president's plan for defeating isis in iraq and syria. as always, we'll take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it's the "washington journal" for september 13. the u.s. has expanded sanctions against russia. this goes directly to five companies that deal in oil, financial services, and defense sectors. the new york times looks at recent actions by hillary clinton that could benefit her should she decide to run for president. one mentions her speaking at the harkin steak fry, an event designed to excite democrats before a fall election. you can see her comments at the harkin steak fry tomorrow on c-span. that will be at 3:30 in the afternoon. the newspaper "roll call" profiles the 50 richest members of congress with the top person on the list being worth $350 million. we'll look at some of those who

made the scomplist why, but for our first 45 minutes, we'd like to get your thoughts on your member of congress and if they represent you. you may decide to look at this in economic terms of how much you make, but you also may decide to talk about if your member represents your beliefs, your values or what have you. here's how you can make your thoughts known on our lines. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 2020-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. you can make your thoughts nown on social media, too. @cspanwj is how you tweet us. on facebook, about 40 people so far posting. u can send us email too at journal@c-span.org. this could take a lot of dvent things, depending on what you want to bring to the table. economically, you may want to make your thoughts known as well, especial until light of a recent posting that was on the newspaper "roll call" here in

washington, d.c. they decided to profile the top 50 richest members of congress. on the phone to talk about the list is one of the people responsible for the piece, the staff writer, who is with "roll call." thanks for joining us. guest: thanks, pedro. host: tell us a little bit about why "roll call" puts this list out. guest: sure. well, it's a really unique project that "roll call" does. it's something that we've been doing for 24 years, and the reason we do is we just want to give people a picture of how wealthy their members of congress are, and we also list the 10 poorest members of congress. you get to see the range of wealth between all 541 members. host: something about when it comes to wealth, how do you find out this information? guest: yes, we have a specific methodology. so we comb through all of their financial disclosure reports, and we add up -- we figure out their minute worth. so to do that, we add up the

minimum value of all of their assets, and from that figure, we subtract the total minimum value of all of their liabilities. so you're probably wondering why i keep saying the word minimum, and that's because of the way the financial disclosure reports are set up. they have members list values of assets and liabilities in terms of ranges. so say you're a member of congress, and you're reporting a stock, and you check the box on your financial disclosure form that is worth between $5 million and $25 million. so us looking at the form, we don't know where in that range the stock actually falls, but we do know that it's worth at least $5 million. so while it's not perfectly precise, it is the most accurate way to get a picture of the wealth for all members of congress. host: you list 50, but we're going to give you a list of five that we'll show on the air. you can talk about this, the five top richest members of congress. this list, it starts with

representative darrell issa, also michael mccaul, john delaney of maryland, jay rockefeller, the senator from west virginia, democratic senator, and mark warner, democratic senator from virginia. of that list, start with darrell issa, and talk maybe also about some other interesting aspects of people on that list. guest: sure. congressman darrell issa, republican from california, he's a chairman of the house committee on government oversight and reform. this is his second year as the richest member of congress. he's worth at least $357 million. and that outpaces every single member. his wealth is triple that of the second wealthiest member of congress. and he made his fortune from funding car alarm companies, but now most of his wealth is from the bond market and real estate. some other interesting things

to note about that top five, the second wealthiest member, congressman michael mccaul, he actually doesn't list a single asset in his name. they're all mostly connected to his wife, linda, which is kind of an interesting thing that we found. host: what does his wife do? guest: his wife, i believe her father was involved in real estate -- oh, her father founded clear channel communications, but i believe that all those assets in stocks and everything come from that. host: also on the list, john delaney of maryland, the democrat. his net worth is $111 million. guest: yes, that's right, and his net worth really increased this year by 64%, making him -- he's also the wealthiest democrat, which is kind of interesting. actually, of the top 10, democrats really outrank republicans here. there are eight democrats and two republicans in the top 10, which is also interesting to note.

host: we can't highlight it here, but if you go to the website to check it out later, not only do they talk about the worth, they talk about the assets and how it breaks down as far as investments, real estate, trust, and bank accounts. we talked about the richest. you mentioned the poorest. let's define what poorest means in this term. guest: sure. so just to give you a picture, the poorest member of congress is congressman the republican of california. he has a net worth of negative $3.7 million. so of these 10 poorest, a lot of them are in debt mostly because of margins, so that's how we figure up that list. host: so the other ones on that list, the democrat of florida, the republican from california, the republican from california, and number five on that list, the member from missouri. the question you have to ask with all this money and being on this list, being on this

list, i guess as far as our viewers are concerned, does that affect the political process at all, and do you make those parallels? guest: sure. that's a good question. our senior editor did an interesting column looking at the vulnerable incumbents that are on the list, and there are five of them, four democrats, one republican. he pointed out that in this midterm election cycle, the fact that those vulnerable members are so wealthy might not have a really significant effect on their races just because their challengers are also well off. but i think generally in the political atmosphere, this can probably only contribute to the public looking at congress as an institution that's out of touch, frankly. this year we've seen the lowest approval ratings for congress ever. so this kind of only could add to that. host: the work of the people from "roll call" available on

their website. you can find that information of the 50 richest members of congress. joining us on the phone, bridget bowman. thanks for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: you may look at if your representative best represents you or reflects the way you think. in terms of money, as our guest talks about, or maybe if it comes to values or beliefs, what have you, for our first 45 minutes does, your congress person represent new terms of all those things? here's how you can make those thoughts known. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. and for independents, 202-585-3882. you can mention them by name if you wish. several who are posting on facebook and on twitter this morning doing that. this person on twitter say joe garcia is his member of congress, saying he does a good job considering his hands are

tied by the g.o.p. oligarchy in the house. again, make those thoughts known on our facebook page or twitter page, and you can put those there, and we'll read some of those as we go along on the morning. michael is up first. he is from new york. we're asking you to talk about if your congressperson represents you. michael, you're on. good morning, go ahead. >> good morning to you. thank you so much for allowing me to talk. i happen to -- i don't think my ongressperson represents me. i'm a professor in a university here in new york. it's quite funny. we have -- they say that isis has 30,000 people, you know, following them. our university here in new york, which is -- obama went there -- has more than 30,000 people. but that's not really the reason for my concern with my congressperson. host: who is your congressperson, by the way?

which one would you like to highlight? caller: it's caroline maloney. here's my concern. i hear president obama on tv talking about how he's going to destroy the russian economy. now, being that i'm a little bit of a senior professor, i remember the cuban missile crisis. so here's president obama telling us he's going to destroy the russian economy, which is a bit dangerous with a country that has over 5,000 atomic weapons, which could destroy europe and the united states. host: so you mentioned your congress person being caroline maloney. when it comes to foreign policy, do you think she would reflect your views on issues of foreign policy? caller: oh, no, no, she's on tv with president obama saying, you know, it's a good thing crash the going to

russian economy. there's no mention about detroit. detroit has no water. 350,000 people are without water. host: ok. don is up next, largo, florida, democrats line. we're asking about your congressperson, if they best represent you. don, good morning. caller: yeah, my congressperson is david jolly. he was recently put into office by an illegal gerrymander. his office was called for privileged illegal gerrymander. i filed charges with him and his republican supervisor of election and asked that my opinion be placed in a congressional record, as i was a candidate for that office. i find that unless you take bribes and become incorporated, they call it campaign contributions, and a sandain committee, you can't get elected, and it's done by the media. you know, here we have the

"tampa bay times," a multimillion dollar organization that only recognized alex as a democrat candidate for u.s. congress because she was likely to give bribes. we recently had a u.s. florida governor raised here in which they only raised rick scott, and charlie cris -- host: as far as your congressman, despite how he got into office, how does he not reflect you -- how does he differ from you? caller: he believes we have to have a closed system that says the constitution has nothing to do with constitutional qualifications. we have to have a closed system that says only bribes and incorporation count. i say that people are naturally described in the u.s. constitution, declaration of independence, pledge of allegiance, we don't have to have a closed system that says that we don't exist. host: donna up next from california, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on.

go ahead. who's the person -- who's your congressperson? let's start off with that. caller: my congressperson, unfortunately, is darrell issa. he does not represent me or my beliefs at all. host: as far as -- what are chief amongst those beliefs or values, what would you say he most differs with you on? caller: well, he just wants to totally obstruct and stop anything that the democrats want to do. he's had over 100 hearings or something on benghazi. 's just -- he's vowed to obstruct the white house as much as he possibly could. host: so darrell issa is your representative. what about your senators? do they more reflect you there in california? caller: oh, yes. we have dianne feinstein and barbara boxer. they're great.

host: that's donna from california. again, our first 45 minutes devoted on looking at your congressperson, whether they be in the house or in the senate and asking you if that person best represents you. you can look at it in a variety of ways, but if you want to make your thoughts known, 202-585-3880 is our line for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. and it's 202-585-3882 for independents. our first caller had mentioned russia, and the front page of the financial times this morning takes a look at an increase of sanctions towards that nation. this is from the front page, "u.s. escalates pressure on moscow," saying that it significantly expanded the sanctions against russia yesterday by adding its biggest gas company and the largest bank to the list of targeted companies, a major escalation of pressure on moscow to step back from the war in ukraine --

host: we'll hear next from george, south carolina, independent line, hi. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. good morning. caller: all right. my concern about my congressperson representing me, i have senator graham. he's been very instrumental in keeping our air force base up and running during the budget cuts of the defense department. and also, he's been a major person about the benghazi

incident, as well as the or iso policy of isis situation, and up and running is senator tim scott. he looks pretty promising as far as education and the welfare state. so yes, i agree with my state senators. host: let's hear from fran, who lives in albany, new york. democrats line, good morning, fran. caller: oh, good morning. how are you? host: i'm well, thanks. caller: well, we are represented by senator paul. my husband is here, he's my peanut gallery. we have senator schumer and senators gillebrand. they're all very good. congressman tonko has a lot of town meetings where he really listens to people, and he spends time with people, you know, all throughout his district. he also has listened to people's concerns about their taxes going up and has really balanced the needs of, you know, ok, we need these taxes to provide certain programs,

but on the other hand, people also need a way to maintain their livelihood. he's very good about balancing those concerns. and he also did vote for the affordable care act, which i think overall is a good thing. of course, any new program is going to have its glitches and its problems, but i think it's better to have it than to not have it. and when i mentioned a concern i had, he was very understanding and did something for a sector of the population that is not very high profile, in addition to addressing the major concerns of homeowners and a major sector of the population, he was concerned about what i brought up, a number of women being release from the incarceration, state incarceration, and i basically released homelessness, because there's not enough housing for them. there's more housing for men returning from incarceration, and he actually did something to help enable more community residences for people in need of that type of housing.

