be easily evaded. the uniformity rationale also. >> but implementation problems arise if the plaintiffs win? aequire legislative response. birth certificates have fathers and mothers. maybe it should be changed. >> it is a pragmatic question. >> i would imagine these things would happen throughout the revised code. there are references to husbands and wives. i certainly think that the general assembly would have to do a thorough read of the revised code to determine what needs to be updated. constitutional developments

arise. that, ally and all of i am hearing you say is that you have to use "spouse." that is all that would have to change. >> yeah. , i didgmatic question not anticipate it. maybe i should have. doubti think there is no that it would require -- it would require a new law being or.ed >> or, forms. >> the two country ones, with ones, withconcrete

respect to democracy and massachusetts controlling ohio , proceeding with caution seems a rational response. >> you expect that and it is a variation on the pacing point. maybe that is rational basis. let's except that it is. it cannot last forever. how does the court move on that? do they get the benefit of the doubt? how does it work? it withourt implements the eighth amendment standards and they look at how society has changed over the years. you look at all of the facts. point, you hit a

trigger of states that recog nize same-sex marriage. >> that is a response and it is new. the law is about drawing lines. i will point, it becomes a rational. -- irrational. >> i do not know how many states there are. they came in utah and they added oklahoma. i do not know how many more states there are. but, if there are three or four, you know 25 states. have 25 states. throw in for more and you almost have 30. hypothetically. [laughter]

it is at the medical. -- hypothetical. >> the constant is new. -- the concept is new. that ityou're just the is going through north carolina, south carolina, who else is in .here, west virginia think you can pick states where courts have gotten involved. that iare telling me should count the states and i am telling you that i am counting. >> there are states that have democrat processes. if you take that number -- >> we have 20 states. the courts have already decided. that assumes that the supreme court is not going to knock it

sideways. you know that they can count, too. it is my feeling that they look at the polling. youaybe the counting point, don't count all of the states in a circuit that has rolled one way and youuled one theount the states where attorney general has decided not to appeal because, in those states, it is over. that number is around 20-21. >> the fact of the matter is that a majority of states have pertained the traditional definition of marriage and a cautious approach makes sense. justice alito handles this quite well. intalked about changes marriages taking decades.

i think it is too early to tell on the first day -- when the first state to recognize marriage was in 2004. ifwhat would've look like alito was in the majority, in your opinion? >> he makes a distinction that he does not think that the federal government decision was based on animus and i think that he would have distinguished on that ground. i think it is a different question and the main focus of windsor was on the unusual nature of a federal intrusion into marriage. that would be the case. >> what you think about the methods by which -- if we are interested in the federalism idea -- the methods by which

mores?adapt to changing i am not just speaking about local aspects that people let people in the general assembly or whatever legislative body who they have asked -- who have asked to move things along locally. >> yes. i do not think we are talking about that so much. we're talking about impediments and getting pacing's heated up -- pacing speeded up. >> a fundamental change in marriage in 10 years is a rational. -- irrational.

what we're trying to say is that there is a form of heightened scrutiny applied. you would have to concede. what is your take on the case of heightened review? >> the michigan response was interesting, with respect to gender determination. -- discrimination. uncertainty does not mean that a state with heightened scrutiny loses. there are uncertain fax in what seems to be a higher standard in the court and we have these facts. defer to theto legislative branch on this and i think it could be undertaken here. the case that was , the test you adopt

has to be consistent with history and practices of people. i think that, if you think that heightened scrutiny versus a rational basis review makes a test.ence, it is the the traditional definition of marriage has been with this country since the founding. last minute, i will talk briefly about the language and the last frame in the hendry case. are under section 1983. the full faith and credit clause is like the supremacy clause. when a state has a claim, you should go to the preclusion law -- itt the law the state

is a choice of law rule. >> there is a question. howou have any knowledge of many years it was, from the start of the campaign until the 19th amendment when women ?chieve the right to vote are you familiar? >> i am not. >> it took 78 years of crossing the desert back and forth to achieve it through a democratic process. are you surprised? >> no. the unitedspect to states constitution because it sets a high bar for a constitutional amendment. >> no. i'm talking about going into every state in the country. every school board election. 78 years. trying to get enough going to

get the legislatures to adopt or extend the vote to women. 78 years of it. would you be surprised to find out it did not work and it took an amendment to the constitution to finally achieve that after 78 years? >> yes. there is no question the united states constitution is different. >> excuse me. you are forgetting the point. you want to do this democratically, state-by-state and municipal government by municipal government. it does not always work. it does not always work. 78 years to get women the right to go to the polls and vote. that is all. you do not have to respond. it is ok. i thought you would want to know that in case you are ever on jeopardy. [applause] >> you have five minutes

rebuttal to think about that and train for jeopardy. >> thank you. argument. three babies have been bored to the plaintiff in the last month and one adoption was finalized for another plaintiff couple. in one ofarried and the 20-21 states where the issue is done. marriage for same-sex couples is available. to recognize the marriages and refuses to the children recognition of parentage.

ohio issues a burst certificate that denies recognition of parenthood to a parent. that is a serious harm. , you must except a guest certificate for your loved one that is wrong. it is one that says you are not married and leaves blank the spot where your name should go as the surviving spouse. this is a big difference between the ohio and michigan cases. i support and agree with the arguments and terms towards the fundamental rights of marriage. .e are doing a recognition case >> can i ask a framing question that i fear is simplistic. i would love to hear your reaction. we have all these cases and issues and my simplistic way of

looking at it is whether a state can decide, for its own purposes and citizens, whether to recognize same-sex marriage. if they decide they are not going to do that and if the u.s. constitution permits the choice, it seems odd to me that they can be told you can make that choice for your citizens. anotherne comes from place, you in that issue. it follows that you will win the recognition. >> ok. let's look at the decision. . that this is a

question for all of us. >> it is a way of thinking about this and maybe it is simplistic. >> it is one way to do it. you look at the question over here and what is the state definition of the access they will provide to marriage. it can be a fundamental right to marriage. aey are saying that it is bilateral association and it is a fundamental right to marry. a number of states have already ruled that way. if that is the situation, our case is simple. you have, under due process, a notion that when you are married, that attaches all sorts of rights. you have important parenting rights and child-rearing rights that are recognized by the supreme court. for history, that has been

transportable across state lines. and is a separate argument there is a fundamental right to marriage recognition that is transportable. then, there is another line. it is equal protection. situatione an unusual whereection three of doma the federal government always accepts something as a marriage and same-sex couples, they say we are not getting into the business of marriage. that is unusual discrimination and requires special consideration. when the court applies that test, not putting a doctrinal that on it, it says that type of discrimination is a

violation of equal protection and it is a principal p urpose to oppose inequality. state whether or not a defines marriage. it is about a pattern of practice over time that you are only changing because of the type of people that now participate in marriage. >> that is the government that is doing that. kennedy said he is not doing this on a federalism basis. , the majority ruling should look as a equal protection case. filed afterse windsor, we went out and hired the same experts and the same problems. tradition,ve a long

and still does, of being on the extreme side of the state of celebration rule. acceptedave always excep underage marriages and now,n-law marriages, because of these 20 people in the states, you say, we are going to change the rules. that raises the bar. decision?reme court that is a first cousin decision. it is a case where the state does not have to recognize every marriage in every other state. >> if you go to our brief and you look at all of the sources that we cite and the ones that go way back, we cannot find another case where ohio has refused to recognize marriages from other states.

