president's 2016 budget affects the federal reserve -- the federal workforce. john fleming will talk about his position on the freedom caucus, designed to challenge the republican study committee. >> on this broadcast last week in an effort to honor and thank a veteran who me and so many others, i made a mistake recalling the events of 12 years ago and it did not take long to hear from brave men and women on the aircrews who were also in that desert. i want to apologize. i said i was traveling on a craft that was hit by rpg fire. instead i was in a following aircraft. we went after the incident and spent to have nights in a sandstorm in the iraq desert. this was a bungled attempt by me

to thank one special veteran bikes tension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere those who served while i did not. i hope they know they have my greatest th respect and now my apolo. host: brian williams on wednesday night and this morning on washington journal we want to get your reaction to his iraq helicopter story. the numbers are on your screen. host: you can also make a comment via social media. host: front page of "usa today," "brian williams loses credibility with 'mistake.'"

"it is an unmitigated disaster for brian williams and nbc news. the revelation that the nbc anchor line on air about being an helicopter that was forced out after it was hit by enemy fire during the iraq war is devastating. it is hard to see how williams survives as the head face of nbc news. if we don't believe what an anchor tells us, what's the point? it's disturbing that wayne sizzled many different versions of the story over the years. in some you was an helicopter that was hit by enemy fire. in some he was in one near the chopper that was hit. williams, who didn't mention the country -- mention the con tretemps in his third tonight broadcast, has hardly helped himself with his tortured explanations. after veterans running on facebook challenge his tail, which he told on your recently

as last friday, wayne's responded on the social media site -- wayne's responded on the social media site that he was in the helicopter behind the one that was hit. on a wednesday night williams said he made a mistake in recalling the events, saying that people incident was a bungled attempt." that is a little bit from "usa today" this morning. "new york times" has the story on the front page. "with policy, williams digs himself deeper." on the inside, alessandra stanley, the tv critic has this article. "after a decade building trust one wrong move by an anchor starts a firestorm." "public character -- public

figures often have different reasons for embellishing the bona fides but it is most often in the service of, sitting for a received inadequacy or vulnerability. senator richard blumenthal of connecticut stumbled during his 20 soon dashes 2010 campaign when the times found a videotape of him telling a veterans group in 2008 that he served in vietnam. he hadn't. mr. blumenthal sought multiple deferments and when he ran out in 1970, e1 a coveted niche -- he won a coveted niche in the marine reserve in washington. hillary clinton made a similar gaffe during her bid for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008. she described having dashed across the tarmac to dodge sniper fire during a 1996 visit to bosnia when she was first lady.

video of the event quickly service that showed mrs. clinton and her daughter, chelsea, calmly and safely shaking hands with local dignitaries. mrs. clinton at the time was running on her experience and knowledge of the world. bosnia wasn't a safe place to be in 1996. it's just that the airport tarmac on that day wasn't nearly as dangerous as mrs. clinton preferred to remember it. the truth about television news is that the higher you rise, the less real reporting you do. anchors mostly travel to war zones and disaster areas to show the flag and to know the stories magnitude. anchors aren't there to ask questions and take notes. they are there to bolster network prestige and project their own journalistic derring-do donning work shirts flat jackets, helmets to look the part." this is alessandra stanley writing in "the new york times." now to your reaction to the brine lames helicopter story.

michigan, you are first up. caller: i like brian williams but i'm glad this came to a head, because i forget tv, essentially ceased -- i look at tv, especially ceased -- this type of thing from station to station, including c-span, they all lie. they don't even tell the same truth about one conversation. it is about time that this comes to a head. now people will notice what goes on 24/7. just as we put the president -- when he said slavery. he didn't -- maybe you should bring in up -- maybe he should bring it up, but it is the truth. it is the same thing with stations, 4, 7 -- host: all right, thank you very

much. cnn had a tweet. "if nbc and vine lames thought of facebook post and tv apology were enough, they were wrong." a little more from alessandra stanley. "nbc reporter david blo died covering the warom -- david bloom died covering the iraq war in 2003. abc's anchor bob woodruff suffered a brain injury and almost died in iraq. this was a year before ryan lames -- brian williams became the chief anchor and two years before he made his bones covering hurricane katrina, and mr. williams was still seen as a

television star whose rise had more to do with his swap manner and good looks -- suave manner and good looks that hardship posts overseas. war stories get more polished in the retelling and the temperate tatian -- 10 tatian to self-aggrandizing all the greater and easier for people who are popped up by the camera lens and the cult of celebrity. by the time mr. wayne's told a story to david letterman in 2013, he sounded like sergeant york. he made his fib sound like a one-time misguided effort to pay all much to veterans. this time mr. williams is really under fire and must endure days of media scrutiny and schadenfreude from his rivals and an overflow of social media scores snark, and satire." alessandra stanley writing in "the near times." tom, republican in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for c-span.

i think brian williams should resign good he didn't misspeak he lied. that is one of the things -- hillary clinton supposedly misspoke. they are not mistaken, they are lying. it wasn't a one-time thing. he did a number of times. and it's supposed apology the other day, he lied again because he said the helicopter was right behind the one that got hit. it was an hour behind, not right behind the other one. he lied and he has to be accountable for it. either he resigns or he gets ended for a year -- gets suspended for a year. he should get off that easily -- he should not get off that easily, and that is my opinion. host: dylan byers in politico is reporting that dan rather is backing brian williams. verney on our democrats line.

caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. host: what's your opinion sir? caller: i think he is human and we have got a lot of humans who make mistakes. he is not a bad man. i've seen worse. you turn on fox and you can see some of the worst lying you everyone to see and no one says hardly anything about that. it is not like bombs weren't going off around him. give him a break. he has worked hard all his life. he made a mistake. let him continue making his living. this is what he does for a living. host: flushing, new york. we will put the numbers up on the screen and if you can't get through on the numbers, you can contact us via social media. caller: good morning, sir.

brian williams made a very serious mistake. not the first time could other journalists like "the new york times" done it many times. we want to create our own stories. i agree with the gentleman -- either he has to resign or there will be some repercussions. we cannot let this journalism to be making sensational things while there are brave journalists who died while reporting. some are reporting under difficult conditions, some are creating fancy things. brian williams the least he should do -- this apology is not enough. he should resign or some high punishment should be made on him. host: here's the headline from "the washington post." "brian williams scandal is an nbc news-wide scandal." erik wemple story from

yesterday. this is the conclusion of alessandra stanley's story from "the new york times." "the weirdest thing about the scandal is mr. williams didn't make a journalistic blunder, as, say, the former cbs anchor dan rather did in 2004 with a flawed report on george w. bush's service in the national guard. as a result, mr. rather was forced to step down as 'cbs evening news' anchor. but these days, network newscasts are so personality driven that the anchors personnel life, and in mr. williams case, that includes his daughter's acting career, responded on the air and treated like news. these puffy nbc promos that promote mr. williams's battle scars and integrity don't help." susan is calling on our republican line. caller: thank you. i think the man should resign,

but then again, i feel all of them on the major networks should including list of them on fox -- most of them on fox. they are people of low integrity. there is no middle ground with any of these news anchors from even on your show. i've noticed the body language and some of the ways you treat the republican callers, which you have a few of now because you let a bunch of people call in and just vent over this black situation in ferguson. you lost a lot of your republicans and you lost me too. this is the first time i've watched the program in a long time. when you can't have any moderate journalists, and we don't have any moderates anymore it is always taking the democrats' side or this. they are just too left-wing and whatnot. it is just -- and yet we are sitting -- it's like nixon's

impeachment. if the house of republicans -- if the house had been republican we wouldn't have to worry about impeaching nixon. but it wasn't. so he had to resign. not that watergate was any big deal, and some of the other stuff, and just like ross perot. why didn't you report the facts that ross perot only through his hat in the ring so he could beat the bush family? one of my least favorite presidents has been george bush the younger one, and i don't know if jeb will get the nomination, and i am from florida. he was a very good governor, and i don't know how he would be as president. we have got to get more moderates doing the news. i'll tell you, i can tell which anchors on your show our

democrat-leaning, and believe it or not you do not have any republicans up there representing people. host: that is a susan in fort myers, florida. "washington times," their article on this. "brian williams fighting for reputation." tweets with hashtag. #brianwilliamsmemories "joked that he blew up the death star, save someone from a polar bear and flew with wonder woman in her in visit will helicopter -- invisible helicopter. 'how could you expect anyone who served in the military to ever see this guy on screening and and not feel contempt? how could you expect anyone to believe he or the broadcast heelys has any credibility?" ' wrote the critic for 'the