host: with foreign policy being discussed here on capitol hill, particularly after the president's speech this week, has your congressman weighed in on that, and how would you like him to vote or at least weigh in on the topic of attacking isis and going after them? caller: well, he's in the process of -- i mean, his way of approaching those situations in the past has been to, you know, weigh in with his consultants, his team, then weigh in with the public, and then come up with an informed and thoughtful opinion. so i'm assured that he will be doing that and coming up with, you know, something public. i haven't had the time working as many hours as i do to find out exactly what he has done, but i'm sure that that is -- that's his way of problem solving, and i'm sure he'll come up with a balanced opinion. host: fran telling bus her congressperson, if she represents her. you can do the same on one of the lines this morning. up next, we'll hear from georgia. here is harry on our independent line. good morning, harry.

you're on, sir. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks very much. i would just say it seems to me my congressman, rob woodall, represents the republican party. he doesn't represent me. he doesn't represent the interests of the community. he represents the interests of the people who donate money to him, which come -- the majority from out of the district, and even out of the state. i voted 20 years for john behinder who rob woodall worked for, and john was very what you call constituent-oriented. he paid attention to his voters, but rob woodall does not seem to. host: what's the chief area of difference between and you your congressman, do you think? caller: well, again, it would serving the

interests of the republican party instead of serving the interest -- host: specifically how? caller: in the constituency. well, again, obstructing everything that the white house tries to do. this whole idea of what they call the hastert rule in the house of representatives, which determines that nobody bill will be brought to the floor unless it has the majority of republican support is just -- it's foolishness, and it's short-sighted, and it's mean. host: kyle up next from minnesota, republican line, hi. caller: hi. how are you? host: i'm well, thanks. caller: my congressman is congressman kline, and he had previously recommended me, but i tried to primary him out after his support for the

n.s.a. and for broad intervention worldwide, but i failed in that as secretary, so i feel like i'm turk more third party. host: and who do you like in the third party, if anybody comes to mind? caller: unfortunately, we don't have any candidates in the second congressman district here running third party. so there really isn't an option. host: when you look at issues about where you differ with your congressman, is it specifically security, specifically foreign policy, or are there other issues that come to mind? caller: mainly the fourth amendment. he doesn't seem to care too much about the fourth amendment, and then foreign policy. he seems to be a broad interventionist worldwide. host: and as far as this -- are you voting for anybody in this november's election? caller: i am. i'm leaning third party again, but perhaps mr. mcfadden who's

running against mr. franken. scommoip that's kyle from minnesota. he's calling in on a republican line. again, if you want to give us a call on the line, it's 202-585 -3808 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. on twitter, edwin christian writing in this morning, saying that louie is his representative, and he does not represent, he says, most of our area. he represents the g.o.p. first, fox news second, and he thinks about east texas. if you want to get specific on facebook or twitter, or you can make comments on the line as well this morning. from liberia, the focus out of washington. it talks about how that country is dealing with ebola. it says that its president wrote a letter to president obama. he president wrote that --

host: the 25-bed hospital being provided is hardly a drop in the bucket for the people of liberia.

your congressman and if they represent you, new jersey, republican line. this is pat. hello. caller: hey, pedro. my congressman is frank pallone, and he is a democrat. like the caller from georgia, he really supports his donors. he's big on domestic spending, but the things like -- my pet peeve with him is outsourcing. two of his biggest donors are people who outsource to india, and he's a founder of the -- i believe it was called the friendship with india caucus, which is great. we should be good with the world's largest democracy, but he actually supports sending american jobs overeast, which has been a big harm to this community. host: have you asked to talk to him about it or at least called his office about it, and what was the response? caller: yes, i did. in fact, i got signatures from several people in my district requesting a response, requesting a meeting with him. i was told to come to one of

his, you know, district meetings, and the district meeting is heavy with senior citizens and people talking about local issues, and there's really no time to address this issue at a meeting like that, and frankly, it goes against the interests of his key donors. host: that's pat from new jersey from. connecticut, this is john on our independent line. hi, john. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to support, although i'm independent, i'd like very much to support chris murphy. he's the democratic senator, the junior senator in connecticut who's come up with a four-point plan. really, it's a set of principles for defeating isis. i think they're very intelligent, and i agree with all four of them. there's a political and diplomatic surge, which goes strongly into defeating the ideology of extremism alongside

the air campaign, which the president suggested. the second is to ensure sunni and shiite inclusion with sunni -- probably sunni leadership. the third is opposition to arming syrian rebels. he doesn't like that idea, nor do i. and the fourth is he wants to be sure that congressional authorization is sought. agree with that. host: because you know his plan or at least the points of the plan, do you think does he a good job at selling, you know, his plan to other members of congress, other constituents? do you think he does a good job of that? caller: that remains to be seen, because this only came out yesterday, and it's a very good question. but what i like are the two points on which he disagrees with the president. he respectfully disagrees on arming the syrian rebels, on the one hand, which is a very complex problem, because you don't know who you're arming and what's going to happen with the stuff. the second is the need to go to

congress. i agree with that. for the president to act here -- bruce ackerman, a yale professor, came out with a "new york times" op-ed yesterday on the reasons why congressional authorization is essential,, is in fact, legally required. host: william up next from south carolina, democrats line, i. william for south carolina, yep, ok, let's move on to herb. herb from new hampshire, independent line, hi. caller: yes, hi. my senators are ann kelly, a democrat and republican in new hampshire. i run a small business in medical claims here, and i went help a few en for years ago and was regarding wellpoint. they looked into my case for a while and seemed to have great hope that they were finding that something wasn't right. then they sent it to shaheen's

office and dropped my case and wouldn't get back to me. and at the same time, i sthaw wellpoint had donated $2,000 to her campaign in 2012, when she wasn't even running that year, and they hadn't not donated in 2010, 2011, and 2013. but just to be nonpartisan, they donated $6,000 to kelly ayotte, and $15,000 to scott brown down in massachusetts. so, you know, i kind of feel, you know, i really don't have a chance, i'm just a one-person business. host: as far as, you know, individuals on a person-to-person aspect, how do you think your senator is doing in connecting with residents of the district? do they make visits? do they hold town halls, make connections that way? caller: yes, i think new hampshire is generally very, very good that way, and senator shaheen's office was very responsive, worked on this for like a year or so. but in the end, you know, it just sort of faded, and then i

saw all those donations from wellpoint, and this was, you know, wellpoint, the medicare contractor. host: ok. sheryl, boulder, colorado, democrats line, hi. caller: hi, pedro. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: my senator is mark udall, and i love him. he's wonderful, and i really hope he gets re-elected. he's in a tough race. host: why do you like him so much? caller: i'm really pleased he stood up very strongly against n.s.a., wire tapping, and violation of civil liberties. i think that's really, really important issues, and he's been very strong on that matter, and i hope people don't forget that at election time. the person i'm upset about is my representative. you think he'd be rather untouchable because he's personally wealthy, so it would be hard to feel like he could be bought, but we had a big issue going here over fracking

because there's so much energy development going on in colorado, and he was spear heading all of the opposition. we had two initiatives that were going on the ballot this fall. we gathered more than enough signatures to put them both on the ballot. people

of the >> much promises and everything. these people that are calling in that take their representative -- no, they represent the money or whoever can donate to them. i mean, no, with the congress, 7% approval rating -- i'll bet you $100 to a hole in a doughnut, they'll turn around and re-elect these people, thinking that two wrongs make a right. if they don't get rid of all these -- the democrat, republican -- i don't care who they are. they only care about being re-elected and whoever can donate the most money, that's where their vote goes. these people calling in and think they are being representative, no, they are not. >> here's bruce, democrats line. good morningment >> good morning.

how are you? >> eem well. my representative is phil row. no, he does not represent me. at one time there i thought maybe there was a little hope, but he come up with an alternative plan to the so-called obamacare but in his plan he left out all the low income and poor people. he said maybe somebody else can put a writer in there to make it work. my two senators, bob corker, originally businessman from chat noo ga, lamar alexander, a lifetime politician, please do t not represent me in see more tennessee. >> how are you? >> thank you for c-span. my representative is jeff americaly. no, he does not represent me.

i don't think any of them do. host: specifically, why does mr. murkily not represent you? >> they have not done anything in the past six years. none of them. republican, or democrat: including the state, the city. i am so disgusted with this government. and my model is, when i vote this time, i don't care if they are republican or democrat or who they are. i'm voting them out of office. it's time for a change. host: luka from kansas. republican line. good morning. >> good morning. my representative is mike and the senator is jerry moran. i listen to people and they do

not understand that the congressman or the senator does not represent individuals. they represent the people and they must represent the law. and they fail represent the interest of most of the people and i think the whole -- they fail our country -- a basis for crime because they take decision write against the interests of the people of the united states. to represent here -- we see the kind of brain washing -- we are

intervention all over the world when in fact these are not american interests. host: as you know, websites get updates from time to time. that's the same case for our program's website, the "washington journal." we're going through a major revamp. you can watch today's segment, previous ones, you can get the schedule for upcoming programs on our newly developed website, c-span.org. host: you're on, sir. go ahead. >> senator is senator udall and corey gardiner from the house of representatives is trying to oust him and corey gardiner is a

joke because he voted for shutting government down and voted against the affordable care act. and his coke brother ads that's the only thing that's funding him. udall is still ahead in the polls. i'm hoping he gets re-elected 689 host: why do you i guess associate with mr. udall? >> because when we had our floods last year, he was the first one out there to help the people. he went to the house floor. i watch you guys on c-span and when i see them get up and present their case for passage of a bill, they get up there and present it. and him and senator bennett went up there and really made a case for funding for the victims of those floods.

so they do a lot for us. and corey gardiner always is an obstructionist and he was -- like i said, the things he has voted against that would help the people of colorado just makes him so out of touch with the way i think and a lot of people i know. >> host: let's hear from robert illinois, independent line. >> calling in regards to the very high gas prices across the country. this has been going on since george w. bush and obama. they have no regard for the public or the consumer. the federal government -- the local government is gouging the american people right now. i don't see any relief in sight. the gentleman from tennessee, he's for another gas tax in tennessee tax is currently 4.20

in chicago right now. this is highway robbery. people are in agreement with these high gas prices. they are no regard for the public. we are the victims. they have no regard for us when gas is -- host: when it consumers and how they shop, new figures in august from the consumer department looks at spending habits. when it was adjusted, retail and food sales rose 6% in august. that goes from a rise in some other sectors as far as spending. this is highlighted in the "washington journal." it also highlights specific areas in which consumer spent. it says sales grew in other sectors, sales of building materials, garden supplies posted the biggest monthly gain since april. home sales have improved in recent months after a slowdown

late last year, although they are still running below last year's pace. here is kelly from oregon. we're ask you if you congressman represents you. >> i'm calling in support of jeff murkily. i couldn't disagree more with the gentleman that called in earlier. i think he has a lot of courage, he speaks about things that other senators are afraid -- oh we don't talk about climate change and the n.s.a. spying on us. with all of their spying and listening to our phone conversations, it's not been proven that they have stopped more than one or two or maybe three. i think they are just in the business of supporting corporations. murkily is a very good guy and he stands up for the people and is courageous and i thought it would be nice to hear a woman

for a change. seems like it's all men talking. host: anthony from alabama is next on our independent line. hi. >> what's going on? host: go ahead. >> i'm the one all the chaos is over. i'm the one that obama and them and the government has got 24-hour hidden surveillance in my house. i'm the one that they are trying -- i live in south alabama. i ain't no terrorist. i love god, i love lord jesus christ. i would die for my country. i would die standing next to my fellow americans. but i bet you obama won't do it. he gave the muslim islam people -- he gave them $250 million worth of weapons.

