tax rate would be helpful. not having one of the world's

only nonterritorial tax rates would be helpful. not having a regulatory burden that in terms of compliance cost ends up costing businesses more than the entire corporate income tax does. these things would be helpful as well. having a government that goes out and says, we kind of like this company and don't care much about that company so we'll subsidize this one or that one isn't a very good philosophy to have in the long run. which brings up another question that has to be talked about which is the problem of corruption. they have had 7 cases of -- 74 cases of either people improperly trying to steer contracts or accepting gifts. having conflicts of interest. the whole thing is pretty much by definition is a conflict of interest. you are going out and you are looking for particularly -- particular kinds of firms, usually firms that have political connections. firms that are very influential in particular states or districts. you tend to look and see what's congress doing? how are people looking at the

export-import bank? it lines up where the companies are. people in washington are excited about the ex-port import bank baug -- export-import bank because blowing is -- boeing is big there. it's a practice of cronyism and we should look at this in a different way. what you want to have is a system of laws and a government that treats all companies equally. everyone should be equal under the law, including businesses. this simply violates that. host: randy in iowa. democratic caller. caller: hi, kevin. as i'm listening to you i'm going to pose my first question, it's a short one. when did this ex-im bank come into existence? and then i have another point i would like to make. guest: it came into existence during the roosevelt administration. franklin not teddy. one of the many unhappy legacies f 1930's economic adventurism.

host: randy? caller: yes. he other thing is, i hear this repetition in your point of view here, and that is that tax -- it's about revamping the tax code. you keep referring to these corporations, these multinational corporations, like g.e. and boeing, which are paying the highest tax in the world. corporate tax in the world. it's just not true. over the last decade general electric averaged a tax load of 2%. >> you're absolutely making a point i very much agree with. this goes to the same issue. the u.s. has the highest statutory -- the highest legal corporate tax rate in the world, which is around 40%. double a lot of european countries. but like the ex-im bank, the corporate income tax is larded up with all sorts of subsidies

and favoritism and discounts and deductions for certain types of companies. every time barack obama gives his state of the union speech, he talks about corporations not paying their fair share. then he proposes a half dozen new discounts and exemptions and subsidies. you do end up in a situation exactly like what you're talking about which is politically influential and politically connected firms like boeing, and especially g.e. which is famous for this. people always joke that g.e. is the world's greatester corporate tax law firm with a small manufacturing business end up paying much lower rates than the statutory rate. that's another problem, too. we have the highest rate in the world, but if you're influential enough you don't have to pay it. host: harvey in virginia. independent caller. caller: kevin, what i'd like to know is, what's the difference etween the export-import bank, the world bank, the i.m.f., and what associations does the

federal reserve have with these banks? guest: the export-import bank is nothing like the i.m.f. or world bang. they are different kinds of organizations. serving different sorts of functions. no direct relationship with the federal reserve. host: baton luge, louisiana, on the line for republicans. welcome to the conversation. caller: yes, e--- extremely interesting. i thank the founding fathers for givinging you -- for giving you the opportunity to come on television and tell the truth. the truth is the government is working hand in hand with big business. there's no longer a swinging door between the two. they are all in the same room. and what you keep -- you're talking about this export-import bank is one of at least 10 or 15 things that need to be addressed by congress and the leaders of this country. to save this nation from falling. why do i say that? because i've been reading about rome lately. it wasn't a single reason that

rome fell. it was a bunch of little reasons and i sure appreciate and thank god you're here to tell you and people should be listening to what you're saying. we need to stop the payoffs. host: what else do you think should be on the chopping block? caller: any sort of tsh- guest: asking me or the caller? host: caller, sorry. caller: will i say this is the kind of thing, this -- the richest counties in the whole united states are all around washington, d.c. there's too much money floating around there. those guys are misusing it. and they are hiding it. he's talking about one little thing. but there are 20. he has said there are other things that need to be done. host: all right. kevin williamson, then. guest: i would get pretty much the whole department of commerce. small business administration, which is nothing but a money laundering operation for local political interests. ultimately i would cut everything except the army and courts. starting with -- most of what

the commerce department does is corporate welfare. a great deal of what treasury does is. the s.b.a. certainly. but there's stuff like this built into everything. everyone's talking about the situation in israel this week and our defense aid to israel is a controversial topic. what people don't understand is that this $3 billion a year we give to them isn't money they can spend freely. they have a contractual obligation to spend a certain very large percentage of that, i at this it's 70%, with american contractors. providing either military hardware, military services. so it's not really so much a subsidy to them as the american defense armaments industry. if you look anywhere the federal government spends money, certainly anywhere it's acting as a bappinger when it's making loans and doing loan guarantees and that sort of thing, you will find some business interest on the other end of that who is the actual beneficiary of it. that's something that needs to be looked at. in the end, it's an unhealthy reelingtsship to the only