not otherwise be practiced in ohio. >> there are like three cases. >> there is not a lot of case law. so, we have a rule of law and it is one that ohio has followed. then, you have the added dimensions -- because when you look at windsor and you say, what was the special consideration introduced and how you canapply to ohio, look at rational basis cases. it is not just have one flavor. -- it does not just have one flavor. if you have discrimination and important personal interests at griswold, where you have personal autonomy issues and a

departure from an established past practice, those are all factors that, if we look at the case law, seem to suggest that we are looking at things more closely. >> you cannot say it is unprecedented. this is a definition that has existed. >> i am on my third prong. it is unprecedented that ohio would say to a group of people who are married in another state that they are not going to accept them as people they recognize as married here. >> it is unprecedented to the no. supreme court says this is not mean that you have to recognize every marriage. >> it was theoretical and they are on the back door. we look at the real situation and the back door involves

people who have a history of discrimination and an issue that is personal and carries very important rights with it. a i agree that there is history of discrimination and there is no doubt about that. what is not so obvious to me is the history of discrimination when it comes to access to marriage. it seems to me to be a recent phenomenon and a reflection of the current times. there is a sensitivity on both sides of the debate. ,> what we really find is that if you look at the windsor majority, the history of doma was look at to determine if the departure was significant enough to trigger a violation of the equal protection clause. they said that it was and there was equal dignity being denied.

they said it humiliated tens of thousands of children. context, it said there was no legitimate purpose. that all applies here. there is no legitimate purpose for ohio to say -- federale setting, the government is doing something it has never done before and is doing it when states have decided to recognize same-sex marriage. in the case today, is a situation where each state has always been in charge of this issue. it seems like a serious difference. >> they have been in charge of the issue and it is a rule that they have followed. it was a theoretical discussion as to what they would not follow. the deal that the couples made when they got married in new york, california, massachusetts,

and delaware, was that there would be -- >> kinley added into the logic of this that they were aware -- caney were moving to we add into the logic of this that they were aware that they were moving to a state where same-sex marriage was not recognized? >> your honor, we are in a situation -- >> it goes to the thinking you propose. >> there is not a negligence defense to a constitutional right. either your marriage is transportable or it is not. they got married because they are in love and they did not get married to inc. about where they could go. about where they could go. 44% of the people in this country live in a state where same-sex marriage is

available and the freedom of marriage has been recognized. that includes 20-21 states where the deal is done and there are no more deals pending. >> that should go both ways, don't you agree? >> no. this is why the recognition case is significant. when the democratic process has played out and you are at a scale that we have here, nearly half of the country in a situation where they are told you cannot carry your marriage thess state lines, that is point, if ever there was one, that the constitutional requirement -- >> the reason i say it cuts both ways is, on the one hand, it helps you get to a tipping point where it is just outlier states. on the other hand, it suggest the democratic process is working effectively and quickly

from your client cost perspective. pective.client's pers >> it has been 27 years. it has been a long process of development. the role is to keep states from denying the liberty to certain citizens. here, when you have citizens who have a liberty issue -- interest, their marriage exists and is done and they can have the children deserve to have two parents and the state is saying, because of our commitment to democracy, we are , and waiting for you to reverse a constitutional amendment. we will see you when you can pull that off, when you can pull off that kind of funding and

democratic action. the reality is, these are profound rights. we know, from supreme court case law, that marriage is solomon and precious. precious.solemn and it has all these attributes. this cannot just be subject to those. i understand that a state is trying to figure out -- why you are curious so sure about the better path. words, let's say the gay community gets to pick the path and you get your supreme court decision. or, you can have five years to change hearts and minds in the remaining 29 states. it is not obvious to me what is the best path. a i am suggesting constitutional path under due process and the vested rights

that come with marriage. >> the assumption of the question is that you can have either one. is not classmate why a supreme court ruling in 2015 is a better path for the community, not necessarily your clients, the community at large. changing hearts and minds happens through democracy. >> i understand. who haveesent couples kids that deserve to parents today. today.two parents thosehey are entitled to under due process and equal protection. this is a loving situation which, by the way, was a break in case. -- was a recognition case. the couple got married and came back to virginia because virginia would not recognize the washington, d.c. marriage.

there were 15 states that had repealed a ban on interracial marriage. there was momentum going in their favor and the supreme court still struck down the prosecution. there were 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage. >> that is not helpful. that is not the analysis that the supreme court follows and loving. is not the fact that virginia would not recognize the d.c. marriage. it is that virginia would not recognize interracial marriages. that path goes back so first question that i asked -- goes back to the first question that as tod about the inquiry whether the state has the right to deny a same-sex couple a marriage license.

>> those facts came from loving and they did consider it relevant. even in windsor, the supreme court makes a point to say that it assumes that state recognition of marriage is consistent within the states. they say that twice in the majority opinion. what we are developing is a second class of marriages here. people come in with various -- hiccups.s ohio says, never mind. people with same-sex marriages, ohio does not. special consideration should trigger an evil retention finding -- equal protection finding under animus.

we have all of these facts that went into the passage of the 2004 ohio supreme court and ohio constitutional amendment. theame one, it is description of the measure that was published by the secretary it iste, blackwell, and on the website. they have the pros and cons. willsay the measure prevent the state from spending any money and allowing homosexuals, described as being in deviant relationships. there is a prejudice their and notion- thwerere and a that there's some weight -- bears some right. >> i have a lot of sympathy for the judge on this point.