now you see that muslim and islamic -- isis cutting off american heads. host: we're asking people about their congress person and if they best represent you. >> hadn't anybody said about them violating my privacy. got cameras in the bedroom of me and my wife having sex. >> virginia is in california. go ahead. >> of course they don't represent us. they represent the people that contribute a lot of money to their campaigns. i've written to them about the despairty in the tax situation between billionaires who pay very little and regular people that are paying a lot more. like, i say 25%, maybe more -- i can't really figure it out. personal taxes are very high in

california. and i never got an answer because there is no answer. that's the way it is. that's my answer. host: that's virginia from california. that will finish off this section. politics, though, we will continue on that topic in our next segment. polls suggest the the house of representatives will remain in gop's hands. our next guest makes the case that democrats have a hard task at taking back the house. anthony cordesman will join us to give his take on the strategy and if he thinks it will be effective. we want to tell you about our news makers program, the minority whip joining us, represents the state of maryland. talks about a variety of issues with reporters.

on this one he talks specifically the president's strategic and what he plans to do as far as islamic state militants are concerned and his response to the president's speech. >> i believe that the two-step process is what we will think pursue. that is, i think there will be a consideration of the president's request to train and equip regional players. that is, people who are from syria, iraq, and other middle eastern country, people who will be the boots on the ground we talk about. i think we will be the supporters and, yes, help coordinate a large coalition which the president and secretary of state are now

putting together. we have a significant number of nations who want to participate. i think that will be the first thing we will consider, probably and hopefully next week. that is, authorizing the president under article ten to equip and train in an overt way as opposed to covert way, people to take on isil. they have their prior to and we have other assets, but the boots on the ground are going to be the boots on the ground who lived in neighborhood who have a vested interest rate. now that we have an iraqi government that is trying to, and hopefully will, represent both sunni and shia interests and that sunni and shia feel they are in this partnership to confront isil, a terrorist criminal within their midst, i think we will proceed on that. secondly, at some point when we come back after the elections, i

think there will be a consideration of a larger authorization for the use force. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morni morni morni morning nat cones. >> it is a section of the "new york times." host: when you look at elections, you wrote a piece for the upshot about democrats. the title was why they can't win the house. you say how is it possible the democrats who have won the popular vote in the last five elections are such a disappoint in the house? >> the the house is only element of our government that was intended to represent the people. the senate was originally to represent the state.

the presidency was elected by the electoral -- the democrats won the house popular vote in 2012. they were not been able to translate it in a major in the house. i don't think anyone anticipates they will retake the chamber. there are a lot of different reasons why but most of them are structural. they are about the distribution of democratic voters, the places where they live and the polerization of the country. democrats are concentrated in urban areas where they win by massive margins. the district of columbia went for president obama with 90% of the vote. there are few areas of the country where republicans win -- when you draw the corresponding republican rural districts, the votes that are left are more in the republican. the democrats waste more votes in these detects.

at the same time, the republicans had control of redistricting a lot of large industrial competitive states where they were able to lock democrats into the spatial inefficiency problems and -- the democrats could overcome this if they want a sufficient number of competitive districts. but there are fewer and fewer competitive districts such that today if the democrats were to win the overwhelming proportion of competitive districts, they would not be able to translate that to a majority in the house. it's not that they are swaying people. it's they are not going into it having won these places already. in the past when dealts had the democrat had the house, they had

an a large portion of the south, since that was the heart of the democratic party. it was up until -- through 1994, the democrats one -- they seen had some west by 2006. without that starting number of democrats in the south that were allowing them to defy their underlying structural problems, a lot of them legalizing the problem by having already solved it, they are forced to win red seats to compensate. there's not a really good record of defeating incumbent congress people in congressional districts that are favorable to them even when the national environmental conditions are favor to believe the challenging party. host: we're talking about nate cohn's piece.

here's your chance. our line for independents. you can make your thoughts known on twitter and facebook as well. you mentioned gerrymandering. i think our viewers would say that's the sole reason why you can't get a democratically-controlled house anymore. >> i think it's really important to note that gerrymandering makes a big difference. the title is wie democrats can't win the house, which may be too strong. if the democrats can't win the house, it's because of gerrymandering. the fact democrats do not have the house is not because of gerrymandering. they would not have the house even with their congressional districts. the reason is the criteria is not the same as wanting partisan balance at all cost, a fair district as is generalry defined is compact, which makes it

harder to draw the districts that stretch that balance them out artificially. it comports with the voting rights act, which can compel or bar the dissolution of minority-majority districts, which creates a problem for democrats in these urban areas. they generally protect incumbents when they are done by bipartisan commissions. and all of these factors lock democrats into their spatial inefficiency problem. you could draw a fair set of districts in terms of parts and balance. but those districts are unlikely to to be drawn unless they are doing therm purposely. and the criteria do not encoverage them. >> as far as bet r chances to regain seats, is it midterms or presidential election? >> historically the challenging

party has a difficult time -- the party with the president has a difficult time gaining seating in the house. they don't get these 60-seat waives very often. in a midterm e election, the party of the president almost never gains a significant number of house seats. dealts have an advantage in the national popular vote. it's not a coincidence the democrats finally lost the house in 1994 when bill clinton had the presidency. nor is it a coincidence that the republicans lost the house in 2006 during the republican presidency. so i don't think the next couple of of elections are necessarily great opportunities for democrats. the 2018 midterms could be their

best -- host: i was going to say, as far as november is concerned, what do you see for the house? >> i don't see a lot of change. i think the republicans are favored to pick up seats. there are many more competitive democrat held seats than there are republican held seats. the democrats will not benefit from president year turnout. if the republicans do well and they pick up five or 10 seats, i think that makes a big difference. if the dealts want to retake the house in 2016 or 2018, they have to stay in striking distance. if the republicans win too many more of the republican-leaning districts, it will be hard to do the math against democrats in 2018. host: i'll give you the numbers again. let's start on our independent lines. this is howard from miami. good morning. >> good morning.

host: go ahead, sir. >> first of all, i think that the republicans are probably pretty much going to take -- have permanent control of the house of representatives at least for the next 10 years because the census was 2010 that's when they took control of everything. that's only part of the problem. with the demographic change, it's going to be minority population is going to be h the majority. the republican party is not going to have much of constituency. what they are doing to address that -- they have introduced legislation to change the way the electoral college vote is allocated to basically in the gerrymander districts. if they get that through, they will have permanent control of presidency because the democrat will never be able to win the presidency again. as far as the senate is

concerned, where all the voter i.d. laws are intend to take effect because that's a state-wide case that can't gerrymander. guest: what i was referring to is a republican proposal to make it so that the electoral votes of large states aren't allocated on a winner take all basis but instead by congressional district. which if you do nit a blue state, would that mean you were splitting the vote and helping the republicans compare to the red states where they would win all of them. i think that is unlikely. the republicans have not been able to implement this policy. i think it would be regarded as an attempt to cheat in our elections. if they did that, you would to start to see a real movement by democrats to follow suit by banding up in sufficient numbers for a national popular vote compact where democrat large state said we're going to give our votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.

that's something that may not be allowed by the constitution but could result in a supreme court case. in terms of the voting -- in terms of the house districts and growing minority-majority, it will pose a problem for the republicans. the votes rites act is forcing congressional mat makers to put that nonwhite population in their districts where they would be voting for democrats and not doing as much to harm the chances of congressional republicans. >> good morning bill. >> good morning. host: go ahead. >> my position is just like the gentleman said. the house of representatives represents the people. 300 and something million and does three hundred and something

million, muslims, catholics, they all believe in gods and the democratic party voted got out of their platform. how can they survive? >> religious backgrounds, does that play into voting habits? >> it is one of the biggest factors that underpins how people vote, particularly among white people. if you show someone a white person and toupt figure out how they vote, figuring out if they are a white evangelical christian is how you do it. as the population becomes more secular than given credit for, that's a problem for the republicans. >> your piece highlights pennsylvania. why do you focus on it? >> think it is an an example of the democratic problem. philadelphia and pittsburgh stroet for dealts.

they voted 83% for president obama in 2012. if you only get an -- you only get an area of 67% that vote for romney. when you divvy up those districts, you would still up with the republicans have the majority of the congressional districts. i like the state because it's one where republicans did gerrymander but you can say, even if this was dun fairly, the democrats would be at a disadvantage. >> governor's race -- >> it's looking like the exception than the rule. that tdz only state where a republican incumbent governor tom core bit is poised to lose reelection. a lot of the other controversial republican governors in blue states look like they are competitive still. they may fall the same way that

mr. core bit did, but that seems like a narrow problem for the republicans. >> this is robert from tennessee. democrats line. go ahead, please. >> good morning. i'm rob martin. i'm running as a democrat probably for the first time since the 1890s. i was wondering if you had any advice on how to get swing voters interested in a first-time democratic candidate. guest: i'm not sure exactly where in the state that is. if you're the first democrat running since 1890, you must be in the eastern part of the state where republicans have traditionally fared quite well. i think this is a really tough year for that. i won't mince words. i'm not an expert on how to run a campaign, but i wish you the best luck. >> as far as independent voters

and how they sway as far as how people vote and what that means for the house of representatives -- >> i think if the democrats could win romney voters in districts like in eastern tennessee where i'm presuming the caller is from, those are the types of districts that would help democrats. host: from virginia, this is brian on a republican good morning. go ahead. >> good morning. well, it seems to me that the reason is simply the message. a lot of republican districts that democrats don't seem to have a message that seems to resonate more urban voters are going to vote more democratically. more rural voters are going to vote more conservatively. that's the way things are.

i don't see how redistricting is going to provide must have of a change for that. it's the same reason that republicans are having problems nationally, is basically the message. so the same reason that democrats are having problems in rural areas is because of the message. host: thanks, caller. guest: there's so much truth to that. democrats used to be able to compete in a lot of these rural areas, particularly in the high land south and places like kentucky or west virginia or tennessee. they can't do that anymore because the party has adopted a message that is toward metropolitan areas. the party would have to modify their message. i think there are other issues too like gay rights and abortion where they are making it more

challenging by takes positions that are the core of the urban democrat party's platform. host: what do you see going forward? guest: before 2010, there were a large number of democratic held congressional districts in the south. the tea party was at its strongest there. they uniformly defeated the democratic incumbents where democrats has been traditionally able to defy the national party's problem. the tea party's energy was a big part of that. because the tea party was this sort of outrage that they were cultivating made it difficult for voters to vote for democrats at a time when the national party was unpopular. the legacy of 2010 is the democrats don't have way out of their disadvantage. host: independent line. good morning to mark. >> good morning. i'm wondering why since the

early '90s the republican states have been called red states whereas democrats have been called blue states when historically it's always been reversed where democrats have been kind of i guess aligned with socialism and i guess red, whereas republicans have always been blue. why is is that? >> that's quite unusual the andrea horwath the west liberal party in the united states is blue and not red for exactly the -- the democrats did not want to be associated with the color red during the cold war so there was a time when the media flipped them around from election to election just to make sure tho one had to own -- had to own the color red. i'm not exactly sure when the change happened, but i'm sure that by 2000 we were locked into that red-blue map.