baltimore sun.'" caller: i kind of agree with one of the other callers on brian williams. if you discipline brian williams , half the crew on brian williams needs to be disciplined. i listen to this woman who got through talking and she is republican and she is so sickening with her bias towards democrat. i am a democrat, i am a proud democrat, but this show gives balance, both sides. this is not just leaning against the republican party. you try to do the best you can to give people the truth right here on "washington journal." but back to brian, if you are going to discipline him -- they say the president was not even an american, fox news just ran that and ran it and just way out about the president. benghazi, they lie about

benghazi, they lie about all of those things that -- about the guns, the gun thing. everything is blown out of proportion on fox news. if you take brian williams away, take hannity and o'reilly away. host: "embedding reporters changed the news. afi seats for white house reporters limo'd to stage speeches with selected audiences the same." a lot of this began when brian wayne spoke at a soldiers retirement on friday night and "nbc nightly news" posted on its facebook page that brian wanes and soldier were reunited 12 years later. brian williams told the story and then on facebook, lance

reynolds posted, "sorry, dude, i don't remember you being on my aircraft. i remember you walking up about an hour after we landed to ask me what happened. then i remember you guys taking off in a different flight of generics -- chin from another unitooks adding to quit to report your 'war story'on the nightly news. we were still working aircraft and pulling security." "to all of those who have posted, you are absolutely right, i was wrong. i spent much of the weekend thinking i had gone crazy. i feel terrible about making this mistake, especially since i found my own writing about the incident from back in 2008 and i was indeed on the chinook behind the bird that took the rpg," etc. etc.

chris from ohio, independent line. caller: hi. host: what do you think? caller: well, i'm in iraq, afghanistan war veteran, and i think brian williams definitely like, and when he tried to apologize, he still lied. he is not sorry for what he has done, he is just trying to protect himself. he should be fired. this should be a huge wake-up call to the media that we the people, we don't believe you anymore. we can't trust you. and a lot of americans i believe don't buy the lie anymore. there is a lot of crap that goes on in washington that isn't about us. it is more about corporations and what corporations want, not what people want. and i see the lies now.

there is no more -- it is not about the people -- we don't have a decision. people don't vote anymore because it is bullcrap. people aren't being representative -- represented. people -- this is a very small issue. deflategate, very small issue. what about the big issues? what about poverty? what about the inequality for the working class? what about just civil rights? everyone being represented? that's all i am saying, everyone needs to be representative. the masses don't have a choice in anything anymore. we have been lied to, you have been manipulated, and it has all been manipulation. host: all right, chris, let's leave it there.

next up is david in bridgeport connecticut. democrat. hi, david. caller: good morning, peter. how are you? host: i'm good. caller: it will only take me about a minute to say what i have to say. it is fortunate that this happened to brian williams. i've been studying him for a long time and i realized that she is truly -- he is truly a professional. he has the right spirit, the right town, the right attitude, as he does what -- and reporting. i'm saying that there is not one person -- all the people who called in this morning, if they were going to look in the mirror, and a think there was one person calling you this morning to complain, has not told the lie about exaggerating.

there has been a time in the height of energy that we over exaggerated the truth. i'm saying we all make mistakes. i don't believe we should go throw brian williams under the bus, all the years of his dedication. you might as well throw everybody else under the bus. they declare the president has the biggest liar that ever was. you talking about hillary clinton, blumenthal. i believe we just need to learn how to forgive people that we make mistakes, in the height of energy, and sometimes we overlook things, but i think we just need to move, forgive, and move on. host: from the blaze this morning, "claim made on cnn challenge by pilot called into question." "a retired army officer claimed

he was the pilot commanding brian williams' helicopter. jake tapper interview to the pilot who claimed he piloted the helicopter. he said they were not hit by an rpg but took small arms fire. hours later, a former army pilot challenge to that claim in 'the new york post,' contending that he was in fact the pilot in command of the flight that carried brine lames into iraq in march 2003. the account was further called into question by report in 'the new york times.' reporter later tweeted that for soldiers completely dispute krell's claim that he was the pilot." this is from fox news -- "report raises questions about brian

williams' katrina experience claims." "it is called into question his experiences covering the deadly storm and 2005. he reported seeing a body for by his hotel room in the french quarter. an advocate says -- 'the advocate' say that the area was largely unaffected by the devastating floodings." william in annenberg, indiana, independent line. -- edinburg, indiana, independent line. caller: guys need to be held accountable for their statements. going on fox news -- just like yesterday on bill o'reilly's

show he said he would throw a pencil of the president. -- at the president. [indiscernible] i don't see how he could get by a threatening statement like that. it's incredible how they get by with some of these really threatening statements. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: bill tweets in -- "it is a nonstory. nothing to see here. move on. brian lamb's ma --brian williams made an error." marie -- what is the name of your town in new jersey? caller: i don't want to say that brian williams was telling a lie could he was telling a story in

a way that wasn't true as far as what was going on with him. at least he wasn't telling a lie on someone else. it didn't hurt anybody except him. nobody is perfect. he is still a good media person. we have the media on tv 24 hours a day lying about other people and what they said and what they didn't say. i think it is ok. he should be able to keep his job. he has already apologized. nobody's perfect except god so who are we to judge. host: rush limbaugh spent a lot of a show on thursday talking about this issue. from the website "brine lames should not resign his job as nbc narrative reader --brian williams should not resign his job as nbc narrative reader." "they are not news readers anymore and there certainly is a journalism going on here.

it is not just nbc, it is the whole drive-by media. they are narrative readers. in the bbc, they call them newsreaders. here they call themselves journalists and they give themselves awards for bravery and courage. all you have to do to get one of those is to have the right trenchcoat and just wanted to view in -- one tape of you in beirut and you are seen as braving the hostilities. peter jennings did all the target it was -- did it all the time. it was people at 'stars & stripes' who blew the whistle on this. they just got sick and tired, i guess, of hearing him repeat the story. i don't think it matters to the nbc audience whether or not he was on the helicopter that was shot. all the while, those guys are

totally opposed to the war anyway. why did they want humor was in? -- heroism? why did they want people to think of them as great heroes whenever but he knows they oppose the war? everybody knows they opposed bush could everybody knows they were in arms with the democratic party against bush's war in iraq. why in the world during all of that we want to be considered as being engaged in an act of heroism when they were opposed to the invasion? was just like with the george zimmerman and trayvon martin story, really outrageous what happened. ." a transcript from the rush limbaugh show on thursday. randy in louisiana. what is your opinion? caller: well, my opinion is he is all these other journalists.

they are all a bunch of habitual liars -- abc, nbc, fox. they are all the same. they are not reporting the story. they want to put their spin on it, like they did with ron paul when he won the straw polls. now they are trying to throw rand paul under the bus. the whole bunch of them, if they tell the real story they would have something to go but everybody is paid to shut up and you don't get any true stories. the only place i have found truth -- there is mistakes made -- with alex jones wwcr.com, and that is worldwide christian radio. these guys are telling the truth whenever but else's habitual liars. you can't get the truth on radio, you can't get the truth on tv. every journalist is looking for

that pulitzer or whatever they want to win. you can't blame them. they are out there trying to make a living and everything. everybody's a bunch of habitual liars -- host: all right randy. slate tweeted this out yesterday -- "nbc criticized hillary clinton for full summaries of sniper fire. will it hold brian williams to the same standard?" republican line, good morning. caller: i was listening to what everybody is saying. one thing -- news reporters should report the news and not try to make news. that is number one. but if you -- i was listening to your -- it seems like don't nobodyflying the helicopter or what helicopter he was on.

they were getting shot at, i guarantee that. i would be a little bit nervous. i've never been in the military but i could imagine flying in a helicopter and getting shot at and getting the story backwards. i can't fully believe that brian williams is a habitual liar like they are saying, and all the politicians are habitual liars and everybody in washington is a habitual liar. i think it is a dubious thing to say after all this time. we have these people we vote for and put up there. it is a sad situation when you listen to what people say. it is beautiful. -- it is bepitiful.