it is not to create a new category of people who are bigo ts. >> that is not the point. it is not about labeling somebody a bigot. it is like an unemployment case and my client was fired because concede to at customer demand, in a title vii case, it is not a defense to honor customer prejudice. in this situation, under palmore, a custody decision was made and the child was removed from a situation because the judge thought that living in an interracial family creates too much tension. the judge and not have any prejudice. thejudge was conceding to prejudice of others. the supreme court said not to

pass laws that implement private kindness of others. >> how is it a complement to the people who pass this that they had animus? >> this is not about it being a compliment or not. this is about all of the factors we ought to look at to determine whether this measure, targeting this narrow group of people, the same group of people targeted in windsor, is constitutional. there is a history of targeting in the measures and the descriptions by the secretary of state. think about the text. the constitutional amendment in ohio says that they want to no civilrriage and unions or anything that approximates marriage. it is saying, "get away from

us." as far as you can. youe are the things that look at. these are factors and they all lined up to say that this deserves the same special consideration that the court gave a federal measure in windsor. when you do that, especially in of a of the role federal court to prevent states ism denying liberty, it appropriate to act now. was it appropriate before? i don't know. with half the country in a situation where they want to bring their marriage across state lines and with the children in the balance, yes, now is the time to act and it is appropriate to. say, also, that we ought to think about the harm that we

are dealing with a situation like this. the couples that are our plaintiffs in this case, three of them were impregnated by artificial insemination. there is no need to go to state court and deal with fathers claiming rights. under the ohio law, if you are married and you use artificial insemination, the father is deemed the parent of the child. the same rules should apply here and the implementation question is easily answered. do a definition for all the laws and get away from husband and wife. go gender-neutral. i do not think it is a serious impediment to implementing marriage recognition. the difference is huge, in this case. you have non-birth mothers

saying, i am a parent. sue me if my kid does not get support and call me if my kid does not go to school. prosecutors me if there is neglect of these kids. ohio is saying, no. we do not want this. and you one parent could have two parents. that is a harm to the children and part of the reason why the matter is urgent. we get more and more couples with children, as we have in this case, presenting themselves in ohio and we cannot wait on the democratic process and suffer the harm at this level that they are suffering. both of those names need to be on the birth certificate and that is practical. about the dignity

that was owed to same-sex couples. opinion, it said, repeatedly, over and over, that targeting these couples and humiliating these children in these relationships causes -- the very purpose and, and, the actual core of the statute --ats them in equally unequally. we have a lack of dignity recognized and a practical problem of children getting only half of the parenting. they should get both of the parents. um, the district court was correct when they said that the birth certificate is the basic currency by which parents can freely exercise parental rights on the parent side and responsibility.

it is often the only uniformly-recognized record thas identity, parents, and citizenship. it is required in an array of legal contexts. what you see in ohio is harm that comes from marriage recognition from cradle to grave. everything in between. without recognition, the couples consortium ink of lawful death cases and tax benefits. other benefits. these benefits are taken for granted by a different sex couple. i have been married to the same woman for 42 years and the law is in my favor. i get tax benefits and other benefits.

fair, to rig in favor of marriage. and we care of our kids put less demand on the government. same-sex couples to serve a piece of that. there is no reason to treat them unfairly, with respect to the balance that the government has drawn with respect to favoring marriage. it is important. it is important that it be accurate. it is the last record of a person's life on earth. for it to be wrong, talk about a dignity violation. that is absolutely huge. review, really. in each of the four children the henry case have two parents,

not one. will cause ohio to recognize these families and the marriages. affirming the district court will cause the death certificates of these people to reflect their marriage is and allow them to rest in peace. thank you. >> thank you. >> you have a rebuttal? >> thank you, your honor. a few quick points. a case question about that the pens and the outcome of another case. that will explain how this case comes out. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

i have not heard a rational basis for a state recognition. the first point was made about substantive due process and recognizing these marriages. that is a different take on the notion that you do not create something in the due process and there is a full faith and credit clause that ignores the equally long-standing of -- we wantedt we say, if to, that ohio is perfectly free -- refuseto recognize to issue -- refuse to recognize people who get into common-law marriages within the state? apparently, allowing a common-law marriage that is considered valid in another state, and recognize that marriage. question that

ohio would recognize marriages that would not be lawful in ohio. retains the exception of public policy. there is no way that you consider the exception is tied to animus and there is not a deeply rooted notion to the exception. cited brown from the 1890's. i disagree that the federalism rationale played no part in the ruling. it was not a structural and constitutional case. the federalism rationale was the entire rationale for why there was an animus there. that is entirely gone here. the federal government had engaged in an unusual intrusion

thatt was the unusual law triggered the animus for me. usu cannot say it -- anim scrutiny. you cannot say it in this case. the public policy exception cannot be explained. >> the public policy exception is not recognizing same-sex marriages and the content could for been a crime in ohio most of that time that you are talking about. >> well, that goes to show that there is. deeply-rooted right to out of state recognition of same-sex marriage. record materials. the inequality foundation made it clear that the legislative motivation and the referendum

context made it impossible to determine -- precisely because the referendum depending on the intent of all the voters who voted for this constitutional and that analysis is literally impossible. you cannot gauge the minds of everybody here. it is indistinguishable from rumor. windsor is important because, court set engage in legislative , said that the laws, on their face, or unusual and that is not the case here. no further questions, i asked the court to reverse. >> let's go back to the history we were talking about. it occurred to me that, after you said that, but you thought i suffragettesbout

crisscrossing the country to get an amendment to the constitution. impossible.tually they were going to the local people trying to get the right to vote on the school board and were going to each state legislature saying, please enfranchise women so that we can vote in the state. we did it state-by-state. when it came to the end and they got the right to vote, finally, and a few of the states -- in a few of those states, there was a question whether they could vote in national elections and that is why a constitutional amendment is required. i want to make sure that we are not talking past each other. >> i do not think things are going slow, in this case. i think the process being undertaken right now --

with that, if there are no other questions. >> i am fine, thank you. appreciate your help and the argument on this case. >> the white house released a in martha'sma vineyard. after this, the president made a statement. conducted targeted airstrikes to prevent terrorists from advancing on a city.

the forces on the ground continue to defend their city and we have stepped up military advice and assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces as they wage the fight against islam. assistance tong men, women, and children trapped on mount sinjar. some have begun to escape their perch on the mountain and we are working to develop options to bring them to safety. i want to thank, in particular, the united kingdom, france, and to provide worked much-needed assistance to the iraqi people. in the meanwhile, we are in position. advances the limited military objectives in iraq. protecting american citizens and

providing advice and assistance to forces as they battle terrorists. and, joining with partners to provide humanitarian aid. no american military solution towards the crisis interact and the only lasting -- aq and the only lasting solution is one that unifies the country in the fight against islam. today, iraq took a step forward in this effort. the iraqi people maybe new president and today, the president named a new prime minister designate. under the iraqi constitution, it is a step to uniting the different communities. and iresident biden called the doctor to congratulate him and urge them to form a new cabinet as quickly

as possible. one that is inclusive of all iraqis and represents all iraqis. i pledged our support to the president and the speaker as they work to form the government. i urge all political leaders to work through the political process in the days ahead. the new leadership has a difficult task to regain the confidence of their citizens by governing inclusively. the united states is ready to support a government that addresses the needs and grievances of all of the iraqi people. we also get to work with countries in the region to deal with humanitarian crises and challenges. it will be easy when the government is in place. >> these are difficult days in iraq. i am sure that there will be

difficult days ahead. the united states will or may and vigilant against the threat posed to our people and we stand ready to partner with iraq against these forces. without a question, the effort will be advanced and they will come together to support a new and inclusive government. thank you. >> just before president obama spoke, john boehner issued a statement. said, --

presentsonth, c-span debate about what makes america great with the issue spotlights. newoversight and perspectives on issues, like global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and a history tour that shows sights and sounds. find our television schedule a week in advance and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. or, e-mail us. join the conversation. 8:00, a debate about what makes america great. here is a preview.