because it's corrupting, but also because it results in the misallocation of capital. you get people making investments in firms because they are the beneficiaries of political favoritism of various kinds, and it distorts the markets in the long-term and makes the economy less functional. host: george, woodstock, connecticut. on the air. caller: hi, kevin. i have a simple question. how do you think a fair, flat tax would affect this whole system? after all the whole system's run on money. if you have the fair flat tax is cuts the head of the snake off. what do you think about that? guest: my ideal tax system would be a single tax, single rate, that applies to all sorts of income. you get rid of the corporate tax and you can tax corporate pockets when they hit someone's pocket either in the form of dividends or salary or bonuses or capital gains. everyone paying one rate with no exception, no exemptions, no special discounts, no subsidies,

then would you have a lot less opportunity for political mischief. a lot of tax lawyers out of work. and it would certainly limit washington's ability to use the tax code for political ends which is why it will never happen. you would have, i think, a much more efficient and honest and less distorting system if you did have a single tax rate at that applied equally to all sorts ever income. host: related to that, kevin williamson is the "washington times" front page this morning above the fold with the headline, the house g.o.p. eases up on the balanced budget tax extenders help pay for many of the programs they passed. after initial success in cutting federal spending, reducing deficit, house republicans have drifted into the red. the series of tax measures and spending bills not offset either adding to the bile of debt or providing the cost for accounting commimics. guest: no surprise. that's why you get into politics. to spend other people's money. it's fun. doing politics on the

pay-as-you-go system is depressing and dreary. you have to be sober and responsible. you just borrow money and not have to pay for it. it's a lot easier. when the shut down was going on, the alleged shut down, which wasn't much of a government shutdown, i never heard anyone complain about it in the rest of the world and rest of the country. except for people basically northern virginia and the washington, d.c. suburbs. military contractors were upset. that sort of thing. the flow of money through washington is, of course, tremendous. and there are a lot of people who are eating at that trough. the influence of that, politically, is corrupting in its way. so there's very little incentive to be responsible. republicans can go out and talk about balanced budgets and fiscal sanity and all this stuff. some of them even mean it. some of them even try to live up to it. but broadly speaking there's no political incentive to be responsible with money. until you end up in the arbegin

tina situation, which case you have a different set of incentives. host: twitter says, even if corporate tax rate was 100%, the loopholes built in make it irrelevant. g.e. and many others pay zero tax. we'll hear from thomas next in california. democratic caller. caller: yes. this is tom. host: go ahead. caller: your guest mentioned air india and boeing and also delta airlines. how delta gave up their flying to india. maybe one leg, i'm not certain which it was. air india, national carrier for india, could have just easily gone with boeing -- sorry, with airbus, european manufacturer, whose products are subsidized by their governments. so i think the import export bank also serves as a way of leveling the playing field between european manufacturers,

airbus, in this case, and boeing. host: mr. williamson. guest: you could get functionly the same thing by writing boeing a check for $1 billion every year. if you want to subsidize boeing. subsidize boeing. write them a check. it's unseemly, we don't do it directly. it's essentially economically the same thing. airbus, yeah. airbus receives certain subsidies from the european governments. boeing does, too. i am not sure that national airline carriers trying to decide between boeing products and airbus products are going to make their decisions in the end contingent on financing subsidies from governments. maybe in some cases they will. in way case -- in which case you lose. even if you accept that line of argument, which i'm not sure i do, you have to account both for the benefits and costs, which is that it costs us to do this. it costs us to make subsidized loans. there is an expense there. now, the export-import bank

doesn't account for that expense. it's dishonest in the way it accounts for things. that doesn't mean the expense isn't there. so you're taking on a risk. you're subsidizing a loan. you're not getting anything out of it. yes, it's good for boeing if you do that. but it's bad for other people. it's bad for other parties. ultimately it's bad for the country. there is -- there is as milton friedman said, no such thing as a free lunch. you can distribute capital around in various ways. you can distribute political benefits around in various ways. you are always imposing a cost when you do that. we have things like the export-import bank because unless you're looking at the issue carefully and unless you have a certain level of financial level of sophisticate, it's difficult to see where the cost is. they look at this and see it's a net win. they are getting more business for boeing and doesn't cost anything. it does cost. host: larry in south dakota. independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for kevin concerning a company like

solyndra that the taxpayers of the united states we backed them for let's say $500 million. was that money coming from the ex-im bank or some other form of -- way to finance that? the speaker pro tempore: solyndra if i recall came through the stimulus bill. the recovery act. solyndra is a great example why you don't want the u.s. government trying to act as an investment advisor. it was a terrible deal. money out of pocket. kind of went bust. that was bad. the government, of course, when it's making these so-called investments, i hate when the government uses the word investments because it doesn't make investments, it's not making them for financial reasons. it's making them for political reasons. solyndra was a politically connected company. it was a business that is politically popular. solar energy. it was able to get all this financing that wouldn't normally be available to it. then it kind of all went