brian williams made a mistake. let's just keep it going. have a good day. host: from "the hill" newspaper "representative shock staffer resigns after comparing blacks to zoo animals." "a staffer for representative aaron schock has resigned after making a number of comments on his face page, including comparing black to zoo animals having a mating ritual. he is shocks'senior adviser for policy anka medications. his resignation was first reported by a paper in pre a illinois. in the post reported by busby last week, he -- by busby last

week, he bemoaned 'black miscreants' and seeking 'to put as many black criminals in my district bars.' he said that if he saw any other race committing mischief in his neighborhood he would put them in prison." david axelrod -- mitt romney's concession call irkedritaed obama." "he implied that obama had one because of his popularity in black immunities -- black

communities. obama was unsmiling during the call and slightly irritated when it was over," according to axelrod. "he did a great job getting out the vote in cleveland and no walkie -- in other words, -- and milwaukee -- in other words black people." in the more -- the memoir has accounts of other relationships as well. booktv will conduct an interview with mr. axelrod and that will come next weekend on booktv. another article in politico. "mitt handler -- david axelrod is lying." "he tells politico that david axelrod concocted a phone call coming out in his memoir on tuesday. he writes in a passage that

obama was slightly irritated and when he hung up, he added 'in other words --' " what we reported earlier. "when i read that, i was furious. it didn't happen. i was right next to the governor. i was the one who called the obama aide. 'i just want to congratulate you and your team on a well fought race and your victory.' the president said a few quick words, and then mitt said 'i know there's a lot of tough decisions ahead, a lot of tough issues that face our country.' there was another pause, and mitt responded 'know that you and the first lady are in ann

and my prayers daily.'" back to the calls. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for all the great work your network does. brian williams he should keep his job, because he is not the only one that lied. bush lied about the war about going to the iraq war, which has brought us issis and millions of people have been killed because of that. host: all right, thank you very much. middletown, new york. go ahead, eric. caller: one thing that is jumping out at me here in this commentary is the paradigm for discussion here is completely wrong. you have a bunch of folks who are putting it through the prism of partisan politics. a lot of reference to fox news

and this guy is a good guy and that guy is a bad guy and these guys are moderate. and then the idea that he shouldn't have any sort of consequence in his employment as a result of everyone else lying. quintessentially american way of following the cult of personality. and to excuse one piece of bad behavior by pointing to some other bad or worse behavior. the fact is, journalism should rely on facts and reporters should report those. everything else is editorial is asian an opinion -- editorialization an opinion could we know that these people self-aggrandize, and the need to insert oneself into the story rather than the report the story is something that consumers coppola. -- consumers gobble up. the more people want these charismatic personalities reporting the news, the more likely this is to occur. there are journalists getting shot all over the world from smaller venues and you don't

hear about that. williams is the celebrity guy. the fact is, people say it is a mistake. it is very well scripted, very rehearsed language that he read off a prompter, and it is a story that he has told many times and i'm sure he had a lot of thought and he knew where the line of accuracy was and he chose to cross it because it put him into a particular light. it is not really the sort of thing that we should be judging as a political matter. the guy is a trusted person and he lied to us to pretty himself up and that is what it is. if people want him to lose his job for that, that will be decided by the viewership. nbc will hear from their demographics and decide that. not like he is the first guy to do it, but we really should be more concerned about the news we are getting. is it accurate? our the stories being told properly?

not is the reporter's involvement in the story being portrayed accurately. as the story itself is something we can trust? host: eric in middletown, new york. "new york times" -- "harper lee has issued a new statement expressing her happiness with the publication of the new novel 'go set a watchmen,' amid speculation that the reclusive novelist may have been pressured into signing publishing rights for the book. 'i am alive and kicking and happy as hell.' she said this in a statement she is said to have given to her lawyer tonja carter, on wednesday." brian, democrat, what is your opinion on that? caller: here is a guy who has spent many years on tv and people of gotten used to him. is it horrible that he has told

half-truths for something less than true? yes, but it is not about the truth. journalism is about selling advertising dollars, and i think he does a great job, and people of gotten used to his face, and people are comfortable with him. even though people are shocked that he told a lie, what it boils down to is that he does a great job and people like seeing him give the news. no, i don't think he should lose his job. i know idealistically maybe he should, but in this day and age journalism is an amount -- isn't about giving people the truth. it is about making money. host: that is brian. this is stephen in burlington, iowa, republican. caller: yeah, just a couple of things. a liar is a liar is a liar. a few years ago, dan rather told

a couple of mysteries -- mistruths and that blew up in his face and he ended up losing his job and his respect ability. what is good for dan rather should be good for brian williams. that is pretty much my thoughts on that. thank you. host: steve in austria go illinois. another republican. caller: hi. i'll tell you what, that eric from middletown, new york hit the nail on the head. i cannot add anything to what he said. he is absolutely right. i couldn't have said it better myself. thank you. host: gil in jamestown, north carolina, what do you think? caller: good morning to you. thanks for taking my call. one thing that i highly interests me in all the discussions talking about abc, cbs, and nbc, they are all owned

by major corporations. here we only get the news for 22 minutes on these major broadcast . what i would encourage listeners to do is listen to cbs in the evening, which gives very objective reporting for better yet, listen to npr, that gives three hours of news in the morning, real good news, hard-hitting news unbiased objective news, and listen to npr in the evening, where you are listening with your ears and not being talked to buy these personalities that are making huge sums of money and corporations are just protecting franchises whether it be brian williams or the other news anchors. i find it fascinating that the major news networks have still constrain themselves to 22 minutes of news with trying to

cover major stories with one-minute stories. once again, i would encourage listeners to listen to npr or watch pbs, where you have true journalists broadcasting the news. thanks so very much. host: from "the washington post," "curfew is lifted baghdad is parting ag -- partying again." "it heralds another small milestone in the city's recent and surprising revival. the prime minister declared four neighborhoods has demilitarized zones in which unauthorized gunman will be prohibited. he sealed off neighborhoods and in down the capital with the air of a militarized zone for much of the past decade.

similar moves have been promised in the past, only to founder on waves of bombings and violence or repression by government forces. but these days, baghdad feels different. since islamic state fighters overran much of the north and west of the country in the summer, a paradoxical sense of calm is taken home. the initial panic that followed the militant onslaught has abated and as residents have come to realize the capital is not an risk of falling, baghdad has sprung to life. nightclubs have proliferated liquor stores. the streets, and families pile into cars every evening to eat at one of the many new restaurants. a glittering tiger boat plies the tigris river every night, a pink neon palace called for by the clinic pampers women with beauty treatments late into the evening. the curfew was imposed after the

sweep -- american sweep into iraq in 2003 and at the worst of times took effect as early as 8:00 p.m. as security conditions gradually improved, it slipped back and in recent years only applied to the hours of midnight to 5:00 a.m. only once it was lifted entirely, this past new year's eve. thousands of iraqis filled the streets, swarming around a brightly lit christmas tree erected on the plants where saddam statue stood until it was pulled down by u.s. marines in 2003." lenny, go ahead. caller: my background is tv network news and this is kind of my topic. what we're seeing here is the merging of corporate interests and news which created infotainment when they merge the news divisions with the entertainment divisions. the point is to eliminate

journalism and to have opinions replace -- power teams, panel discussions, an eight-second soundbite followed by a 15 minute discussion of what people think about the event. two reasons they do this. you can't dispute an opinion therefore it is not a lie. two, it is cheap. all the networks do it. it is terrible. it is almost more important than voting. what we need to do is take back our public airwaves, which ronnie reagan took away, and bill clinton codified. take it back into the public arena. you would never have dan rather talk smack about walter cronkite, or who are the worst liars. so many people are on antidepressants. we can't see the forest through the trees. we need to take our public airwaves back and stop listening to opinion. i think it is fair game to say that fox, which more than america herself hates the

american people, with "fair and balanced" as their logo, and god for bid bill o'reilly, who gives his opinions for an hour and calls it the no-spin zone, means we have crossed the rubicon. host: nic, you are the last word on this topic. caller: hello america. when i was growing up, i was delivering "the washington post" and i became an aficionado of nicholas von hoffman, who might father used to say was a communist. but i have a great affinity for the written word, one of the reasons i love your show. on the topic of brian williams the corporate interests is so crossed over the american psyche

that we have this glorification of this warrior mentality. for the last 50 years -- i was drafted and i read through "stars & stripes" in southeast asia and i followed the news and i have throughout my life. but now what is in the news is not news. i don't know what it is. it is like propaganda from the nazi era -- host: how do you get your news? caller: i get my news on the internet. host: for what -- caller: "new york times," "washington post," and "star-bulletin." not to see i need all that information in my daily life that i just like to keep on top of what is going on. i get a lot of news on c-span -- not c-span -- yeah, c-span, you guys are c-span, right? and npr the evening news on the

npr and bbc. i used to watch al jazeera which i found was more informative than the major topics -- the major news networks in america. but i was just -- my opinion for a short time. host: what do you do down in key west? caller: what do i do for a living? i'm retired off of my oil and gas income. host: congratulations. caller: i was a great beneficiary of my ancestors which got a bunch of oil leases in 1910 and we held onto them and they finally panned out, as they say. of course, it is down a little but such is life. host: nic in key west enjoying the sunny 72 degrees get from "houston chronicle," "oil job cuts reach 25,000."

robert weets in, "williams is too big to fail?" finally, "williams' capillary, ratings could save his job." this is from "usa today." "williams' admission has caused a firestorm. the reaction speak to the jarring oddity of automa -- of a network news anchor, fading in ruins as a group, but still the most visible paragon of trust and journalistic integrity, caught in a lie that seems beneath his position. 'the job of network anchorman has extended to other things,' s ays andrew tyndall.