>> we started out as a revolutionary -- you started out as a revolutionary and a little bit in the bin laden mode. you is my question to you, are different today and you talk about teaching, being an educator, sick right out and doubt andsocratic wonder. what happened to the old revolutionary? >> i still think i am a revolutionary, if, what you mean program by workout which we can overthrow the government, no, i am not that. i am a guy who looks at contradictions and tries to fight for more peace, more justice, more ballots, more sustainability. balance, more

sustainability. i will give you an example. the struggle against white supremacy, which i invite everybody to join, it is not over. it has not ended. it is a struggle that goes on. it is not slavery or jim crow. vitae -- voting rights and mass incarceration, that is what we should be fighting. >> you can watch the entire debate in less than one hour from now. the lieutenant general briefed reporters on military humanitarian efforts and targeted airstrikes in iraq. this is almost 20 minutes. >> i would like to introduce

will giveyville, who you an update on operations interact. we are working with friends, partners, and allies to address the problems that we are seeing right now. without further ado. >> good afternoon. i want to update you on the operations. last thursday, at the request of the government, the president ordered humanitarian assistance to refugees on the mountain. we conducted airstrikes to citizens.s. we began a chordate series of airdrop missions to

provide aid to the refugees on the mountain. u.s. crews have flown special missions and have dropped bundles of food, water, and medical supplies. delivering gallons of water and meals. in concert with our military partners, we are responding to the security request of the international community to do everything that it can to provide water and shelter to those affected by the crisis. the president authorized airstrikes on the mountain and to protect facilities and forces in the northern city. and aircraft's this

includes u.s. aircraft which have executed 15 targeted airstrikes. these are strings have up to check the advance of missile forces in the area west of erbil. over 60 reconnaissance aircraft are doing coalition efforts in iraq. u.s. airstrikes are also providing the kurdish security forces with time to fortify their defensive positions with the supply they are receiving from the central government of baghdad. as a result, kurdish security forces are holding territory in the city of erbil and as has been reported in the media, they retook key communities near erbil itself. [inaudible] airstrikes in iraq have slowed missiles, operational tempo, and temporarily disrupted their advances for the province of erbil. however, these strikes are unlikely to affect my sil's - isil's efforts in iraq.

this will sustain attacks against iraqi and kurdish security forces and their positions as well as target minorities. our current operations are limited in scope to protect u.s. citizens and facilities, to protect u.s. aircraft supporting humanitarian assistance and to assist in the breakup of isil forces that have laid siege to the mountains. with that, i'll stop and take questions. >> secretary hagel said today that isil posed a threat to the civilized world, and certainly the u.s., and given that, people want to know whether the u.s.

military can make efforts to degrade isil's command and control, are leaders being targeted, are there the just occult loves in iraq and syria going to be targeted? >> we have been very clear about the threat of isil forces to iraq into the region. our principal task to date, what we are doing right now is to protect the u.s. facilities and the citizens, american citizens at those facilities. to protect u.s. aircraft supporting our humanitarian assistance around the mountain, and to target those isil positions that are laying siege. there are no plans to expand the current air campaign beyond the current self-defense activities.

>> [inaudible] it has been reported the u.s. government is directly arming the kurds. is the dod playing a role in those operations, will it? >> i saw that report in the media. over the weekend, it was the government of iraq and iraq he security forces that provided immediate resupply to kurdish forces. we are looking at how we can help them and studying the challenges ahead with the team that we have in baghdad providing assistance. we are looking at plans on how to expand that support. >> over the weekend, president obama said he was considering creating some kind of safe corridor to assist those refugees on top of the mountains.

he said he spoke to the british and french about that response ability. he also called it complicated. just how complicated would it be, would it require boots on the ground, would there be u.s. boots on the ground? >> the challenge we are facing right now, we are currently assessing the mccann and cannot do, try to understand the numbers on the mountain itself. i have seen reports of numbers in the thousands, reports of numbers in the tens of thousands. what is most important right now is that we deliver the much needed water, shelter, and food to those granted on the mountain. as for what we might do next, we will have to wait and see and get a better assessment on the ground before we can offer some options to the president. >> is creating a safe corridor, under those conditions, without american boots on the ground, is that possible?

>> that is too speculative. there is planning underway, you are looking at it, are you? >> right now, we are gripped by the immediacy of the crisis and our focus is to provide immediate relief to those suffering. we are looking at the effect we are having on those fixed missile sites, isil sites that are laying siege, and we are trying to reduce that threat. for the near term, that will be our focus. >> so you do not have a plan to get them off the mountain, to bring them to a refugee camp, you do not bring them down? >> we need a better understanding of what is going on. we are assessing the situation. look, in terms of the support we have received over the weekend, we have been contacted by many

of our friends. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, the french and the u.k. have joined us. of course, we are enjoying support from the region. increasingly, we are expanding the number of folks involved with this immediate crisis. it is a little bit too early to stand here today and give you very specific plans. >> could you talk about the level of effort with the air campaign? we were told last week it was 50 isil sorties. my understanding is you have ratcheted up to about 100 overall. the preponderance in northern iraq, but also strike drones and cargo. is it about 100 sorties a day now, up from 50? >> the sorties vary. a ballpark figure is between 50 and 60. our most immediate task is to

understand what's happening at the moment, to understand the complexity of the challenge, humanitarian assistance, dealing with this huge crisis is going to require. we are also trying to assess the security of our key facilities, both in baghdad and erbil. and we continue to use our intelligence to characterize the threat posed by isil forces in the region. >> in layman's language, for those watching, how are you looking at this? are you looking at what you have destroyed? >> really, the number of vehicles we strike, the exact number is less important -- the battle damage assessment, the number of things that we have is less important than the affect, which is to reduce the threats that could impact our facilities and citizens and to make sure we

reduce the effects of those laying siege to mount sinjar. >> are you seeing signs of retreat or panicking? >> isil forces? where we have targeted our strengths, we have a temporary effect. we may have blunted some tactical decisions to move in those directions, to move further east to erbil. what i expect isil to do is to look for other things to do, to pick up and move elsewhere. in no way do i want to suggest that we have effectively contained or that we are somehow breaking the momentum posed by isil. >> can we come back to security on the mountains? fundamentally, what is your assessment while you look at all of this and try to see what you are dealing with?

how much time do these people have before they run out of time? question number one. we understand you are flying drones over the mountain to try to get a picture, but even today, a cnn crew was on board and iraqi kurdish helicopter going into bringing in relief. they were shot at by isis on the way in and the way out here to clearly, isis still has capability to attack the mountain. why not more air strikes against them? >> in terms of time, we have afforded a little bit more time to the crisis with the success of our humanitarian assistance thus far. but the urgency of the crisis has not gone away. it's very important that we find a solution for those stranded up there. >> within days? within weeks?