after that people were no longer able -- they weren't going to be able to go back the next election and start referring to the bush state as blue states after we spent the 2011 election talking up blue states and red states. host: is it still looking red and blew or do do you find changing guest: a state like texas, obama got 41% of the vote. in california, george w. bush pulled within 10 points. these states are polarized but not that polarized. you have states like virginia and nevada that have moved towards democrats over the last decades. there are states like west virginia and arkansas where we see swings in the other direction. host: why democrat can't win the house. nate koen joining us on what it

means for gop hold. our next caller, bruce from cambridge wisconsin. >> thank you so much for c-span. we appreciate it out here on the countryside. i have two questions for the gentleman. first of all, given the large number of minorities who have been jailed and therefore in their states are not allowed to vote, were that formulation to change, would that affect the outcome of any of these races? and my second question, you can answer either or neither. if we can't change this somehow, are we going to have to ride this to the bottom of the atlantic like the titanic? and has he any suggestions we might make that could rescue this desperate situation we're in? thank you. i'll listen online. guest: in terms -- it's a huge problem for democrats that

millions of overwhelmingly african-american men are ineligible to vote in federal elections in states that bar felons from participating. i'm not sure that would make a big difference in the house. remember that because of the voting rights act making minority and majority districts -- if you had an influx of black voters, it would go into districts that were already democratic. in terms of changing the systems, i wonder if gerrymandering is the right focus. there are options for changing things. you can just a the criteria. there's no god-given rule about what a fair congressional district is supposed to look like. you can add partisan balance in what you think it should look like. i think that can be incorporated into constitutional amendments or written into state law.

i'm not sure about the process for how that happens. i'm not a lawyer. but i think that it's not like the constitution prescribes that congressional have to follow jurisdictional lines with precision. so it ought to be possible to change your criteria in a way that made bipartisan balance a -- host: 53% of the voters in 38% of the detects. this talks about democratic strength and how it affects the gop's chances. what does that mean? guest: what the graph is showing you s how vote margins allocated. in the blue, you can see the democrats are winning by a wider margin. ed that wasted vote phenomenon. part of that is gerrymandering. 80% voted for president obama.

the city of philadelphia voted 85% for president obama. so even if you had a fair map, those blue lines will be taller than red ones. host: kevin from texas republican line. hi. >> actually, i think the term you're using, gerrymandering, could be called ungerrymandering because the democrats controlled the districting for 70-something years. texas is a good example. for a while there, every statewide office was going republican, but it wasn't until recently or more recently that the house, the state house went republican because of gerrymandering that the democrats had done before. really i think it comes down to the rural versus urban. if you took a map and just went by countywide votes, i think

you'd see that most of the country is republican. thank you. guest: it's true that democrats did their fair share of gerrymandering over the last half century. when people look at the stark increases in republican representation in some states like north carolina, part of the reason why the republicans made so many gains in 2010 is because republicans were taking over a process that had previously been led by democrats. i'm heard people complain, obama did almost as well in north carolina as he did in 2008 -- the old map was drawn by democrats. if the truth of the congressional map existed in north carolina in 2008, i don't think the republicans would have squeezed former congressional districts out of it. maybe they would have. but part of the reason why the change is so stark is because you are going from democratic drawn maps to republican-drawn

maps. host: this starting in 1996 where you see a lot of red and showing the margins of victory. that changes over time, that brings us to 2012. guest: it's important because when you have all that purple on the map, when there are so many competitives parts of the country, all you have to do -- when there are so few competitive districts, you're sort of locked into a small problem. like being down three points with a minute left versus the whole second half. host: ask what federal legislation controls how congressional districts are set up. >> a very ancient piece of legislation makes it so that congressional districts go in

one person and then daub one represented districts. you could pass legislation that requires multiple representative districts. there are pieces going back to the 60s which set the number of congressional districts which is today 435. >> just like bill clinton said, the federal government keeps shooting themselves in the foot by not passing bills. you've got to remember -- i'm a black military man. i see that the republican party is mostly white and the majority -- in a presidential race, you see more of the white voted this time for mitt romney. they were showing you they are not going to vote against their best interests because the republican party don't have nobody who could galvanize the

black vote and hispanic vote and asian vote. as long as republican party got people like rush limbaugh representing them and it's like the -- host: i they sentiment really speaks to why the democrats have a big demographic problem. the growing white shirt population is at a disadvantage -- there are more conservative white people than liberal white people, there are liberal white people and there's a floor there for them. and if they can't make inroads among nonwhite voters, it's tough to win a state like colorado or virginia where african-americans represent about 20% of the electorate. host: ryan in tennessee. republican line. >> yes. i want to talk about how the democrats keep crying about

gerrymander but in a state like georgia does this person know in the 1980s there were really no safe republican distributes. when democrats controlled gerrymandering they didn't create any republican districts. when republicans gerrymander they are merciful about the democrats in the safe distributes. like mississippi, there were zero safe republican districts. like in ohio, a 12-4 map in favor of republicans is unfair. i would agree. but i don't like this idea of purposely mixing rural and urban areas and parts of different counties and distributes. i think that disenfranchises voters and it's a way for people trying to change the system in an unprecedented ways. i think districts should remain compact but should be fair. think republicans trying to draw

a 10-3 state where romney won -- i think that's going too far and things need to be reformed a little bit. guest: in georgia, i think that's a nice illustration of why gerrymandering is more potent than it used to be. if you look at a map of the 1960 presidential election, you would see in a state like georgia, the democrats were winning every year. the reason why you couldn't draw republican districts in georgia was because there weren't any tab drawn. there weren't many opportunities. as the country has polarized it's become impossible to not draw -- you want to make your district safer. the reason why georgia and have democrat districts is because of the voting rights act. a republican in mississippi if they didn't have the voting

rights act, would easily turn that state into a uniformly republican congressional delegation. it would be easy. no question. so there are rules that are constraining the extent republicans can build uniformly republican congressional delegations. it doesn't make sense to make these districts that sweep the country side. that's one of those cry toor i can't that are used in drawing congressional districts. if you added partisan balance, we could have something like what the caller suggests where we have districts that are compact but are a lot closer to accurately representing the two parties in the staidwide delegation. host: wants to know if citizens have ever attempted to protest against the redrawing of districts. guest: thereby endless litigation on redistricting

matters. georgia was a very important case a long time ago when the dealts tried to draw districts that didn't represent every person. in terms of today's congressional districts there have been lawsuits in texas, flea. they are happening all over the country. it's difficult to get courts to rule against partisan gerrymandering. the court cares about racial gerrymandering but it won't invalidate a congressional district map solely on the ground that it's unfair to one side on the basis of party. host: our guest writes for the "new york times." how often do you post or how do you decide what to write about? guest: this time of year with an election coming up, i'm writing all the time. i'm following the new polling, particularly folks on the senate, which is very

competitive this year. and we do a lot of big picture stuff about stuff like this piece on the house, also demographic change and the big sort of structural underlying forces affecting the partisan balance. host: as far as the senate, what do you think about the prospects of the gop controlling it? >> it's a tight race. the republicans have lots of opportunity to retake the senate. they are favored in three democratic held states and they have a lot of options to get the next three they need. what's interesting, the democrats are holding on in a lot of states like iowa, colorado, michigan. they seem to have the advantage in north carolina. if they can hold on to all those states, they will suddenly have very plausible path to victory. what remains competitive -- the sheering of the opportunities makes the republicans the advantage. the democrats still have a pathway to victory.

this isn't like 2012 where obama built that big lead. host: the most interesting senate race going on? >> north carolina. host: tell us about north carolina. why is it most interesting? >> you have ka haguan in a tilt red state that was very competitive in the last presidential election. the story of the election is democrating winning in -- when i think or all the big national phenomenon, then you have a pretty dynamic race where the republicans nominated someone who is a pretty credible candidate on paper but yet as the republican speaker of the state -- that is affecting the

republicans opportunities. but their policies have rubbed people the wrong way and it's unclear whether they can capitalize on a -- host: you mentioned alaska. guest: alaska is another state where a democratic incumbent is representing a red state. alformer anchorage mayor is facing a new anchorage mayor. there have been only a couple of polls. this is a state where 2/3 of communities aren't accessible by road and people have a regular telephone use pattern -- it is extremely plausible this election -- we realized in the east coming down to alaska, we have no idea what's going to happen.

host: neil, independent line. >> can your guest talk about districts that are -- if they are in rural parts of the country or on the ex-urban -- they have parts that are urban but parts becoming suburb. for example jim ger lack's district in pennsylvania and riker's district in washington state. guest: i used to be in riker's congressional district. those are examples of districts that were drawn to protect vulnerable republican incumbents. as a result of redistricting they were given a whole lot of country side. those districts i'm not sure whether those are the ones that should be held up as great examples of how a fair congressional map should be drawn. as these areas grow, you would

see districts turn ex-urban nz the lines are drawn appropriately. host: charles, republican line. >> good morning. i heard him say a little bit -- he talked about democratic pathway to victory and how it still exists: if you look at the presidency, you can see the democrats have destroyed their way to victory. our president has failed on every aspect, everything he's attempted. and what he's done is he has successfully changed the attention, taken it from him and put it on congress and he makes several speeches where he says that congress isn't getting anything done. nothing in our constitution requires congress to pass an x

amount of laws or pass legislation that's not good for our country. for instance the healthcare law. it was passed by democrats. none of them took the time to read the law. in my opinion, i've got somebody representing me in congress and he's not taking time to read legislation, then he's not representing me. he's representation his own interests. healthcare has fallen on its face. guest: a lot of people are disappointed in president obama's performance. the approval ratings are many the low 40s. despite that, this doesn't look like a blowout. in 2006 george w. bush's approval ratings weren't that much worse. the democrats won 30 house seats, picked up a bunch of governor's races. that election does not look the

same way. >> host: another caller from valencia. guest: isn't our government largely a fraud? one of the founding principles is that we're a representative republican. mr. koen mentioned that in 1911 house of representatives was capped at 435. the constitution says one rep for every 30,000 people. one rep for 40,000, we have tyranny. since 1911 when we were 125 million people, we had 435 reps. we're now over 300 million and we have 435. so we've had ever-diminishing representations. we've over twice as many federal judges as we have representatives. so what's happened is, both executive branch and the judiciary have leaked fraud over