'hi his job description is shifting and he has had to become a personality.'" we have two members of congress. democratic congresswoman donna edwards of maryland, and then republican john fleming of louisiana. we want to show you something we been doing a couple years. we have the local content vehicle unit. these are units with producers who go out and visit cities and while they are in those cities they visit literary sites and historical sites, and whatever they have shot, whoever they have interviewed, those are put on our booktv and american history tv channels, c-span2 and c-span on the weekend -- and c-span3 on the weekends. this weekend we are visiting corpus christi, texas.

here's a little but from our visit there. [video clip] >> corpus christi is in south texas, directly on the gulf coast. we are actually the largest city on the gulf coast. corpus christi is best known for its natural assets. any city would love to have the backdrop of this beautiful bay and also, being on the gulf coast. equally important, we certainly have been put on the global economy with our port and so many industries that have moved in. what i find most interesting is the beginning of the port corpus christi, which was called the navigation district. it was in the 1920's was the inception. we are over 88 years old now. but we competed with aransas pass, the city of rockport, with the -- corps of

engineers to become a port. because of not being so low-lying, and the hurricane concerns because the low-lying area of corpus christi was picked to be the port for this area, there is a lot of history behind port corpus christi. the port of corpus christi is our economic engine. it has been on its inception and it certainly has magnified its role today and that is because of the visionary leaders that we have had and the shoulders that we stand on, knowing that we would not be the global economy today were it not for the planning, infrastructure planning, and strategic outlines of where we are at with the investments we have on the global map. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is donna edwards, democrat from maryland, a member of the democratic steering and policy committee.

she is also a member of the armed services committee. did i get that right? guest: transportation and infrastructure. host: sorry about that. our next guest -- guest: i can talk about that too. host: recently the president introduces budget, and you have been on capitol hill long enough to have heard this. every year the president introduces a budget and it is dead on arrival. what is the purpose of having the president introduce a budget? guest: for me the purpose is to see the president's vision for the nation and where we want to go, and then it is congress' responsibility to take a look at that and come up with their own ideas and put those on the table for the budget. i found it very helpful. i think the president laid out a lot of the priorities in the state of the union and it gives a little more meat to the bone with his actual budget. now it is our turn. host: is there going to be a

return to regular order? guest: you know, i am a democrat and we don't control things. that is up to speaker boehner to decide that. all of us have just finished our committee organizing and we have our committees and subcommittees and the hearings have started on capitol hill. i hope that that is true because i think it is an opportunity to try to find some compromise, some agreement in places, which you just can't do when you throw a bill on the floor at the last minute and nobody ever gets to see it and nobody gets to amend it. i hope we are not going to have more of the same as that although frankly, from the beginning of this congress, it looks like that is executive what we have got. host: one of the issues you are dealing with right now is the issue of the department of homeland security funding. what is going on there and what is the democratic position? guest: i think it is the american position, that we need to make sure that the department

of homeland security can continue to operate, look out for the security of our homeland protect our northern and southern borders and waterways. they can't do that effectively if they don't have money. the department of homeland security is slated to basically shut of its operations -- shutter its operations at the end of this month. republicans need to put a bill on the floor to fund the department of homeland security and stop holding things up because they are having a fight with the president over his executive action on immigration. frankly, if you are really concerned about your borders make sure that the department of all my security is fully funded and operational. for us in metropolitan washington region, particularly a lot of the apartment of comment security employees -- department of homeland security of flurries. they may have to work because they are essential that they are not receiving paychecks and that is not fair.

republicans promised the last time they shut down the government that they wouldn't do that again. and yet here we are with the republicans essentially saying we are willing to shut down the operations of the department of homeland security and jeopardize the security of the nation. look at what is happened in france and australia. we live in a dangerous world and we need our department of homeland security fully operational. it is irresponsible not to fund it. i hope there is some counter reality before the end of the month. host: haven't the republicans in the house -- congress -- passed a bill saying here's the funding for dhs but it doesn't include the immigration provision that the president issued in the second quarter? guest: you know, here's the thing -- it is never going to make its way to the president. it is a fully funded bill, and if the republicans and congress

really want to do with immigration, there was a bill that passed the senate in the last congress and it has enough support in the house to go to the president. we can't deal with immigration and f -- we can deal with immigration and fund homeland security. the ball is in their court now. the president's actions -- i fully support them on immigration and i think it is a responsible thing to do and the president has acted in the absence of complete action inertia by the congress. host: from "hill" this morning "top like democrats skipped netanyahu -- to skip netanyahu speech." guest: you know, i am going to tell you, i think the leadership in congress and speaker boehner effectively going behind the white house's back against standard protocol and inviting a

head of state just prior to an election in a country is unheard of. i don't think that we should provide any kind of support or cover for that. i have not made a firm decision myself and i am leaning against not attending that address. in fact, i did go to the last address. prime minister netanyahu has been before congress twice already. he wants to come third time, which is unprecedented. i think only winston churchill has addressed congress three times. i went to the last one, the last one was done according to protocol. it was an agreement between the democratic leader and the speaker, and in consultation with the white house. that is not what happened here and it looks like it is just playing politics. if you remember, prime minister netanyahu actually tried to interfere in our last election

for the last presidential election. i just don't know why anyone would endorse or support this. i will say i will be going to the joint session of congress that was done according to protocol inviting pope francis to the congress and i can't wait for that. host: another issue from the wall street journal. obama to seek congress' approval to fight militants. the white house is expected within days to seek authorization for military operations against islamic state militants. kicking off a political fight that could see the administration clash with both members of -- with both parties about how much authority to give the president. what is your position? guest: the president has been operating under a use of force agreement from the early 2000 's. that is not the environment we

are in right now. i do think there needs to be a current authorization. i do not know i would necessarily support that authorization, but i think it is important to have one that is limited in scope to the work that has to be done to. some of my republican colleagues give carte blanche to the president to operate, and there are others, some democrats and some republicans who are saying we need to limit it in scope. we do not want ground troops in syria on the ground there. and give the president the kind of authority that he needs. i am not clear that i will be supporting that authority, but i think it is important for the president to have the concerted agreement of congress and the white house to continue these operations. host: donna edwards, you're also a member of the policy committee

for the democratic house. what is your operating philosophy? guest: i like to think of myself as a reader and somebody who studies issues. i never go to the floor of the house to vote on majors legislation -- to vote on major legislation without hearing from a lot of people. one benefit i have, when i can from congress, i came from working outside, from advocacy organizations. i know a lot of organizations in this town and around the country that provide a lot of analysis. i like to take a lot of that in. i don't think one member of congress can just make a decision herself on her own. i hear from my constituents who are very knowledgeable because they are here in the metropolitan washington region so you cannot fool or get anything by them. i like to study issues.

it is one of the reasons leader nancy pelosi selected me to cochair our steering and policy committee. it is a committee that defines and helps to illustrate policy priorities for democrats in the house, and i am looking to a full agenda next year to look at things like income inequality, providing childcare assistance, as the president has illustrated. what it means to fund community college and provide for education. how we have to create jobs by growing the middle-class economy, based on rebuilding our nation's infrastructure investing in research and technology. i plan, along with my colleague from central connecticut -- we are going to pull together a framework for looking at these policy issues for growing the

middle-class, for growing paychecks in this country. i am looking forward to doing it. host: we are looking to take calls after this last issue. christian tweets in, "please ask ms. edwards about ttp and how we will be informed on what it contains." guest: i have already expressed directly to the president and the white house -- first of all the president wants fast track. that is the ability to move a trade agreement through the congress without any amendment or process. i do not think that that is acceptable. i think if members of congress will be asked to vote on something as essential as a transpacific partnership agreement, it would be

irresponsible of me. there has to be a lot more transparency in terms of what is in the agreement, what has been negotiated. one concern i have raised for the last couple of years is the issue of buy america provisions. those provisions have been on our books for decades. it gives priority to american firms to contracting opportunities for american taxpayer dollars. i do not want to open them up to nations whose own opportunities for contracts are dwarfed -- are dwarfing hours. we have $550 billion worth of opportunities available for u.s. businesses, and that would be stacked up against about $56 billion, $60 billion from those nations combined. why would i kelly contractor in

prince george's county maryland, that now -- why would i tell a contractor in prince george's county, maryland, that now you are competing with malaysia and brunei. there are concerns about that with this language. it would be unfair to make a determination about a specific vote on tpp yet because we have not seen it. the fact is what we have heard is not good. i think we have had the experience, and american workers have had the experience of working through these trade agreements. look at the agreement we struck with north korea a couple of years ago. our trade deficit has brown exponentially -- has grown exponentially with them -- host: south korea. guest: south korea, we do not have an agreement with north korea. look at after we struck the nafta agreement. i come from a family of mill workers in north carolina.