>> it is hard for me today to tell you exactly that timeline, but what is very important, that we need to continue to assess the situation, we need to assess the humanitarian assistance, and we need toprotect that effort. with regards to the targets, one of the things that we have seen with the isil forces is where they had been in the open, they are now starting to dissipate and hide amongst the people we read so the targeting of this, of those forces trying to trying to effect the siege around the mountain, the targeting will become more difficult. so it does not surprise me that an iraqi security force attempting to resupply, which in and of itself is no small task, and shows you the iraqi security forces are very much involved in this effort, but it does not surprise me that there will be small arms fire during the ingress of those aircraft or the

egress, just because of the way that isil formations are moving around. >> the targeting on that? even though it may become more difficult, more targeting? >> we will do what we need to do to protect our facilities, protect our embassy, to protect our american citizens, and to reduce the siege, as well as to protect those aircraft providing support to mount sinjar. >> what kind of weapons are you looking at possibly giving to the kurds, and why is there a shift in policy? why can't the government in baghdad do the resupply? >> the government has been resupplying, over the weekend and last week as well. but the equipment and small arms ammunition that the kurdish security forces need is pretty substantial. so we want to help them with that effort.

in terms of what they need, principally, they need weaponry that can meet -- there are technical vehicles out there, so they need some weaponry to reduce those vehicles. some of the isil forces have longer-range weapon systems, so we need to make sure that the government of iraq and the iraqi security forces are providing longer-range weapons themselves to the kurdish forces. >> how much have we been spending on these attacks, and from what account is that money coming from? >> i cannot speak to the accounting of that effort, but i will say that we have been able to provide support and meet these tasks with the forces already in iraq.

>> beyond the limited scope of this operation, how do you assess the military capabilities of isil throughout iraq and syria? are you concerned about the internal political conflict in baghdad? there is a new prime minister and the current prime minister has refused to step down. do you think this conflict would affect our mission in iraq? >> i am very concerned about the threat posed by isil in iraq and in the region. they are very well organized, very well equipped, they coordinate their operations, and they have thus far shown the ability to attack on multiple axes. this is not insignificant. one more question. >> my question is, some news

reports suggest the white house was caught off guard by isis advancing into northern iraq. with 50-plus surveillance flights over iraq every day and assessors on the ground in erbil, why wasn't more advanced notice provided? >> we have been very clear about the threat posed by isil. we have been very consistent about that threat in the region and in iraq. what happened last week was that iraqi security forces simply did not have the equipment and supplies, and the ammunition to sustain their defensive positions around the mosul dam and in and around mount sinjar. it is for that reason that isil forces were as effective as they were. with that, i thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the white released by house today. later, president obama spoke saying he welcomed new leadership in iraq. >> good afternoon, everybody. i want to provide an update on recent developments in iraq, including important steps forward as iraqis form a new government. for the past few days american forces have successfully conducted targeted airstrike to prevent terrorist forces from advancing on erbil. kurdish forces continue to defend their city, and we set up military advice and assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces as they wage the fight against isil.

we have continued our commando. efforts to provide assistance to the men, women, and children njar.ded on mount sija some have begun to escape. we are working with international partners to develop options to bring them to safety. i want to thank in particular the united kingdom, france, and other countries working with us to provide much-needed assistance to the iraqi people. our aircraft are made in position to strike any terrorist forces around the mountain that threaten these families. the limiteds military objectives we've outlined in iraq, protecting american citizens, providing advice and assistance to iraq he forces as they battle terrorists, and joining with international forces to provide humanitarian aid. but as i said when i authorize

these operations, there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. the only lasting solution is for iraqis to come together and form an inclusive government, one that represents the legitimate interests of all iraqis and one that unifies the country's fight against isil. today iraq took a promising step in this effort. last month iraq named a new president. today the president named a new prime minister designate. under the iraqi constitution this is an important step towards forming a new government q'st can unite ira different communities. earlier today vice president widen and i called the president and urged him to form a cabinet as quickly as possible, one that represents all iraqis. i pledged her support to him as well as to the president and the

speaker as they work together to form this government. i urge all iraqi lives go leaders to work peacefully through the political process in the days ahead. this new iraqi leadership has a difficult task. it has to regain confidence of its citizens by governing inclusively, by taking steps to result.ate its the united states stands ready to help the government that addresses the needs of all iraqi people. we are ready to work with other countries in the region to deal with the humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenges in iraq. mobilizing that support will be user wants this new government is in place. these been difficult days in iraq, a country that has faced many challenges in its recent history. i'm sure there will be difficult days ahead. as the united states will remain vigilant to the threat posed by stand we stand ready to

with iraq. that effort will be advanced if iraqis continue to build on today's progress and come together to support a new and inclusive government. thanks, everybody. >> just before president obama spoke, john boehner released a statement saying -- in about 50 minutes, a debate about what makes america great, ayers and conservative author and film maker dinesh d'souza.

that is at 8:00 eastern. >> watch the tv in prime time. tonight, book tv features a wide range of topics, including foreign policy, law coverage issues, iran, of book festivals across the country, the sellers from this year, and let us know about what you think about this country. call us or you can e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. week while congress is in recess, watch american history tv in primetime. american history tv will feature a variety of topics, on the early american republic, jewish history, and world war ii. call us or you can e-mail us.

join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. morning'srrow "washington journal," our guest is bob cusack. we will also be joined by a guest who will discuss the aidsing to combat the disease. now from this morning, conversation on job growth in the u.s.. we are joined by harry

holzer of georgetown university. give us your 30,000 foot view of the job situation now. guest: it is getting a little better and the improvement is starting to gain some steam. we have had six months in a row of job growth over 200,000. that is still not spectacular, but a lot better than we have experienced in this slow recovery. in speed.ome increase the uptick in the unemployment rate might happen because so many people dropped out of the labor force. they got discouraged and were not finding anything of those people might start to come back. when you're out of the labor force, you don't count as being unemployed. when you come back in, you do count. even as the labor market gets steam, we might see the on employment rate tick up a bit, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. host: where the problem areas in

your view? guest: people are starting to worry about the overall pace and will we continue to stay in that range per month. will we pick up speed or will we have another stumble? we have had false hopes several times in this recovery before. part of the question is, will the good news continue? the other thing people worry about is not just quantity of jobs but the quality of jobs created. so far, a lot of the jobs have been retail trade and the low end of the service sector and those are often the lower wage jobs that we lost in the downturn. the question is, will better paying jobs come back not just in the professional sectors and health care but also in the places where people without b.a. degrees can get a good job in construction and manufacturing or some parts of health care for technicians?