the legislature. the house of representatives was supposed to be the life blood of the people. we have no representation anymore. it's now one rep for almost 800,000 people. guest: the country has become more lower case d democratic over the last two centuries. the presidency is also democratic. in terms of the large number of people for congressional district is 700,000, i'm not sure whether people are all that much better represented with districts that are 700,000 people -- i don't think it's realistic to expect ha the country has has a legislative assembly of 10,000. i think it's great that having more congressional districts has a down side. you would see lots of

congressional districts in the most urban areas where democrats would win more than 90% of the vote. it's possible to draw a fair set of districts if partisan balance is your criteria. i'm not sure it would be possible if you had 10,000 congressional districts. >> i had a question for the speaker. how come we haven't had a constitutional congress since 1,900 or about -- 1900 or about so? >> the constitution makes it difficult to change the state of the union. if you try to start a constitutional convention, wasn't of the big fears is that it would be a runway convention where any part of the constitution would be up for debate. you might not have a convention littled to say we're going to work out congressional

representation. in theory, everything could be up for revision and would be difficult to control. host: from north carolina here is deborah. >> good morning. host: you're on. go ahead. >> i'm just calling to let you know that the world has been separated so long that it's time for a change. when we go -- this is going to end up is no democrats or republicans. thank you. host: okay. a call from delores from maryland. democrats line. go ahead. make sure you turn your television down. but go ahead. go ahead, delores. >> good morning. i just wanted to make a comment that when i heard the other caller talking about the president's failure, it's not taking into account the fact

that all of his promises that he put forward he put through in proposal, that congress will not even consider. they will not pass his proposals. so if you talk about the failures, the failure of congress, the republican-led congress to actually put forth the president's proposals so that he can get something done because we all vote in september, change from republican to democrats, we'll see more of his promises come through because at least they'll listen to his proposals on the congressional floor. only when help does a mandate can he get any of his ideas through for the country. that's it. thank you. guest: as long as republicans control the house, which i think is quite likely for the foreseeable future, democrat ts have to get used to the idea that when their president proposes policy initiatives, the

republicans aren't going to accept a majority of them. i'm not on the ground over at the capitol. i'm not in the white house. i don't know how well the president's aides do. whether people like it or not. that's what's necessary. host: you talked about races in the senate. are there any standout races in the house? >> there are a few that are worthying about. colorado six congressional district which is a presidential battleground in denver, mic kaufman is a democratic challenger. scott sutherland is in a very difficult race for reelection where he barely won. it's a republican terrain but where dealts have a -- it's a nice test of can democrats get

these people back in the right circumstance? nick in west virginia is another example of the few democrats left who's occupying deep red republican country but where perhaps a local democrat can still win. he won in 2012. this is where democrats have suffered their big losses over the last decade. another good one is kirk patrick in arizona the second congressional district. host: our guest writes about these issues for the upshot found at the "new york times" website. thank you for your time. coming up, with the president unveiling his strategy week on csis, our next guest, anthony cordesman will give his thoughts on the plan and we'll have his conversation when "washington journal" continues after this.

>> here a few of the comments we have received from viewers. >> the discussion you had with the three panelists this morning, mr. professor butler and mr. armstrong and ms. cliff, was extremely enlightening. i will say i wish there were more discussions like that this morning. it was pretty in-depth. i am an african-american and have been watching what's going on in ferguson and i am saddened by it but have hope for the fact that the department of justice always done a fair and exact thing. thanks to c-span for all their continuing coverage and discussions upon these issues concerning our country. thank you. >> i congratulate c-span.

i actually stopped watching television, but it was worthwhile watching c-span until i gave it up because it's nothing but a soundingboard for republican representatives. i just couldn't take it anymore. but i'm back to watching c-span again and i know what you're up against. i understand what's going on there. but keep up the good fight and -- well, god bless america. >> so it would be fun in c-span would have some transparency programs, schedule it way head of time, stick it out in the open. who sponsors these people? the people of all these bundles of bucks. if you're going to be transparent, if the communus chinese people are sticking money into funds that end up

sponsoring some alleged tank, please put it out there. it's like it was said years ago. when people get on there, they should have to wear a jacket just like the guys do in the auto races with the cars in their uniforms and whoever sponsors them has got to have a little patch on their deal and their hat too. transparency. that's what we all want. transparency. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3,400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: anthony cordesman of the center for strategic and international studies joining ut us. as far as the president's speech this week on isis, did he make the case for intervention? >> i think he started to.

part of our problem is that when you talk in broad terms, when you don't talk about the resources you're going to use, when you don't get into the details, when you as the president have to lead and focus on generalities, you don't really make the kind of case that you need to spark. part of the problem is that it isn't simply a matter of making the case to go in and begin. you need to keep making the case over time. since we really haven't begun to test these ideas, i think the honest answer is, did he make the case for a start? yes. did he sflan explain that case in depth? no. does making the case for a start make the case over time? not at all. host: what do you have to look at as continue to make the case? what are the issues that are going to face the administration most? guest: one of the key issues is, are you going to have to proper

resources, commit enough air power to make a difference? have you postured the kind of limited ground presence that can really help create effective iraqi forces? is there a possibility that you'll actually get a meaningful moderate syrian resistance force? the key variables in a lot of ways is beyond our control. for this to work, we have to have a unified political iraq. and we have a start. the administration has spent months creating it. but this is ultimately beyond our control. we aren't going to be able to shape the future of the syria. i think perhaps the most important dimension over time is the degree to which the states in the region, which are primarily muslim, can counteron a religious and idealogical --

host: the president banked upon the new iraqi parliament in order to accomplish what he wants to do. there's a breakdown. a 14% represented shiite -- what about the new makeup suggest to you about the confidence in the government overall? >> i think you have to be careful. these makeups represent power blocks. they are not real political parties, they are not structured elements as we think of. politics in iraq is still a blood sport. if you make a mistake, as one vice president did, you can have three death sentences passed by the prime minister. the real issue is not the party makeup. the issue is the leader. are the leaders willing to work with each other? will that will they work across

the sectarian line? will they share the money? this is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, which which has some of the lowest living standards in the gulf. only yemen is poorer on a per capita basis. if you want unity, these leaders have to work together, cut across the lines that have created a low-level civil war and they have to move forward, not simply make statements. host: this is a new parliament altogether. does that concern you as well, the newness? >> not really. because to be blunt about it? a parliamentary system, most of the members have the follow the lead of a very narrow range of leaders. the real issue here is that mall la ki who once campaigned on being a national unifier created

a structure of authorititarianism, of undermining the security forces for his own sort of power, using them abusively against the sunnis, divided with the kurds, correcting across that the new prime minister -- many people in that government are very experienced. but the question is, can they make the change? host: aid ree yell abatti is the new prime minister in iraq. tell us about him. >> the argument is he has never been someone who favored the kind of division that mall la ki was willing to exploit. he is not authoritarian, somebody so insecure, he can't lead. he's someone who can reach out and work with the other factions. some of the ministers around him, like the new oil minister, have a long track record of

cutting across the sectarian and ethnic lines. so there's real hope here, real, i suppose, beginning. but, look, you've got to now almost rebuild the iraqi security force. you have to restructure the national budget, you have to move toward some kind of federalism, move toward some form of sharing of oil wealth that is going to be something people trust. and, above all, you've got to reach to the country's sunnis in the west and north and convince them this is a government and nation they really want to be a part of. host: anthony cordesman our guest to talk about the strategy that was unveiled toward isis by the president. if you want to ask him questions

is it important to have resolutions? >> it's important to have congress support it. so we pass a resolution. then what? it's rather striking. we've just been through two wars, some of the most expensive wars in our history. $1.8 trillion. and nowhere in the congress did anyone ever even ask for a costing of these wars as they went on. the closest one we had was an estimate independently. did they manage on the basis of effectiveness? did they ask whether the civil aid programs were functioning as promised? did somebody examine the claims made about the alliance and military progress? the answer is, throughout this, the congress failed in its responsibility. there's a lot of political posturing.

when it comes to the bipartisan function of congress to examine whether the executive branch is using the money properly, i think it's fair to say the congress failed on a bipartisan basis. >> what i look at is that our president, not because of anything that really comes from his heart, it's all speech written -- kerry's got his speech writers. what we have is the united states now has an m.c. and a script. so are we going to this isis thing because two people lost their head. i'm watching the ferguson situation and we've got two people killed within a week. you look at what we're doing with russia. of all the nations in the world. why are we worried about a couple of of guys running around with their swords and we've got a nation who's got nuclear

weapons and we're spitting on them. remember the embargo we put against the japan in they bombed pearl harbor. what's going on is our congress is not looking at the end results of what they get involved in. host: thank you, caller. guest: i think we need to remember as americans that while we have focused on two journalists, you are looking at a problem which goes beyond the islamic state. we tend to forget that this region is one of the most critical regionses to the global economy. if it's critical to the global economy, it's critical to our economy. this is a movement on the edge of where petroleum exports go to asia and to europe. we basically depend on stability there. yes, we have focused in our media on these two individuals. but we're talking about

thousands of people being murdered by an extremist movement. that movement is located in the middle of two civil wars which threaten the stability of the entire region. what happens in syria already has affected 200,000 dead because of the assad regime and displaced a third of the population. as we look at the way the world views this, views us, we are one way or another the country that guarantees the security of this region and to make that guarantee work, we can't allow a group like the islamic state to become a threat to the region, to become a sanctuary for foreign volunteers. you are correct that two journalists do not justify a war. but if we think back to the twin towers and i live less than a mile from the pentagon. the other problem is, if this

becomes a sanctuary for terrorism, sooner or later it will come back here. does this mean we should have open-ended commitments? i think you focused on the congress and the administration. does it mean that political posturing is a substitute for adequate planning and for effectiveness? the answer is no. we have to show we can make this work. at this time we had better do that. host: kate, you're next. hi. >> you just brought up -- i have several questions. you just brought up the dead this syria and then we constantly bring up the beheadings that isis is doing. yet, you know, how important is it for americans to reflect on our own behavior in iraq, the displaced, the killed, the injured and so the torture -- bring up our own behavior, i

hope, as well as these terrorists that we define. look at our own behaviors. not real good-looking. it should be at the hague, bush and chainny. i want to talk about the bush invasion of iraq and then disbanning the iraqi army. how many of those members a that were put out of work by paul bremer joined group like isis. host: we'll leave it there because you put a lot out there. guest: i think we need to focus on two things. first it's critical that we address the political and civil dimension. it is critical that we minimize casualties and collateral damage, that we show everyone in the region that when we use air power, when we support the iraqi forces, this is to create a unified iraq, an iraq that will