all the mills closed. i am not saying we are going to ring all those jobs back, but there is no way we should be entering into another trade agreement that will further jeopardize the american workforce. many members of congress republican and democrat, has serious concerns about the negotiations that have gone on so far. we have not been active participants in those negotiations. that is my responsibility as a member of congress. host: representative donna edwards is currently in her fifth term in congress. kim, gainesville florida democrats line. caller: representative edwards, it is so wonderful to speak with you again. guest: well, hello. caller: i spoke with you once

before and you said it was very thoughtful. i spoke with you about racial issues and i spoke with you also about a cancer that i had. i am pleased to report that i am in remission now due to alternative medicine. guest: congratulations. what is your question this morning, tim? caller: my question i wanted to talk to is about pro-life. you are the reason i am a pro-life democrat, and i wanted to tell you that if anybody wants to know, listen to you about the sequester, what you had to say about that speech. i wanted to ask you about these issues of sonograms and information. my health issue of allowed me to realize we all get the same little education we do not all get to see the same doctors. what i would like to know -- because i worked in a life

organization that in a pro-life organization that did handout education services. we were unusual in that regard. while i very much agree that there is a war on women -- no question about it -- and i do not want to see a lot of the ugly things that make me a little bit embarrassed -- host: tim, can you bring this to a conclusion? caller: what can we do to get out more information, and why are sonograms not a good thing? host: are you familiar with what he is talking about, your sequester speech? guest: here is the thing, and i will say this to 10 and our other listeners and viewers. what i believe is that a woman should have the right to make her own decision, just like tim made his own decision. just like on your health-care choices, you chose alternative therapies for cancer, and congratulations to you for your

remission. but women should have the right to make their own decisions for health care in the same way. that is true whether we are seeking treatment for different conditions or whether we are seeking treatment for our reproductive health care. i am glad that the affordable care act enables women to do that on the road. it is unfortunate that republicans in congress have now just this last week -- we cast out 56 vote to repeal or change the informal care act, and largely many of those votes have been cast on the basis of supporting or not women's reproductive health care. i am clear that i am a pro-choice democrat. host: roy in polo, illinois. independent line. good morning. caller: mrs. edwards, i wanted to ask a question about the executive orders the president has taken. i wonder if it is not opening up

a pandora's box. what happens if we get a republican in office that decides he does not really need to follow, can go around congress and signed whatever he feels like signing and make a law? i do not know what is going to happen with the future of our country. guest: i think it is an interesting question but the fact is the president executive actions on immigration have been taken within his executive authority. every single president we can name in the last several decades has taken similar executive action with respect to immigration. what the president did not do is what he described he could not do and only congress could. that is to make -- to give legal status to the millions of people here in this country who are undocumented. he acted within his limited authority with respect to children and the parents of

those children who are essentially -- although maybe not american-born, are american-made because they have grown up in this country, going to school in this country, and want to continue to contribute to our great nation. i think the president has acted within the scope of his authority, and the real challenge is for the congress of the united states to do what we need to do to make sure that we have an immigration system that is comprehensive, that makes sense, and that gives people the ability to contribute to this country and contribute their taxes as well because they are working above board. i look forward to the day that republicans in congress, in the house and senate, finally act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i think if it were put on the floor today in the house, it would pass every we already know that such a measure passed in the senate. host: jodi is in creston, iowa.

republican line. caller: how are you all this morning? host: good. caller: ma'am, when was the last time you read the constitution? i mean, actually read it verbatim? because, no, this was not legal for him to do this. all the other presidents were going off and tying little minutia parts with the executive action. this is going to hurt our country so bad, i just do not understand why the democrats cannot even bring it up on the floor and debate it. why are you guys afraid of it? let the people see what the democrats are actually protecting. host: jody, why is immigration such an important issue to you? caller: because i was born in southern california and for 15 years i lived in arizona. i have seen what has happened.

look at what happened to my beautiful state of southern california. it is bankrupt. host: donna edwards? guest: again jody, it is interesting because one, i believe the president has totally acted within his authority. but to suggest -- i would suggest that jody and others call speaker boehner and ask them to bill on -- to bring a bill on the floor come as only republicans can to congress on immigration. we would be happy to vote on that bill. i would urge the speaker and others in the country who believe that to urge the speaker to bring a conference of immigration reform bill to the floor of the congress. we will debate it and it will pass overwhelmingly. i have young people in my district who were not born in this country. they were brought here when they were very young and they have

gone to school and are graduating from school. they want to work and they want to contribute. the president's executive action enables that to happen, and these children are as american as my son. host: the house, 246 republicans, democrats 188. that is a big margin. guest: it is a big margin. i like a good fight, so it gives us the opportunity to communicate with the american people what our priorities are. host: what is the best strategy for the democrats to retake the house of representatives? guest: the american people want clarity. they want to know we are fighting for them, and particularly the middle class. middle-class voters have really been squeezed over this last decade. coming out of the great recession, even though we have covered 11 million jobs -- we have recovered 11 million jobs,

those jobs have not recovered at the same wages. we have also seen wages basically stagnate for most middle income families for the past two decades. we have to demonstrate, i think to the american public and particularly the middle-class voters that we are fighting for them, that we want to increase their paychecks and their wages so they can take care of their families and occasionally take a family vacation. we are going to regrow the jobs by rebuilding the nation's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, the metro system, like the one here in washington d.c. , that are literally falling apart. that is called job creation. we want to invest in education. i love the idea of two years of community college, and pay for the last two years to go to a four-year institution. but community college gives you skills to go right into the workforce. when we are demonstrating those things to the american people and telling them this is what

the difference would make, we will see that in the budget. budgets are a statement of value. we will have a democratic budget , and republicans will have their budget. when the republican budget cuts medicare and tries to change social security and cuts back on education, the american people will be able to see that is how they want to govern. it will contract -- it will contrast the way we want to govern for the middle class. host: what about the proposition to rename udc after mayor marion barry. guest: we all know what his flaws were, but he made really great contributions to the city, and if that is the way the district of columbia chooses to honor him, i might be standing at that ceremony. i think it is fitting for this

city, which should be a state, in my view, to be able to make a decision on its own about honoring one of its great leaders, and in some ways, one of the founding fathers for the modern district of columbia. host: we had on this program tom davis and martin frost two former heads of their respective campaign arms. both of them set -- both of them said, when we were in congress, we fought her redistricting that would help our party, and we should not do that. they both said it was much easier to say once they were out of congress. has redistricting created permanent districts? guest: i think it is part of the problem. just recently, leader pelosi named me to chair our task force on reform.

one of the areas that we are looking at is not just redistricting but also looking at the campaign financing system. our election laws -- another group of our members focused on voting rights -- i think it is this combination of things that really has contributed to a devaluing of the institution and of service. when i listen to the comments in your earlier segment about brian williams, and i thought -- i grew up in the world of walter cronkite. one of the things that has happened, whether in the news industry or on capitol hill, the devaluing of institutions -- we have to rebuild the structure and the rules so that we can rebuild the congress -- the confidence of the american people. redistricting, campaign finance reform, election law reform, this kind of reform agenda is what will contribute to people

having confidence in us again. host: jerry, huntington beach california, republican line. go ahead with your question for donna edwards. caller: you are a very charming looking and sounding representative, and i wish more were like you, less like the counterparts that i cannot look at or stand to listen to. but on the budget and the way things are going, the country is $18 billion -- $18 trillion in debt and growing. i just wish you would consider stopping all the spending. cut back on air force one president obama flying around the world giving speeches. just cut it all back. just consider that in the future. that is all i have to say. guest: well, i would note that over especially since the great

recession, we have had tremendous reductions in our deficit. those were growing exponentially as well. we have been, as the president said, living under a period of austerity, and it is time to think about investments we need to make that will pay off in doing things to be able to pay down the debt you talked about. i will give you an example. with rose and bridges, i am on the transportation committee and i think we have something now like 75,000 bridges that are in extreme disrepair. if we began to put people back to work repairing our infrastructure, creating a better way for us to engage in commerce, that will help to grow our economy, and more people working means more people paying taxes, which means more people paying down our long-term debt. i think that we have to do some of these things in order to grow ourselves out of that debt.