a lot of the job so far have been part time. we are looking at the quality of jobs and how much they pay as well as the quantity. host: we will get into that in this segment of "washington journal." earlier this month president obama touted the latest job creation numbers. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> this morning, we learned that our economy created over 200,000 new jobs in july. that is on top of about 300,000 new jobs in june. we are now in a six-month streak with at least 200,000 new jobs each month. that is the first time that has happened since 1997. over the past year, we have added more jobs since 2006 and our businesses have created 9.9 million new jobs over the past 53 months. that is the longest streak of private-sector job creation in

our history. host: is this something to be optimistic about? is this a reminder of how deep the jobs hole was due to the great recession? guest: probably a little of both. the recovery has been painfully slow. we are now in our sixth year of recovery formally. the recovery has been modest at 2% growth in gdp per year and jobs have been in that range of new job creation for so long, that when you finally hit the 300,000 range, you get excited about that continues. in previous recoveries come you sometimes had 300,000, 400,000 per month. that is much better, it's an improvement and we hope it stays at this level or maybe goes up a little bit. host: are americans optimistic about these numbers? there's a story from yahoo!

finance that talks about the recent polling. guest: there is clearly some pessimism there. there is different things going on. there is often a lag between when a recovery starts to pick up steam and that might play a a role, but there are long-term trends in the economy but don't have anything to do

with recovery from the recession. that trend is towards lower wages and mourn difficult times, lower earnings for people that don't have at least some higher education. that is a somewhat separate issue. people worry about their kids not doing as well as they did. some of what effects that is the long-term trend of the economy. i think people are feeling it from both ends, the short-term recession-based difficulties in the longer-term trends. there is some legitimacy to both. host: even if job numbers are looking good in recent months, these other factors are the drags on the economy? guest: they can be. forces like technology and globalization are starting to have a huge effects on the job market. in the long term, those are good things. they enable us to buy products for cheaper and have higher-quality products. in the short term, it might cause people to spend less money. i think maybe that has contributed to the slow pace of the recovery so far. host: we are talking to the former chief economist of the u.s. labor department and a professor at georgetown university. we are talking about the job market and the u.s. economy

overall. i have a special line for those who are unemployed. host: we will start with tim calling in from palm desert, california, on our line for democrats, good morning. are you with us? i don't think we have tim, but we will go on to anthony in clearwater, florida, on our line for independent good morning, caller: with the dismantling of our infrastructure over the last 20 years, i want to know --

there is this new trans-pacific partnership and transatlantic agreement partnership. how is that going to affect the jobs in the united states and is it going to be a partnership, or will it be a new global governance that people have to supersede their individual rights for? guest: i'm hoping it'll be a partnership. global trade is another area where it's mostly good for everybody, especially over time. in the short term, some people will lose their jobs when we allow in cheaper imports. as long as we have strong job creation and other parts of the economy, that's ok. we can do some stuff to help workers who lose their job but overall global trade is good because it increases our exports in the hope that both of these things will happen. host: when you say some people will lose their jobs, is the united states on the losing end

as far as the short-term jobs? guest: people in export industries get more jobs and people in industries where there are imports coming in might lose them. we should probably do more to help. maybe we can help them get new skills and make that transition and give them better support in the short term. i am hoping the net balance will be positive from those actions and sooner rather than later. host: we have a line for the unemployed. caller: good morning. i just happened to be looking at the labor statistics. i have been looking for the seasonal average which comes out to 293,000 people that file for unemployment. i would like to know how does the president of the united

states thinks that there are jobs being created when there are so many people that are statistically -- it's factual -- filing for unemployment and we are saying there are jobs being created? the 293,000 people that file for unemployment on the first time, is not factored in. to me, that's not creating any jobs. guest: it turns out that is always the case, that even when the economy is at full employment, you always have new jobs being created and all jobs being destroyed. you have businesses being shut down or reorganizing. you have startups and businesses expanding so you will have some of that when the economy is really strong. 295,000 jobs or people filing for unemployment sounds like a big number. it's actually not a bad number. during the depths of the recession, that number was over 400,000.

the fact that is under 300,000 now, most economists of view that as a positive sign as long as the economy is creating other jobs in other places to pick up those workers. host: since we are delving into the numbers -- another number from the july report is 3.2 million people as long-term unemployed. talk about that number a little bit. guest: the quick answer is we should be concerned about that. this recession and the slow recovery has created a lot of long-term unemployed, which is defined as being unemployed for six months or longer. that's a problem because those people have more difficulty getting back in. the number has gone down over the last few years or so and has gone down as a percentage of the total unemployed. it's hard to tell how much of that because people are dropping out of the job market. the large number of long-term unemployed people is definitely a concern, and those people will probably need more help than others getting back in the market and finding new jobs. host: what was that number

before the great recession hit? guest: before the recession hit, i don't know the exact number, but we measure it by a fraction. before it was usually 20% or in that ballpark. it jumped up to over 40% at the depths of the recession. i think out of the somewhere in the low 30%'s. that is improvement. there are still too many people in that category including some who are not captured by that number. host: mark is up next from ohio on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask you -- you hear tons of economists talking and what gets me is they very rarely mention -- and we need growth in this country and that's understandable, but they never say -- especially with the republicans, they say you need

9% growth per year. they never mention the toll this has on the natural resources it takes to keep that sort of economy going. that is what really concerns me. i just don't understand. at that rate, the natural resources don't have a chance to replenish themselves and keep a good, vibrant economy going and keep some natural land growing that everybody enjoys for relaxation which you need from this crazy world. please answer that for me. guest: the important issue is how we balance our need for economic road with our need to protect the environment and deal with climate change which is becoming a more serious problem all the time, as well as some of the issues you raise. the answer is we need both. we need to have economic growth to create more jobs for these

unemployed workers, and we need to do more to protect the environment. those things are not necessarily an object if you have the right policies. you can do that by having a carbon tax or have other kinds of zoning to protect the lands. that encourages us to have smarter growth and cleaner growth. it does not destroy the environment and does not lead to more climate change. the politics and the poisonous politics at the federal level have kept us from doing important things. almost every mainstream economist i know, republican or democrat, favors some kind of a tax on carbon which would encourage us to have growth that is less carbon intensive. it would produce damage to the environment. politics that are poisonous, the power of the tea party movement more on the republican side has limited our ability to do smart things like that that would protect our economic growth, but

shift it in a greener direction. that is how we could have some of both. it takes smarter policies. host: plenty of debates about that topic, that is playing out on capitol hill in recent months. let's go to wisconsin on our line for independents, good morning. caller: i believe the best jobs creation program would be the complete elimination of the corporate income tax on american profits, but only tax profits made outside the country. this would be so simple. it would eliminate so much of the cost burden on our economy. guest: i would not go quite as far as you would on that. if you just eliminated the corporate tax completely on domestic production, you would lose a lot of revenue, and despite the problems of that tax now, that is relatively progressive tax.