meet the needs of the people, that there are no unnecessary casualties. the people involved in this planning this, they've been going through the various scenarios for a matter of about four to five months, they have taken the lessons of what happened in the first iraq war very much into account. i think that it is important to remember that what happened there was a decision made to essentially never look at what we call stability operations. that is, what happens in the country after saddam falls. the original plan -- and in fairness to bremer -- was that we would begin to leave with all of our combat units in 30 days. we had no plan to deal with transition. we had no plan to deal with the economy. the only contingency planning was when saddam burned the oil

fields, which he didn't do, or break down the rationing system, which he didn't do. as a result bremer was confronted with years in which they had to improvise and try to deal with the political vacuum and the decision was made basically to almost be in a state of denial as you saw the rise of a major resistance movement. there's no real transparency, no honest reporting. and almost exactly the same thing happened in afghanistan. so transparency, accountability are critical elements. giving the civil and political side the same priority as the tactical and the military are critical. but the people working on the planning have taken that into consideration and they have taken into account the lessons that you have pointed out. everything now depends on whether they get the resources, whether those plans are executed, and above all, when you say you're now going to become dependent on allies

rather than to try to do it yourself, will the allies actually perform? host: is it the national allies like france and germany refrigerator the regional allies that are important to watch? guest: it's important to have as much solidarity as possible. over the years britain and france has been critical in giving us the global political status that we need. but, yes, the key allies are going to be jordan, the host nation, iraq, saudi arabia and the uae which have worked with us. a key ally that we don't yet have a clear vision for or from, i should say, is turkey because its role is critical to the north. these allies will determine success or failure. but there's the broader issue. this is ultimately a struggle for the future of islam and it

is only muslims that can win or lose that struggle. host: our next caller, this is greg from missouri. republican line. >> i was just going to talk to anthony. our president has no ability to not he's not telling the american people the truth. he's putting us in iraq because he took all the troops out. so that's his problem. but he's putting -- he has no plan. he just takes on the polls and reacts to the polls. he's a bold-faced liar. guest: let me make two points. my first trip to iraq was in 1971 when i was working for the united states embassy in iran.

we didn't have an embassy in iraq back then. i've been back again and again over the years. it was not the u.s. which created the situation where the -- the troop presence we wanted to keep left. there was a good plan structured by the embassy, it was structured by general o der know. it was not something that was political. the problem was basically from the 2010 election on, there was a power struggle between mall aki and the others and it was a situation where they were going to block the u.s. from staying. should the administration have pressed harder? that's a reasonable argument. but are we to fault because iraq rejected the sustained training, the kind of military enablers it

needed? the answer is no. we did unleash basic division between sunni -- we are going to pay for those. when it comes to planning, one can argue some of the choices the president has made, there were good reasons to question the level of commitment. but for the last six months, we have been involved in developing contingency plans in looking at the options. we have been directly involved in trying to sustain and improve the military capabilities of the iraqi forces since last december. and long before then we were trying to deal with the problems created. for all of the problems that have existed, we have pressed now virtually for this entire year, for the situation that pushed malla ki out of office

and could approach something -- a national unified government. are the options going to work? is the president going to execute them? those are legitimate questions. but these are not sudden reactions to a bunch of executions, not reactions to the polls. this does represent a systematic, well-designed set of options. the key issue is, how well executed they will be. host: the option of training syrians in this effort, what do you think of that as a strategy? guest: one has to be very realistic here. it may or may not work. it probably will only have a littled impact. one of the key decisions which was made in 2011 was to not use air power and not really actively back the syrian rebels when they were moderate and strong. what i think no one yet really wants to talk about is, if we go

into syria with air strikes, we can do a great deal to damage the islamic state. it's very dependent on equipment, on weapon systems, on mobility that can be targeted by air. that doesn't change the politics. what you're most likely to do is weaken it relative to other -- it's very doubtful the rebels will be strong enough to dominate even the west. they may be much stronger than they are today. they become more of an option over time. while we may be able to change the iraqi side of this equation and drive the islamic state out there, let's be blunt. syria is very likely to be a divided mess between a mix of rebels which involve extremist groups and a government which

has become progressively more horrifying under assad. host: the pentagon spoeksman was asked about those who would be recruited to this task and how you go about doing that. i want to play your response. >> no easy answers. this is not a mon litic group. it's not at recognized military force. there's no single recognized leader of the opposition, certainly not from a military perspective. and so there's a recruiting and vetting process we need to work out there and we are working hard on that. guest: i think we are working on it. but, quite frankly, this is another area where we need more transparency and accountability. we've been talking about providing money, arms, and a meaningful structure and we built up new capability in jordan and gradually strengthened the level of the system. but there's no transparency.

there's no clear picture here. when you look at unclassified maps, what was just said is exactly correct. they don't show three or four movement. that would be bad enough. they are showing 70-plus factions and elements. pulling this together is an immense challenge. but we need to remember that that challenge is going to be equally serious in iraq. the president used a phrase which was very interesting and very few people noticed. he referred to the sunnis forming a national guard. that means essentially that you offer the sunnis some kind of military structure that would be sunni and local. there would be a real incentive to try to bring the sunni factions back. the problem we face is, how did the islamic state get in there in the first place? it got in there because malla ki

provoked a civil war which when he lost in the west and the north. essentially the police and army were driven out by angry sunnis. the islamic state exploited that and other movements, some which date back to the days of the party and sadaum hussein. the difference is the probability of success is much higher. but here there is something the president did not discuss but is absolutely critical. the joint chiefs unanimously advised that we send special forces forward into the iraqi combat units and ultimately they would have to go into the sunni units as well. the white house seems to have turned that decision down. we don't know that. what we can say is that if we rely on ground advisers in the

rear or simply to develop things without having people to help in the forward area, that could potentially cripple the entire effort. host: anthony cordesman joining us to talk about the president's strategy on isis. walter from florida. >> it's a sad day when people talk about stuff they don't understand. blaming president obama for this instability in the middle east, we knew it happened under the bush regime. the reason i'm saying this, before we went in there, there was no iraqi citizen who had killed an american citizen. the people that's isis and causing the instability and getting the most out of this is saudi arabia. and saudi arabia hates syria. we know they hate the iraqi people. now turkey has -- they don't

have to worry about hussein anymore, nor the kurds. everybody is blaming the president for the instability in the middle east and these ignorant people getting on c-span making comments against the president and blaming him for all the the strategic problems in the middle east when the president is doing the smartest thing any american can do and that's trying to fix all of the problems that the news media and the republican party, the people not helping and supporting this president -- if we support our president in this kwag mire, then we can get the results we need. guest: first, i never blamed the president for everything. if you think back, you'll notice the criticisms i made of the way president bush approached. i noticed we have a problem with congress. there is reason in any war -- this any military action to seriously question what the

united states government and the administration are doing. the broader reasons for instability in the middle east are reasons which matters of demographics, economics, failed political systems that go back decades. we're talking about a region -- this is something we have to bear in mind -- where the population is more than five times what it was in 1950 and it's a desert. and that plays out in terms of violence. this is not a matter of following the president, this president, or the previous one. it's not a matter of taking military advice. this is one of the most difficult challenges we have ever met. and we're thinking today for these last few minutes about what happens in this particular crisis. but we haven't made progress, or the kind we would like, in either yemen or somalia. we've made almost no progress in libya. if anything, things have gotten

worse. the challenges we face extend from the philippines, from nigeria north -- we have to bear this in mind and look at all issues involved. i've been going in and out of the middle east and serving there for half a century. this is not going to be quick or easy. it is not going to be something where it ends with this presidency. we're in this for a decade, at least. it is time we realize just how complex and challenging it is. host: one of the analysis you do of the speech, you made the point that leadership means motivating and motivating means understating risk. guest: it's true. to criticize the president's speech at this point -- i think we touched on this earlier. we made a beginning. the problem now is what happens over time. it isn't whether you authorize

the start. it's whether, as when this proceeds, you can see the resources are being used effectively. whether the allies are doing what we need to have them do, whether we have corrected the mistakes we made in not properly addressing the civil and political side in the two previous wars, one of which is not yet over. those are the tests. and it's the test of accountability over time that i think is one of the key issues here. unfortunately, again, because of security and other reasons, often the lack of transparency is a key problem. so we do end up with too many talking heads and too much media with too little information and too much speculation. but as i look behind you, i see the capital, i have to go by the white house every day. the responsibility for

accountability and transparency is there. host: let's hear next from danny in alabama on our democrats line for anthony cordesman. >> thank you for taking my call. sir, you're one of the few people i have heard that kind of speaking the truth on this. and one thing i think you left out, when we had the surge back there with the sunnis, that never did stabilize. that actually created more problems because they was paying the sunnis to kind of connect malla ki. and when they quit, that's what brought all of this on. iraq was never stabilize, even when they pulled the troops out. i'm glad that you spoke of why the troops was pulled out. one other thing. on this rebel training, it's

supposed to be done in saudi arabia. so don't you think they would have a chance to vet these rebel fighters? guest: understand the rebel fighters in syria are not trained in saudi arabia. they are trained in jordan. there is saudi support. they have good intelligence. but we need to give jordan credit because jordan is the critical ally right now in supporting any effort to create an effective syrian rebel group. the other problem you have is what you talk when you talk about training. there are different kinds of training here. one kind that's critical is creating something approaching an effective structure and force. that can be done in jordan.

actual war fighting that goes on inside syria, that unfortunately today has no foreign trainers, at least not on our side. we don't have a significant presence of any kind. people have to learn the hard way in the field and often the money and the weapons, the leadership doesn't really get to the moderate rebels. the unfortunate fact is iran has done a better job with its islamic guard to help the assad forces than we've done to help the rebels. the other side of this is whether we provide the kind of training and equipment that will help the iraqis. here again, one of the decisions we haven't seen, because we have made a major buildup in terms of the number of u.s. troops on the ground in syria over the last

few months, from 300 to, in reality, about 1400, not the 1100 in the press. the problem is they are not training forward. they are not involved in actually helping the iraqi units lead. there's a good reason for that right now. we don't want americans thrust into the middle of iraqi units that are involved in a civil war. but the issue you addressed, where do we go from here in training, is an absolutely critical one. it's one where there are a lot of different views. but, frankly, i think the joint chiefs have recommended a level of resources that so far has not yet been approved. if we're going to do this at all, not resourcing is one way to lose. host: 500 million will be the request to train specifically the syrians. what type of money are we talking about host: you're creating a contingency. the 500 million doesn't relate

to any plan. there's no cost to justify it. it's simply 500 million. it's less than a billion but it would give the president the flexibility to act over time. i think one of the things we haven't had yet and we really do need is, again, enough transparency so you don't give away secrets, but you can see real accountability. what is it we're actually doing to help the syrians? but, understand, whatever happens there, it's very unlikely to dominate syria. the key element here is do you have the effective resources to operate in iraq. and that's where we really need to see -- what are the plans and cost? if there's anything we learned, particularly from afghanistan, when you do not have detailed accountability by program and you go into wars like this, the amount of waste discovered by