when you invest in education for example that is the investment you are making in the future to deal with some of these challenging questions. i am looking forward to that kind of debate. we recently saw a chart that showed we have about $1.3 trillion, $1.4 trillion worth of tax expenditures. most of them are good things -- the childcare tax credit and things like that. but most of those expenditures actually go to the top 1% and 2% of the population. what if we were able to make sure that that goes into the middle rack up you know what that would mean? -- into the middle? you know if that would mean? investing in the middle class is putting their money into the economy. host: what about the president's call for increased military spending in his budget?

guest: the president has also called for us to get rid of this silly sequester, which has hampered the way we look at our budget. i agree with that. i never voted for the sequester in the first place, so i am full score behind that. that means balancing out spending in the fence along with our nondefense discretionary spending. we have to look at all the details. there are obviously some defense accounts that we should not be growing at all. look at our priorities and our responsibilities spending a that kind of way. -- spending in that kind of way. i am looking at how we find the money to pay for rebuilding our infrastructure. we cannot keep going on in the 21st century with 20th century -- and in some cases 19th century -- infrastructure.

host: allison spring city, utah. hi, al. caller: as a progressive, how can you or any progressive say that you are pro-middle-class when you support a president who just illegally gave the fact of citizenship to over 5 million illegal aliens in our country who will now, with a drivers license and a social security number, be able to qualify for social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and they are not even a legal citizens, while at the same time the middle class is dying because we cannot find work, we cannot get medical care. i am a disabled veteran, and i had to wait six years, nine months, and a day -- as of today -- actually, it was six years

eight months, and 25 days before i could be care from the v.a. hospital, diagnostic care, for my service-connected disabilities. yet this president in the interim is going to allow these illegal aliens to qualify for the earned income credit, which will cost this country over $40 billion. how can you say you are pro-american? host: we got the point. donna edwards? guest: first of all, thank you very much for your service. my father was in the service and is disabled veteran for 30 years in the united states air force. i would point out that one of the things that is in the president's budget which no one really talks about is an increase in the federal workforce, but the particular increase significantly to the department of veterans affairs recognizing that we have a unique responsibility for our veterans and we have to have a veterans affairs department that matches that responsibility.

as to the president's executive actions on immigration keep in mind if you will that there are an awful lot of people in the country illegally, and they go to work every single day. many of them are paying into the social security system but cannot draw from it. and they are being paid lower words is because -- they are being pay lower wages because they are being paid under the table. one of the comprehensive approaches to immigration reform is that we bring those people above board. that will help the middle class because not only will those immigrants and new citizens be paying taxes, they will also be paid wages that are competitive which means that for the middle class earners, you will no longer be competing for people who are working under the table. the congressional budget office has actually scored immigration reform proposals and has said to us that it will add a couple of trillion dollars into our economy, so it is a win for the

american people. on your larger part of what we need to do for the middle class no question about it, we have to strengthen our middle class. we have to grow paychecks, and we have to grow jobs. our priorities, in addition to some of these other things, have to be ways that we do that. i think the way that we do that is to make investments in infrastructure investments in education, skills-based learning so that people have skills to match of the -- to match the jobs that are available in this new technological environment. al, i want to make sure that happens for you and that it happens for all of our middle-class workers around the country. host: a few minutes left with our guest. bob is in petersburg, virginia. caller: good morning. look, i am very disappointed that republicans have invited benjamin netanyahu over here.

i think all the taxpayers in this country are being cheated. we have to pay taxes, and it looks to me that the money we give israel, it will leave to more respect on the democratic side of our system. i think we are looking at the republicans, and netanyahu has folks just like the ku klux klan, i think. i think that is the kind of people we have. i hope the democrats will get people rallied up because we need to get the republicans out of their completely. i hope you all have a nice day. thank you. guest: thank you, bob. i want to separate a couple of things. the united states has a strong, long, and important alliance with the democracy in the middle east that is israel. but that is a separate question of whether the speaker of the

house, john boehner, should have invited prime minister netanyahu to address a joint session of congress without consulting the white house, and without consulting our democratic leadership, as is protocol. just a couple weeks before his own election in israel. it is unheard of, it is unprecedented, it is against protocol, and it is wrong. but that does not have anything to do with the alliance that we have as allies with israel. in fact, in the newspapers in israel, every single day, there has been an outcry and an outrage against president -- against prime minister netanyahu for even scheduling this visit to come to the united states. there is a lot of time between now and march 3, and my true hope is that the prime minister will see the danger that is being done to our relationships by coming here and will choose

for his country and for hours and for that special relationship not to come to the united states. and more than that, for speaker weiner, who issued the invitation in the first place to call the prime minister and say it is not such a good time let's wait until after your election. host: kermit, democrat, richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. you remind me of my councilman, dr. cynthia newman, in richmond, virginia. i just got the affordable care act, and i never had insurance. now speaker weiner wants to take away my health care -- now speaker weiner wants to take away -- now speaker john boehner wants to take away my health care. i had to pay 80% of the bill when i took six tubes from me.

i had to pay $4000 and i could never get out i could never -- and i could never afford to pay my bills. i had bills for the vcu hospital which cost me $4000. i had to pay at least $50 to $75 a month, and i could not afford that much food because i had to cut back on things. why does speaker weiner want to take away health care, which i have never had -- why does speaker john boehner want to take away health care? host: kermit, what kind of work do you do in richmond? caller: i take care of my aging -- i take care of her every day take her to the hospital, make sure she gets meals everyday. host: what was it like to you --

what was it like for you to apply for health care? caller: it was very easy. you do have the $5,000 for you because of how much money you make. i make a dollars $.86 an hour and i have made that i make $8.96 -- i make $8.96 per hour or it i have made that for the past eight years. my mother is on medicaid and medicare. i cannot afford everything anymore. host: one final question -- i apologize for interrupting -- what does it cost you a month? caller: it costs me a month -- for, what, my food? host: no, your health care. caller: my health care costs me zero. i do not have to pay anything for my doctor visits medicine and $.10 a month. when i used to have to pay $107

because i suffer from high blood pressure, for my high blood pressure bills. -- my high blood pressure pills. i did not have the money to pay for it. i could only take two or three pills. guest: kermit, thank you for sharing that. you are, along with 9.9 million other people in this country who now have health care because of the afford will care act. i think you sharing your story and the billions like you and their families to prevail upon the leadership in the house of representatives and in the senate to stop this ridiculous effort to repeal the afford will care act. and the reason -- i have a gavel in my office because i was presiding over the health-care debate. i have a gavel, and i gambled in and presided over it.

i look at the gavel every single day and it looks like every one of the american people who have health care coverage like kermit does, 9.9 million of them because of the affordable care act. if i had to take that vote again today, i would take that vote again today. host: coming up next on the program is representative john fleming, a medical doctor, from -- a republican from louisiana. what if the republicans came up with an alternative that you could see, that you could accept? guest: i think i want to see what the alternative is. we have been waiting for four years now for an alternative and it has not shown up yet. so, you know, i suppose there is a working group now to try to do that. what i will say is that it would be irresponsible for us to take away health care for kermit and

9.9 million americans, and i am not going to stand for that. host: donna edwards, democrat maryland. cochair of the steering and policy committee for democrats. thanks as always for being on "the washington journal." guest: thank you. host: coming up next, john fleming, republican from louisiana. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's booktv come on after words toby harnden on the

british efforts in 2009 to stop the caliban advance while waiting for american reinforcements. and on american history tv on c-span3 all this month interviews with former korean war pow's. this sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, an army sergeant captured by the chinese. and congresswoman eleanor holmes norton and cbs white house correspondent bill plan. you can find out complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-6 26-3400. e-mail us at comments@ c-span.org.