it hits shareholders who are upper-income people, the part i agree with very strongly is our corporate tax structure is in need of reform. right now, we have very high corporate tax rates compared to the rest of the world with a lot of loopholes. some companies pay that tax and some companies pay a lot less. but does encourage the flow overseas. we need some kind of smart corporate tax reform that brings those rates down at the same time we close out the loopholes and we do with this issue that people call inversion work companies are moving enough of their production overseas that they can get out of paying american taxes. smart corporate tax reform i think should be pretty high on our policy agenda now. host: from twitter -- that leads to the cover story of this week's "christian science monitor" --

that story includes a chart talking about the uneven recovery which shows the change in net worth per household from 2009 to 2011 for the lower 93% of americans, the change in net worth has gone down 4% for the wealthiest americans, it has gone up 28%. guest: that's an important issue. you are looking at the quantity of jobs created an overall growth versus who benefits is the issue, and whose incomes and assets are going up. we have a huge inequality problem, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. some people don't regard inequality is a problem at all. they say as long as you have equal opportunity, we should not worry about the level of inequality.

we don't have equal opportunity. we should do more to try to get it. i think inequality is very troubling at this level. people lost a lot of wealth in the 2009-2010 downturn. for lower- to middle-income americans, most of that value was in their homes and we have only recovered 40% of that value so far so those people continue to take a big hit, whereas higher income americans have most of their wealth in stocks and bonds. they have bounced back very nicely. it is one more example of things going very well for the rich and not nearly as well for the middle- and lower-income americans. i think we should worry about that more than we do. host: here's the cover of "the christian science monitor." we are talking with harry holzer, former chief economist at the u.s. labor department, and he is with us for the next

20 minutes or so. we have a special line set up for those unemployed americans. let's go to jeff in arkansas on our line for independents. caller: i was wanting to know what percentage of the population is directly dependent on government spending for their livelihood. the first category would be state and federal and local employees and people working in an industry dependent on government spending and people who are on some form of federal assistance? guest: i don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips, but the answer is probably -- the number of people who get some kind of government benefit -- mitt romney talked about the 47%. the number is probably in that range, but let's be careful. you are lumping together apples

and oranges and bananas when you do that. all of the elderly in this country get social security and medicare, so immediately those folks go in a category. folks on disability, folks either working for the government now or have worked in the past and have some kind of government pension, or veterans getting their health care through the department of defense. so when you add up all those categories, including current government employees, you probably get a number in the ballpark of 50%. before we get upset about that number, i think a lot of those need to be separated out. a lot of those are categories that most americans would say that's reasonable for them to get the compensation they are getting. if we are unhappy about that number, we should think carefully about exactly who we want to take off those roles and how to do that. host: idaho is next on our line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning, my name is john.

i've run my own business for 25 years. when nafta was voted in, i had 13 employees. free trade is good for big corporations, but you ask the american public right now -- free trade is killing our economy and is killing our jobs and it's destroying the infrastructure of the small communities in america. and people like you and our representatives that make these trade deals and study these numbers really don't understand the big problem. you can ask a republican or democrat or independent. we need some real help out here. we are not really getting it. do you have any input for me or my family and my little business? host: were you ever involved in putting together a trade deal when you worked to the labor department? guest: no, i was involved in some efforts to help workers who became unemployed as a result of that deal. i have some sympathy for the call.

any time you have an increase in international trade, some people get hurt by that. some businesses will get hurt by that, including some small businesses. at the same time, other businesses are helped. trade usually increases our exports as well as our imports. it makes our economy more efficient overall. there has been hundreds of studies on this by economists. traditionally, trade tends to raise living standards. but there are adjustment costs and people who can get hurt and those people need more help like the unemployed workers who might need new skill training to help them get back on their feet. we also have to make sure that the playing field is more level. this is a criticism that is reasonable for some people. because countries like china

keep their currencies undervalued, that tilts the playing field in their direction. they end up doing more of the exporting and we end up doing more of the importing. i would be sympathetic to some efforts to try to level the playing field and get the currencies more in line with what they ought to be. maybe you would see more exports going on and that balance between exports and trade with positive effects of these new trade agreements that would become apparent. there are short-term costs that we should do more to help people who bear that burden. host: from twitter -- guest: i have signed a public statement by economists supporting a federal minimum wage increase gradually lifting it to $10 per hour. i recognize as an economist that you force businesses to pay a higher price. dozens and dozens of studies have been done on that and some studies find a small negative

effect and some studies find a zero effect. my guess is if you bump the federal minimum up to $10 per hour, you will see some job loss. the congressional budget office did their own report and set up up to 500,000 jobs could be eliminated over three years. that is about two months worth of new job creation spread over three years. the benefits to a higher minimum wage, it would benefit 16 millioni to 24 million workers. there is a trade-off. i think the number of people in a fitting is much larger than the number of people losing their jobs. i would make that trade but i would do it cautiously. a $15 per hour minimum wage in seattle or san francisco, i would be reluctant to endorse that. host: next on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe the trade agreements are the heart of our economic problems in this country.

it absolutely does no good to have cheap products when people do not have decent jobs to be able to buy the products. part of the problem is free trade versus fair trade. our competitors like in china, they don't have epa requirements and things we have to follow here. what do you think the impact is of trade deficits with other countries? we are constantly losing this trade war. also, the impact of having hidi h1bi visas with regards to jobs and open borders in this country. i think their experience with trade is that it improves the living standard of our competitors and the elite in this country but not the common person. guest: i sympathize a little

with your comments. i think overall trade remains good. that is another area where dozens of studies have been done by economists. asde raises exports as well -- you raise reasonable point. he had been running trade deficits for many years now. art of that reflect the overvalued dollar. i support efforts to try to level that playing field to make the trade fairer. --er things in the economy trade is not the source of most of the problems now. most of the problems reflect the recession and other things going on. it technologies that make easier for companies to replace workers, especially workers without a lot of education, who do fairly routine kinds of work. trade is only responsible for a small part of that overall

problem. the other thing you talked h1b1 visa.heh1b people can debate about immigration. i think there's a fair amount of consensus that highly skilled immigrants, people with ph that is good for the economy. it creates more patents and products. all of that is the best thing that could happen to the u.s. economy. there are possible reforms in the process that might make that process better or fairer. is mostly aigration very good thing, and i would be cautious about labeling or lump it all these things together and blaming our current economic problems on immigrants. host: we have a line for unemployed americans. we have a person calling in on