the special inspector general for iraqi reconstruction and the one in afghanistan has been immense. it has involved very very large portions of that 1.8 trillion and counting dollars. again, one question is, what will the plans be? what will the transparency be? will the congress, this time, have some degree of accountability or will be a lot of partisan posturing? to be honest, it's one thing to criticize the president. but over the last 10 years, exactly what has the congress done on the part of either party or in a major committee to really show accountability to the american people? host: from new york, this is bill. good morning. go ahead. >> good morning. it seems to me that the ultimate

seeds of terrorism are socioeconomic depair. to me the strategy should be to foment social economic stability in nigeria, etc. do you think they are doing anything in that direction? guest: it's a good question. here's is the real world problem. it is not just economics. it is government, it's corruption, it is an incredible youth -- which is putting so much pressure on the states, that there is no near-term solution. there is something on the web called the arab development reports. they began in 2002, the most recent in 2011. they address these issues you are raising. and they pointed out how dangerous they could be long before 2011. but this is not something that can easily be addressed. the fact is that reshaping

entire economies requires you to reshape the entire structure of many countries. in a case like iraq, for example, the problems in agriculture built up with the coo that posed the monarchy. the population that iraq has risen from 7 million to over 30 million in the middle of the desert with declining water flow. yes, at some point you have to deal with these broader issues in stability. but what styles is called draining the swamp, you can only make a little progress in income distribution. you can only make limited, immediate changes in reform. and the grim reality is that while we do need to have countries address these issues over time, no amount of aid flow from the outside has ever been able to change the broad

behavior effectiveness of the states. this is really one of the most serious problems we face. but the solution, if it comes at all in any effective way, takes five to 10 years to even structure. and we can't wait that long in dealing with the kinds of threats we face. host: from arizona, steve is next. good morning. you're on. >> good morning. i had a suggestion. you know, there's millions of people here in the united states that are unemployed. and isis, when they recruit, they don't have any standards. they'll take anybody. like our military, we have high standards and you have to be -- if you're a certain age, you can't join. but if we had a recruitment just for the purpose of going over there and -- there's a lot of

guys, instead of giving the money to some foreign fighters that we don't even know what their objectives are, i guarantee you if you get about maybe 100,000 guys that maybe they are too old to join the army but, you know, that's how they would like to go in there and fight, you know, would definitely go in there and fight for america, you know, give us the money and we already have our -- there's plenty of us guys. we already have arms and we have, you know, our own crafts. we have doon bugies -- host: caller, thanks. guest: let's remember even for the u.s. military -- and this is a key issue because it applies to sending in major combat units

on the part of the u.s. this is a vast area. it's a desert. it is defeating a relatively small extremist movement embedded in popular areas scattered over an area that includes both iraq and syria. it is an area divided into hostile factions. most of these factions, the ones that we need to persuade -- the sunni elements are not going to welcome any american volunteers. they are not going to want u.s. combat units. we're at a point now where, even if we could support, provide command and control, leadership, communications and intelligence and basic training, the fact is, if we throw any kind of land combat presence in there that

isn't limited to the kind of expertise that special forces and other experts, they are going to be seen as part of the enemy. they don't share the religion, they are not arabs. we already have shia -- we are trying to strengthen the iraqi forces. we have sunni factions that don't want americans in there. we have to rely on the iraqi forces mixed with air power. it is a risk. but let me know we also are going to be spending comparatively little on this because, unlike afghanistan, iraq has very, very large oil revenues. and it's going to be paying for almost all of this activity. the air power we will probably have to pay for. but even there the, the base in

arab states -- these are largely funded by those states. so this is a different kind of war than iraq and -- host: the president paralleled this strategy between what happened in gentlemen and somali iowa. >> i think they were completely right. one of our problems is we keep talking and we have been talking about this since 2004 if you look at the chronology. the fact is we're talking about a massive level of instability. we're not talking about terrorist movements. we're talking about insurgencies collapsing failed states. we can't deal with those problems quickly. in the case of yemen, essentially we are losing, not winning. the shiite movement are suddenly expanding their pressure on the

capitol. we have not defeated the remnants by the al-qaeda and arabian in areas of the south. they have grown stronger. somalia is a mess. they are not moving toward stability. we have no plans in either country, as one caller pointed out earlier, how do you deal with the civil and economic side? we don't have a plan for the development of afghanistan -- sorry of yemen t royal bank doesn't. the problem is the problem is so high t water so limited, the resources so bad, it's not clear how you get one. in somalia, you have roughly the same situation. population pressure exceeds the resources, at least in the near term. we need to stop making claims about winning. and this is not something you can blame on the white house.

i think you read far too much by way of speeches from people who have nothing to do in terms of political position but hold responsibility for counterterrorism where people tend to spin things into victory while very often their staff and other people are pointing out, look, this is complex, we're containing things, making progress in some areas, but this is a generational struggle. host: from spingdale arkansas, brandon up next. >> i appreciate the information that's been said here. just an idea of how complex the situation is. we have the -- the government and people are concerned -- inside the religious, we have the shia-sunni differences. i think this gets to the point

of the original iraq wars. how would one define success in this? if we take out isil, is not somebody just going to take their place if they are not such a strong leader as the one we just disposed in the first war? guest: what we need to remember is -- people tend to forget this -- the moment sad dam triggered the iran-iraq war, you had a kurdish revolt and a systematic butchering of the kurds. you prosproek a civil war because the shiites weren't well armed. you were fighting with the shiite rebels in the iraq war and it never stopped. saddam was

these differences are not going to go away easily. but the rather grim irony here is malla ki won in 2010 because he was seen as leading something called the charge of the knights, which went into shi'ite areas in the south and suppressed the sadder movement and the other extremist groups in the south. he was seen as a symbol of nationalism. as a result, even though it was essentially a much more secular and moderate movement that got the most votes, he could create a coalition. and that coalition was essentially national in character. but the strong leader then proceeded to be the strong leader. he bypassed all of the parliament structure. he corrupted it. he picked the people loyal to

hymn. he allowed them to take money. he systematically excluded legitimate sunni leaders. he stopped the transfer of money to the kurds and picked an ongoing power struggle with the kurdish enclave. he sent the army into the west into cities like fallujah. he put down legitimate peaceful opposition by force. the end result was that you saw the army pushed out by the sunnis there, the police pushed out, and the power vacuum the islamic state created. the fact is, if you have a strong, uniting leader that can bring factions together, a strong leader really matters. if you have an authoritarian, self-seeking factional leader, he, malla ki, makes things

worse. we have to have a balance. leadership is important, but unity is critical. host: anthony cordesman, center for strategic and international studies thank you for your time. members of congress are asking the nfl for more transparency into what happened in the ray rice situation. we'll ask you about this call for congress and to see what role they should play. if you want to make your thoughts known, call 202-558-3822 for independents. we'll get your thoughts on that when "washington journal" continues. >> hi. we're excited to announce it's launch week for the 11th annual student cam documentary content. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded this year to middle and

high school contest winners. this year's theme is the broadest ever. it's the three branches and you. we'd like you to tell are a story that demonstrates how a policy, law or action by the executive legislative or judicial branches of the government has affected your life and your community. students may work alone or in groups of up to three. con tes tantss are asked to produce a five to seven-minute video documentary supporting their topic and to include some c-span programming. that $100,000 in cash prizes will go to 150 students and the 53 teachers. the grand prize winner with the best entry will win $5,000. the deadline for entry is january 20, 2015. winners will be announced in march. visit www.studentcam.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we're going to get your thoughts on o the issue of domestic violence, specifically as what came out of the story featuring the nfl and baltimore ravens player ray rice. this comes as recent stories about congressional members weighing in on this issue. a couple of stories to show this morning, missouri senator, claire mccaskill who called the commissioner of football about this issue. she said she had harsh worlds with the head of nfl in the wake of the video of ray rice punching his wife. the senator called roger good dell saying he had a serious problem with the treatment of women in and around the nfl. spokesperson confirmed to the news organization and said mccaskill has planned to continue to push the nfl to recognize the seriousness of domestic violence.

one legislator has asked for a congressional hearing on this topic. joining us on the phone to give us more, marina koren of "national journal." she has a piece looking at specifically how democrats and issues they want to see stemming from this issue. tell us a little bit of what democrats are looking for. >> thank you for having me. so this week house democrats on the judiciary committee sent a letter to commissioner goodel about the scandal. they are looking for more transparency to the public and to lawmakers because they believe that they are not sure when the nfl knew about this issue

>> eninto this issue in a legislative way? >> i think they are looking at it as, you know, from the perspective that the nfl is an institution that has to be held to a high regard. much the same way that there were hearings on you know steroids in baseball. i feel they want to hold this large institution that's very public accountable. host: some legislators talking about a tax exempt status the nfl has. >> this is an issue that's not new to the nfl. for example, congress waking in

on the name changes with red skins. that will come up in the hearings if they do come about. host: is this a democratic issue or are republicaning weighing in on as well? >> i think this is a bipartisan issue. mostly it has been democrats and female senators weighing in. for example this week 16 female senators sent a letter. these are both republican and democrats. this is very an issue that both parties can come together and agree on. host: have they heard any response from the nfl to their inquiry? >> i think the nfl has been saying they are going to look into it. there have been reports that a law enforcement official sent the video to the nfl five months ago to an executive. but the nfl is saying, no he, he didn't see it. i think they are just reacting to what's happening and they will be cooperative.

but right now i'm not sure what's going to happen in terms of actual hearings. host: marina koren, there is a story saying one representative, jack key spear, had asked the house oversight committee to hold a hearing on this. if that's the case, do you know the status of this hearing? >> right now it's -- there was some confusion about that, whether it was going to be forthcoming. right now, i think it's just in discussion whether the hear will happen. nothing for sure. host: marina koren with "national journal." she's a staff writer for that publication. just to show you the the headline as far as the hearing is concerned, the headline -- the house will hold a hearing on the nfl. darrell saying not so fast. to the story of congress looking into the issue and your thoughts on it. they are asking for more

transparency into what went down. you may have thoughts as well. here's how you can reach out to us. our line for democrats. for republicans, for independents. let's start with el lean in washington. >> good morning. my problem here is that i think he got what he deserved. ray rice did. and i think we ought to let it go. second of all, goodel is done. he's finished. host: what do you think about congress looking into this matter and their interest in it? do you think that's appropriate? >> personally i don't think congress does a damned thing about anything. they spend all their time for the last seven years home with their constituents. they don't do anything and they are not going to do anything. they are waiting for an

election. host: jack from rhode island, democrats line. hello. >> good morning. i'm in my late sixties. my father, when i was a kid, like 13 years old, told me any man that hits a woman is a jerk. hello? guest: host: you're on. >> any man that hits a woman is a jerk. all right? and i always carried that with me. you look at the ray rice situation. he's for his size, he's a physically very strong guy. and that wasn't the domestic violence. that was an outright felonious assault. he did a hay maker on her. she must be a pretty strong woman to be able to get up from that and seem physically unharmed. by the larger point is this. what i see going on is a larger

issue, an attempt to overall fem inize this nation. the nfl is super popular. i've been a fan since the '70s. what's made it greater was the growth of young to middle-aged, in their late thirties growth of females watching the game. when i was watching the game in the '70s there wasn't that much female participation. but now there is. so you have a fantastic growth. but what's going on in this nation -- rape is domestic violence too. host: do you think congress should look into this, jack? >> no, because i really believe they are a bunch of phonies. host: walter. >> i agree with your last caller

except that this is a problem for the nation. the question was rape. it should be title 10, whichever title they want to investigate, they judged mark fuller, a man who pull ld his wife atlanta. nobody is talking about this federal judge who was appointed by george w. bush. he should be investigated by congress. host: do you think congress should look into this? >> not unless they include campus rapes and unless they include mark siller from alabama, the federal judge. host: democrats line. hello.