join the conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are 108 new women in congress, including the first black woman republican in the house. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information there, including voting results. newcomers congress, best access, on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative john fleming, republican of louisiana, a member of the armed services committee, and also a medical doctor. i want to start with a couple of caucuses that you form or are a

member of. first of all, there is the republican study group. what is that? guest: the republican study committee is a group that began a decade or so ago, more conservative members of the house. back in the newt gingrich days, they kind of began to form their own caucus and began to pull the needle back toward conservatism. many good things came out of it. there was welfare reform, a balance budget -- a balanced budget, and the committee has grown. it is more than half. it is the majority of the majority of the house. over the years. but also with that, i think it became a bit less nimble than what it was in the earlier days. so, as you know, we have now formed the house freedom caucus. many of us who were in the rsc have moved over to kind of replicate the success that the

rsc had in its early days. host: so what is the difference between the rsc and the freedom caucus? do you look at the same issues? guest: the rsc, because it has grown so large and many people have joined it because it is under the banner of conservatism. being a conservative is a very positive brand in washington and throughout america. people want to be known as conservatives, particularly if they are in the republican party. but oftentimes we have members who, in terms of their voting records, are not as conservative as perhaps many think they should be. so the house freedom caucus is a group of the more conservative by record and vote who have decided to go our own way. some have left the rsc, and some of us have remained members of that. but we felt that we could more -- we could be more nimble, or

functional, and were persuasive to anchor the house republicans in a much more conservative manner. host: have you left the rsc? guest: i have not left the rsc host:. -- i have not left the rsc. host: how is speaker boehner doing in your view of? guest: we have disagreements. there are house bills in congress that have not come up for debate. i do not blame him for that. we need to resolve any kind of differences that occur because it is important to protect our babies still in the womb who may be dismembered through abortion, a very painful process. we know through science now because we actually do surgery

on fetuses and they do feel pain and they have to be anesthetized. if you commit an abortion on a six month gestation child, that is going to be a very gruesome process and very painful. we really need to end that practice. very few countries allow that. host: what do you think of your overall leadership team? kevin mccarthy, steve scalise? guest: i think they are a fine group and they do a very good job. again, i think they tend to find the middle of our conference. and i tend to be on the conservative side of that. i would like to see more conservative ideas, concepts and tactics, but i understand they have a tough job. we are always trying to find that 218 218 votes so that we can get things past. -- so that we can get things

passed. it is a very difficult job. members of the house freedom caucus met with kevin mccarthy just a couple of nights ago, and we talked about some of these things. i do think the leadership will work with us. that is a good sign. host: congressman fleming we just had donna edwards, a democrat from maryland, and the lost -- the last call for heard came from kermit in richmond, virginia, who told his story -- the fact that he got health care via the affordable care act for the first time in his life and was scared that republicans will take that away from him. what is the alternative? guest: we have a number of alternatives. despite what ms. edwards said, we have actually put them in bill form. i would be happy to supply that to her. i was part of a working group

last year, part of the republican study committee that created the american health care reform act, which would be a replacement for obamacare. democrats and republicans alike i think every american really has the same laudable goals when it comes to health care, and that is to get coverage for people who have pre-existing illnesses, to be sure that there is more access to health care. but i think the approach is completely different between republicans and democrats. for democrats under obamacare, the approach has been -- and i would point you to steven brill who is a real expert in this -- we take a very unworkable health care system that is very expensive today, and we lay on top of a huge government bureaucracy, which only makes it more expensive. what we would match -- what we would much rather do is begin to reform the insurance system and

be a competitive system, to tear down those walls from state to state, reform medical malpractice. get the cost down and make premiums less expensive, and then we can help those who need help financially through tax credits or providing cash into their health savings accounts, and let them manage the own lives, organize their own health care. our idea is to lower the cost of health care, and therefore it becomes more attractive, more accessible and it is patient centered health care, not a government run system. so we would not take health care away from anybody. republicans have never had -- in fact, when i ran for congress in 2008, it was to reform health care. but again, using good market solutions that work in every other industry. why and the world would we ignore what works and do something that does not work? and so, while there are a few people who benefit from obamacare, there are many, many

americans who are seeing their premiums go up 300%, their deductibles 360%, and many americans are being hurt by this law. 18 new taxes, premiums skyrocketing, and what we are worried about is while some may be getting more health care, many others may be losing their health care. remember that most of the newly covered people are covered under medicaid, which is a third-rate health care system. fewer doctors than ever are accepting it for payment. so where do these people go? they take their medicaid cards and go to the emergency room, the very last place and the most expensive place they should be going to get care. host: steven brill, you mentioned -- the founder of court tv? guest: i am not sure if he is connected to that, but he wrote a book recently and has given a number of interviews. he is very correct in his discussion about the fact that there is nothing in obamacare

that lowers cost. in fact, big farm, the big insurance companies, came together with the architects and wrote the bill. the exchange was, if you let government run your business in exchange we will give you a bigger business. this was capital cronyism at its worst. host: and in fact, steven brill's book will be on c-span's booktv this weekend. you are on the armed services committee, and i want to ask you about this issue -- "obama seeking congress's approval to fight militants." "kicking off a political fight that can see the administration clash with members of both parties over how much authority to give the president." at this point, would you vote to give the president the authority? guest: i would have to see it.

it depends. i have been very dissatisfied with the president's approach on this. for instance, he came up with what i think is an insane idea to fund the so-called free syrian army, which we do not even know if there is such a thing. he characterized them as pharmacists and doctors training to go up against what -- battle hardened 40,000 isis? you do not even hear anybody talking about that anymore. i do think the president should request a umf authorization to go to battle because the old ones are old. we did not even have isis the last time we passed it here. so the question is, is it the right kind of plan? if it is one that i think is common sense, it makes sense, it provides for america, taking the leadership role, or at least a

strong supporter role of other nations who agreed to go up against isis yes, i will support it. but it'd fit is -- but if it is the same kind of nonsense, i cannot support it. host: do you still have your private medical practice? guest: i do. we have another physician there and three nurse practitioners. my plan all along has been that i would periodically go back and see patients. i did for a while, but i have not lately. it is very difficult, as busy as we are in washington. even when i am in louisiana, i am traveling throughout my entire district area they tell us that -- throughout my entire district. they tell us that we cannot have a part-time job. i do not know how i would have the time for a part-time job being in congress. host: john, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning.

a couple of questions. we will start with health care. we have saved a lot of people on health care, and mr. obama president obama has made sure that it has been paid for. the wars were not paid for and we lost over 4000 men in iraq. president bush signed an agreement to leave iraq, not president obama. the second one is, with the budget -- my budget that i have at home does not include a war budget or a homeland security budget. my lawn care goes up, my electric bill goes up. when those things go up, i have to get money from someplace else. so raising taxes is the only way that i see to take them pay for

our bills. i do know know that i do not know why in god's name -- i do not know why in god's name we do not raise taxes on the rich or at least raise the social security cap to make sure that everybody takes and pays their fair share. host: let's leave it there bank. congressman? guest: with respect to obamacare being paid for -- even though it was intended to be paid for and that was the original cbo estimate, it was based on a lot of fakery and cooked up ideas. for instance, the first 10 years, you have income over 10 years, but expensive -- but expenses over seven years. many of the pieces of it that have -- that were supposed to finance it have fallen away. so we are going to get into more debt, and the cbo has told us

that. with respect to move -- with respect to raising taxes, we have raised taxes twice under president obama. first, under obama, we have raised taxes under obamacare. we have the smallest workforce participation since jimmy carter . the economy is not doing well. gallup just came out this week to tell us that our real unemployment level is still above 11%. the 5.6% number that has been published is really manufactured by your government. everybody knows they feel it. in fact, when you do a polling of americans, 60% say that we are still in a recession or at least it feels like a recession. there are not jobs. there are not -- there is not economic growth. as a result of that, if we add taxes and increase taxes, and

remember we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed nation in the world. all we will do is run our economy down. you just cannot continue to spend and tax your nation and expect good results. in fact, there is no nation in the world that has ever spent and text itself into prosperity. -- and taxed itself into prosperity. we have to relations, reform taxation, and get growth rates up above 3%, hopefully to 5% or 6%. host: the new numbers just came out for january. 5.7% is the current official unemployment rate. 257,000 jobs added in the month of january. tony, north providence, rhode island independent line. you are on with charisma john fleming. caller: good morning, congress meant. i am a korean vet. i have a question.

why is the senior citizens the payments we have been getting since over obama has been president -- the first three years we get nothing, and so far we get peanuts and they keep blaming social security? with everything congress has to pay for, why are they taking it from the elderly? i am getting a lousy $20 this year? that is a shame. the biggest problem i am having, 5.5 years, i have a claim in with the v.a. i got moles from when i was in fort jackson. i have been trying and trying and it is a big joke. the more they start of me, the more they and up getting bonuses. this is supposed to be run. it is a shame.

and the veterans are really getting mad about this. we have to stop this baloney that is going on here. i hate to pick on you, but the -- but you are the only when i have gotten through to in the last six or seven months. guest: he said someone is getting benefits and he was unhappy about that, but i did not catch who he was referring to. let me just maybe give a more generalized answer, because i did not quite get all of that. you know, our veterans, to me, are the single group of americans who have done the most for our nation. as a navy veteran myself, i have seen some of the sacrifices but myself have never undergone nearly the sacrifices that our war veterans have undergone. i think we should do everything possible to provide health care, to provide assistance in any way possible.