that line from new jersey. caller: good morning. i'm excited to be on. i wanted to tell you my story. my story is i am 58 years old. computer degree in science. been in andi have out of employment. so i try to reinvent myself. when i was unemployed i did whatever they told me, so i took a certification for medical billing and coding. i reinvented myself again. i became a substitute teacher in new jersey, and now you go through an agency and you can work all over jersey. to make $100 per diem, you have

to work in cities like camden and trenton, and i have done both. and then the last thing, because i have health insurance back i got my license to be an independent insurance agent, and they wanted -- and i took it and i went an hour from camden. i thank them for the opportunity because the licensing helped me. i'm 58, a person of color. it is heartrate -- it is hard to create -- 1980's, i worked for a wonderful corporation, prudential. aarp operation. they trained us on how to do the job they wanted. commentwant to let you on the situation. several transitions she has made. t: pat's story, first of

all, it's moving and -- every time a job ends or gets in trouble, pat finds another pathway to make it. but for about nine years, folks like pat have been swimming against the tide. it reflects the situation that some of the problems were due to the recession, and others were due to longer-term trends. what do we do about that? again, we try to help those transitions and it's interesting because we send a lot of people to college in america, including community colleges. and sometimes a lot of people drop out and don't finish and then people like pat finish. pat did everything right. she finished,

got a degree in a field that seemed to be growing. and even that sometimes isn't enough. the american economy isn't fast and an area with strong job growth one year can be shedding workers a year or two later. it's hard. the only thing i can say is that policy has to work harder to help people like pat in the short term help them get into college and get those degrees in the high-demand field. but once she finishes, we need to have more assistance getting her into the job market. if she can't get health insurance through the job, that's why obamacare is important. really, there's very good numbers right now, so the government helps subsidize

people like pat. we can help people get the skills they need, then help them transition to new jobs. if they're still in low wage or low benefit jobs, we can help supplement them. i don't think we can stop eliminating those jobs. technology and globalization are very powerful sources. even if we wanted to, we couldn't stop it from doing that if we tried today. the world we're going to live in, a very dynamic world. and the best thing we can do is try to help workers make the transitions and if they can't get the jobs, provide

supplements. host: in the usa today, charles coke writes in that piece, we should eliminate the artificial cost of hiring government policies such as obamacare have provides us incentives hire two part time people instead of one full time person to do the same job. guest: mr. coke is not exactly a neutral observer on this topic. he has very, very strong views. we're mixing apples and oranges together. i believe as the economy picks up more steam, employers when they create jobs will be more willing to commit to full-time employment and the higher wages and benefits that

entails. it's funny he provides obama care. now, it may be that some businesses are anticipating that in creating part-time jobs in advance. there's a lot of different reasons for those numbers and if you're going to say to eliminate obamacare, as an economist, i was trained to look at. the cost. that's something to keep watching. i will not blame obamacarr for all the growth in part-time work. i don't think that's warranted by the facts. i'm hoping this recovery picks up steam and more part time workers will get more full time jobs. host: only a few minutes left.

harry holzer with us from georgetown, university and the labor department. caller: first of all, your speaker is totally out of touch with what's going on in america as far as obamacare. it's evidence that employers are hiring people 29 hours per week or less. period. take a look over the last four years the number of total part time jobs versus full time jobs created. i think maybe you'll wake up and figure out what obamacare has done to the labor market. host: if you want to respond. guest: mike, frankly, i think you're overstating your case. it might well be that obamacare is leading some jobs to become part-time. what i'm trying to tell you and maybe you should be

better in touch with the 10 million people who are now insuranced. why is america the only major industrial country in the world with a massive industrial population. other industrial company has figured out how to provide insurance to its population. i understand that there might be some costs to that. in the world i live in, there's always costs as well as benefits. and some of the growth of part time doesn't reflect that. if that continues to be the case, maybe loosen the employer mandate at some point. my sense is that every problem somehow gets attributed to obamacare, and i think that's out of touch as well. we have to be honest. but americans need to be insured and we have

to do more to rein in those costs. host: now we have michael from kansas city. caller: my thing is commonsense in anything people do, it's just a shame people don't use commonsense. host: what do you mean, michael? caller: you know, in life. you talk about all these people unemployed and all this stuff. commonsense tell you don't shut down the government. just do what you supposed to do. you know, you got -- it's just commonsense. guest: i think commonsense is a commodity we do need a little

more of. and there's one point that i think is correct, we often do stupid things like government shut down, the refusal to think of other things. some of these problems really are complex and difficult and the world is changing very rapidly and keeping up with those changes i think is a big challenge. i think more commonsense in this town would certainly help. host: montgomery, alabama, eric is calling on our line from democrats. caller: my question, it's kind of two-parted. for one, i would like to ask, does the inability of congress to be able to act on the american people, has that negatively affected our job

market and do you forsee any action on raising the minimum wage, tax reform, or the new bubble of student loan debt? guest: you know, eric, i think that the paralysis in washington right now, that clearly hurts the economy. it makes inequality worse. i think raising the minimum wage modestly, gradually, things of that nature would help. it's hard to get anything done in this town. i mean, we have this crisis of children flowing over the border. we have to do something about that and the

paralysis in congress, congress people left on vacation without being able to do anything sensible on that. so it's hard to be optimistic and see how we're going to come out of this election with a for functional congress than we have right now. and that's a big source of concern. i don't think we're going to go back to one party. maybe in 2016 if we elect a president and two houses of congress from the same party and there are other concerns about that happening. it's discouraging. host: has the u.s. economy learned the lessons of the great recession or are old habits starting to come back in? guest: you're talking more about the housing and financial markets where big bubbles

developed and when they burst, we had a massive recession. we learned some lessons from that. i think the frank legislation does some things right told correct that problem. i fear that in some places, legislation may not have been strong enough or there's some latitude for it. right now, banks are required to come up with these plans with how they would be resolved. fdic and the federal reserve recently rejected a lot of their proposals as not going far enough in the restrict direction. but a lot of these problems still exist, banks that are still big to fail that we might still need to bail out. but there's still time to correct that and i hope the federal reserve remains >> this month c-span presents

debates on what makes america great, evolution, genetically .odified foods a look at health care, irs oversight, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault. and our history and tour -- history tour. fighter schedule one week in advance -- find our schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. call us or e-mail us. join the conversation. ike us on facebook. follow us on twitter. here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday, a history tour looking at the civil war. saturday, a technology fair on

capitol hill. sunday, political commentator pat buchanan. bookspan2 friday night, on hillary clinton, barack obama, and edward snowden. at 10:30, the literary sites of casper, wyoming. night,an3 friday the negro league kansas city monarchs. sunday on real america, an interview with president herbert hoover. call us. e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. ayersa few moments bill

d'souza debate on what is great about america. and a focus on national security. inter-american dialogue focuses on central american immigrants. [applause] >> good evening and welcome to tonight's feature debate between dinesh d'souza and bill ayers. i'ju