host: it appears the nfl is trying to appease their audience. they want to get to the cause of violence, this would be to have a broader effort. it appears violence is pervasive in society as a whole. host: what do you think? >> congress would have to get to the roots of violence.

that are saying that if ray rice got what he deserves, he desert -- he is victimizing his wife twice. as far as congress looking into it, they need to look into it as it relates to the quality. men and women are not equal. men are stronger and bigger. men are vases and women are flowers. the face must be stronger than the flower. congress should look at it

as a violent issue? e quality has gone so far to think that men and women are equal in every aspect, they are not. at tweets looking at this issue -- we are asking your thoughts, generally taking a look at congress's issue -- congress's interest on the issue. the numbers are -- here is dawned from new jersey on the independent line.

caller: it is not just the nfl, it is all major sports. through high school, through college, through professionals, these athletes are treated differently. of they get to buy their way out of accidents and people get killed and they are not held accountable. until that is addressed this is going to continue. great from palm springs, california. i honestly believe congress needs to spend more time in the government's business. if congress has been derelict in .heir duty and as far as the feminists are concerned and there are women who want something done about the mystic violence, we already have enough laws on the books

that a tress is assault and battery. playerss these football -- i don't know what is up with americans that places football players on a pedestal. they are just chasing a ball. if we need to get back with the nation's business, we need to protect our borders before sending troops over to isis. host: as far as hearings on this issue, the nfl is not the nation's business? the nation has much more important business than addressing these ball chasers. laws on the books just like we have enough laws for illegal immigrants. caller: i think this returns to

general holders comment as far as this nation cowering when racism is concerned. there are more black men -- more white women than on the other side of the coin. this is a problem with the black families breakdown. i don't think he would have seen -- i don't think you would have seen this years ago. they have been broken apart. some reason the respect towards the woman has been somewhat dismissed. -- somewhat diminished. i believe congress is going after the nfl midway. i believe there is a war on football throughout the country.

host: you don't think they should be involved? should those people committing this on a whole, should they be brought back into the whole thing? yes. host: this is some of what he writes when it comes to roger goodell and his job --

lewis from baltimore, maryland on the democrats line. congress has a lot more stuff to worry about. i am from baltimore. there are hundreds of women supporting ray white -- supporting ray rice. democrat -- i know this is a political season. i don't agree with the other colic about the black finally. that happens across the board. hundreds and hundreds of quarterbacks and running backs that go home after losing games. i know people who don't even want to be talked to when their team loses. of course he told the nfl what happened.

when the second part of that whatcannot and they showed he gave her, this is a political season. that sets us back 20 years. host: what do you think about these tweets from legislatures? 16 democratic women sending a letter to roger goodell. caller: it is to move the agenda forward. they showed the video of that poor girl getting hit over and over again. if they cared about her that would have ceased immediately. they didn't care if they had to tear his life down or anything that she has or anything. twitter -- f of

illinois.up next from i think congress has enough on their plate as far as immigration. they can't balance the budget and we have other domestic issues that need to be addressed. i don't think they should stick their nose in a domestic issue with the nfl. let the nfl take care of their own problems. the police should get involved. this is a domestic issue. he is an american citizen and should be arrested. stay out ofuld just everybody else's business and deal with our social issues. host: one of the things congress will have to do with is congress's war plan -- is the president's war plan.

likely action in the house and senate on this. voting explicitly -- the president uses military force against the islamic state. -- give give who lawmakers a way to broaden their middle east strategy. he has been clear he doesn't need approval to combat the islamic state. lawmakers are pushing back against the white house. it covers not just al qaeda but associated forces. the -- if that were to be the case there is no congressional check up on the executive power to open up the military from against extremist groups anywhere in the world. we are taking your thoughts on congress and women in congress,

men in congress as well. they are asking for more transparency on what happened. 's -- the phone lines -- nathaniel from florida, go ahead. caller: we are raising our children to be gladiators. this is the first time we started this. it goes way back. the kids that are taking steroids, the kids working there bought off dumping 300 pounds of metal in the air to prove they can be able to get on the team -- sure when a swing at you they are going to knock you out. these are gladiators.

the bottom line is until this society starts recognizing that with their mental health because of their state of mind they need to be able to have more compassion. we need to reach out to them weekly, just like we reached out to them to pick up the weight. we need to work with them weekly to be able to know that a need to talk about their problems. if host: franklin from georgia on the democrats line. caller: congress needs to stay out of this into more about china. host, why should congress stay out of it specifically? caller: we have all of these problems. aboute always talking loving the constitution.

what about the right to -- the right for me to live free without all this tyranny they are bringing in? the worst terrorist is the united states. that is the first and worst terrorist we have on this planet. we are always going to have rumors of war and chaos. host: headline says that --

maryland, republican line, go ahead. caller: i saw something on the bottom of the screen, the nfl players association is going to ,ppeal this decision by caddell whether ray rice wants to appeal it or not. they have a vested interest in protecting their players.

i think congress getting involved is premature. somebody mentioned this is election season. in a couple of months we go to the polls. co-op that democrats with boxer and mccaskill. they are like the al sharpton's of the senate. untilk they ought to wait the nfl plays it out. we don't know whether good dell is going to lose his job. they have a whole season ahead of them. with congress having approval teams, they get worse and worse respect.

everybody says they have enough on their plate. host: about 15 minutes left to make your thoughts known. you may want to make your thoughts known on that. if congress should be involved david from georgia. caller: i want you to legislate and make policy. this has nothing to do with congress. almost everything with your last caller i agree with. let this play out.

congress should never be involved in this. host: why is congress taking an interest on this? caller: they politicize everything. it is not just because this is an election year. they politicized everything. everything they can jump on. to getf congress wants involved in transparency it needs to do the same with major league baseball and the national basketball association. good morning from oregon. go ahead.

caller: i was looking at this and i'm thinking -- i think congress needs to be more transparent. host, why should congress stay out of it? caller: we have more going on in our country that needs more attention than the nfl. i used to work for the and itions department cannot believe mr. rice got off with a miss demeanor. this was definitely a felonious assault. i have seen people on fellow and -- on felony probation's for less than what he did. host: j hancock writes about the affordable care act.

great gray from new york, democrats line. -- gregory from new york, democrats line. caller: i think ray is a human being and a citizen like assault. -- like us all.

he will go to jail under the normal court system. the nfl is a private institution and doesn't have to answer to us as a group. if we want to go ahead and pass make this thing more prosecutable that is fine. the nfl,ng problem is a for-profit private institution, is enjoying its tax-free status. largely only reserved for religious and political institutions. this is neither or. this is a business like any other. caller: congress should look into it. i wanted to make some observations that the vast majority of callers today appear to be male. are sayingof them congress should not look into it.

i'm wondering why very few women are calling in. women who support the perpetrator are part of the problem. the problem isf child abuse and homes. they grow into adults that do the same. host: senator kelly ayotte was one of those who sent a letter saying -- she sent out that sweet as well as other legislators. daniel from woodbridge, new jersey, independents line. caller: i wanted to make a comment on ray rice.

adjudicated.s i think it is quite important or member that what he did was totally intolerable and should not be condoned. on the other hand what about forgiveness? on the other hand it is his livelihood. i think we need to look at this larger issue of forgiveness. somebody should be completely punished, excommunicated from society for the mistake he makes. host: senator richard blumenthal. sending out a tweet saying --

we are taking thoughts on that via the phone lines as well. what do you think about congressional interest in all this? caller: not one person has mentioned anything about the women. this is a situation between couples. why did she marry him? i find it troubling. that is why congress should not be involved. i think it is truly a domestic situation. host: joann is from indiana. call, i feel like this has definitely nothing to do with congress.

this is a policymaking problem indiana fell. they should at least deal with this as if they were dealing with a drug person or an alcoholic person. he made a mistake, he should be going to some kind of counseling. of behavior in public, , shouldr who you are not be tolerated. this has nothing to do with them. this has nothing to do with policies.al they fractured the law. intoxication that public intoxication, falling in

and elevate -- public intoxication, falling in an elevator. they both need counseling. host, lloyd is from massachusetts on our independents line. caller: congress should be passing laws to make mandatory sentences for abuse. host: just stick specifically to that? caller: one they start saying a person should be fired out of a certain corporation, i don't think they have the right for that. even though i think he should be laws.-- congress pass jail or ax months in second offense is six months in jail. that is what they should be doing. >> do you think the

congressional interest has raised awareness of the larger ?ssue caller: it is publicized. we would not have repeat offenders. that would contribute to the problem. host, we will hear next from alex. caller: anyone who has been around domestic violence know that women do not jump on the men. about women who are attacking men did -- attacking men.

i'm not advocating women being beat up. this is totally different. congress should take care of their own stuff. host: why do you think it is not their business? caller: let them clean of chicago, detroit, and all these drug infested areas. we have enough stuff on our plate to deal with. they have laws on the books already for domestic violence. host: tonya from west virginia on the independents line. caller: i am so tired of people blaming the black communities and multiple times per week there is a white woman with this.

48 hours mystery, dateline. all these white people want to say it is about the black community. the white people are killing the most in their own homes. i think congress should take away the taxes from all the sports teams and the police who don't want to be bothered have womusiness charging that an with misdemeanor battery. the judges don't care. should startns voting on if we are going to war or not. host: that is reflective of the final tweet --

before we go, a word from the washington journal staff about a colleague of ours who is leaving and not only for the past few has been a producer and show runner of this program on fridays and saturdays, who has kept us in line. work with.son to very knowledgeable and a lot of fun to be around. be moving to another part of the country with her family. we wish her the best of luck, it is our lost. -- our loss. lauren, good luck. another addition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> coming up next here on c-span , a house floor debate on the obama administration's failure to notify congress back in may about the release of five guantánamo bay detainees in exchange for u.s. armies -- u.s. army sergeant bowe bergdahl being held captive by the telegram. after that former vice president dick cheney speaking about the threats posed by isis. that is following -- that is followed by president obama about histhe nation strategy on combating ices. the house passed a resolution condemning obama for failing to inform congress about the taliban-bergdahl exchange. this floor debate