as you know, we passed a big reform bill that would throw billions of dollars into the pot for the va hospital system, and yet still we have problems. so i certainly pledged to continue working on that as a member of the armed services committee and a veteran myself. we want to align our benefits to go to people, first of all, who have sacrificed for their nation. host: karen tweets into you -- "aca is not government health care, but the v.a., medicaid, and medicare are. do you support these programs?" guest: well, the aca is unfortunately a government program. steven brill aptly describes that it is taking the private health care system and laying over it a huge government bureaucracy. the bill that we passed, i voted

against. it was over 3000 pages. i think the regulations range in the 20,000-page range. they number above 1000 in terms of money -- in terms of running and managing the system. all of these things, even the irs, will double the work load of the irs. it really is a sandwiching, if you will, of the government health care system. you know, the senior citizens were very happy with medicare advantage, which was really a privatized form, a private insurance form of medicare. paul ryan in his budget all along has said that is the direction we need to go for future seniors, a medicare advantage type health care system, where you get more benefits because you have private systems competing against each other to offer

higher quality care at lower costs, and then that savings goes to the individual. medicaid, of course, is a government run system, and unfortunately it pays physicians the least of all systems, and therefore you have the least amount of participation. most people and up going to big charity hospitals or to emergency rooms for care. the continuity of care is horrible in that system. so i think the government has a role. government has a role of oversight to be sure that everyone is treated fairly, and it has a role to be sure that those who are in need, in financial need through means testing get proper supplementation of their premiums. but at the end of the day, we are going to be much better off by having all health care providers and all insurance companies competing against one another, just like other economic systems. that is the way we get the best results. host: the next call for congressman fleming comes from marty in michigan, republican line. caller: thank you to c-span for

allowing me to be on the air. thank you, congressman fleming. i want to set up two things -- first on the health care bill. it would be nice to have my party, out with a written, in-writing plan for a health care bill. it is a little ridiculous. i would suggest that you look at something that actually works -- st. jude's foundation. it takes in one million patients per year, takes them in and pays all their bills. maybe somewhere in there, that is the way to run the health care system correctly because all americans deserve health care. we pay the bills, you guys spend the money. the other thing i want to hit on his income inequality. there is income inequality, but it is the democrats with his mantra out there, that the reason there is inequality, it is two things, the democrat and republican parties. you borrow $.54 on the dollar,

inflation goes and it goes skyrocketing. at the same time, the cost of living is going. this is government info to programming. the dollar has been annihilated by the two parties that have been borrowing and borrowing and the infighting and everything. the fighting between the two parties has to stop because i am more to the center on things. income inequality is caused by the government. host: marty, we got the point. commerce men? guest: he makes two points. first of all, there are several government -- there are several republican alternatives, and we are working on more. you can go to my website fleming. house.gov, or you can go to the republican study committee, their website. just simply google that name and you can see all the elements . it covers everything from malpractice reform to how we would reform private insurance

to get those solutions. in terms of income inequality, you know, this president, that has -- what he has done is add regulations. he has driven our debts now from $10.9 billion to now over $18 trillion. and raised taxes twice. in the income gap is actually worse than it was when he took office. the average household income is lower today than when president obama took office. the workforce participation is the lowest it has been since jimmy carter. the income gap between the rich and the poor is worse today than it was when he took office. and the unemployment rate among minorities is worse today than ever. so, you know, when you try to shift income from the rich to

the poor, you have to be careful. you're also killing jobs in the process of doing that. and reporters cannot the other day showing that the top income earners, which is basically business owners, pay somewhere in the range of 40% of the entire tax bill. people making under 50% actually only pay about 2% to 3% of the burden. so you just have to decide what is fair. but we have a progressive tax system. the higher money you make -- more money you make, the higher percentage you pay in taxes. we can keep raising taxes, but we will continue to get worse results. host: jeremy is in maryland on our democrats line. jeremy, you're on "the washington journal." caller: good morning. and good morning, congressman. i appreciate that you are there. your diverse background and service -- i think that is very

good. we need more of that. as a third-generation naval officer, i'm interested in -- do have a little bit of time to talk but we did in the navy. my comment is i think the government should be reined in a little bit. do these things that we need government to do, and not have -- i'm saying this as a federal employee -- not have the governments do what the private sector can do. along those lines, i would ask the republicans to select, pick your battles. give up on bank as a. give up on completely pulling the rug out from under obamacare . and work towards reducing taxes so that the smart people -- smart enough to make good money they are smart enough to do with it.

they do not throw it in mattresses. they invest in the things that create jobs and create wealth for others in the country. that is my comment. host: ok, jeremy, we will get a response. guest: first of all, thank you for asking about my naval career. i'm very proud of it. you know, i grew up in a working-class family. my father died just before i left for college. i had to have emergency loans, etc. just to get my college career started. i had to work my way through college. and then when i got to med school, i just flat rent out of money. but the navy opened up a new program that exists today in which scholarships for medical student, who in exchange give service to the nation in uniform , and i thought, wow, that is a win-win. i get to both wear the uniform of the u.s. navy and served my country, and the u.s. navy will pay my way through med school. so i and to the navy in 19 76.

i was stationed at cap pendleton for three years. again, as a family practitioner naval physician. two years on kuan -- guam. and i began a family there at that point. and then i spent my last year in charleston at the naval hospital. and then eventually, of course started my private practice in louisiana. so, you know, i can tell you there is no higher privilege to me as an american been wearing that uniform of the u.s. military. as far as the inefficiency or the bureaucracy of the government. you're quite right. the private sector can do so many things much better and much cheaper than we can through our federal bureaucracy. and so i'm always encouraged for

us to have the private sector do things for us, but we have to have good oversight. there is a place, again, for governments to be sure that taxpayer money is certainly well looked after. and that we are good stewards with that money. host: jersey girl in pa tweets into you are we willing -- are you willing to cut the military budget to reduce the deficit? test them -- guest: the most important role i have is a member of congress is to provide for a common defense. that is in the constitution itself. i believe that the nations defense should be based on the threats around the world, not on budgetary considerations. although, we should be very responsible that. i voted against the budget control act in 2011.

it led to what we have today which is the sequester. and i voted for the budget that provided money back in for readiness and for training that came about later. i do not believe our military budget should be cut. i look at the threats around us isis, we have growing threats from other nations such as china and russia, and all we do is we invite violence whenever we stand down. we represent what is great, when it comes to peace. and we, of course, lives by piece through strength -- live by peace through strength. i think we make this a much more peaceful world. but if you look at the actual budget, what you find out is it is not growth in defense that is causing our budgetary problems. as a percent of gdp, our defense is actually -- has actually

shrunk since gia -- since vietnam. the most of our spending is in our social service programs like medicaid food stamps. all that is displacing our budget. if were ever going to get rid of our debt, we are simply going to have to reform those programs. part of that is getting our nation back to work. and that means reducing regulations and encouraging the private sector to create jobs. realize that during president obama's presidency, we have actually had a less business formation than we had -- then we have business closures. we cannot continue at that rate and regain our jobs. so it is important that we begin to, what's again, reform our safety net system. and mixer that we are providing for people who are truly needy. those who can work, we should beach -- should be sure they are

trained and they have jobs. host: in long beach, california the independent line. thank you for holding. you are on the air with congressman john fleming. caller: yes, good morning, commerce and -- congressman. a question for you and one for the moderator. what is your position on president -- i'm sorry, president obama's recent executive action? and to the moderator i have watched c-span for over a decade, and i would say roughly seven out of 10 colors -- callers are adamant against legalization for undocumented immigrants in this country. yet, you know, politician after politician comes there and makes statements to the contrary, such

as the american people want -- i would like to see stand them up a little bit when they make those type of statements. and maybe have them address questions more directly. we had a caller a while back in your last segment from utah that asked pointed questions to the congressperson from d.c. as it relates to the earned income credits and the billions of dollars that it will cost american taxpayers for children of illegal aliens. and, you know, she went on to talk about her father's time in the military. basically did not answer the question directory. so, i would like to say great show. and we need more smart guys like the congressman here, and also tom coburn. these guys tend to be doctors, but we need more smart and trusting people act that to represent us in washington. thank you.

guest: well, thank you caller for those kind comments. with respect to executive amnesty, i think you're asking about -- it is my opinion, and the opinion i think of most americans, that the president's memo simply made 5 million or more people here illegally suddenly here legally. that is unconstitutional and unlawful. the president does have a discretionary ability. but the problem with that is that is a case-by-case situation. having to do with individuals that may have special circumstances. but this is an entire class. the president does not have the authority to do that. he has taken it upon himself and he himself, 22 times, has said publicly that he didn't have the power to do that, yet he did it anyway.

so, what are the american -- what do the american people think about that? well, the polls are overwhelmingly against the president having done that. and the claim that somehow it is going to make america stronger or that it is going to add revenue to the treasury, is simply not true. remember, these people will immediately be able to get jars licenses. they will immediately be able to get benefits under social security and medicare, earned in come tax credits. we found out last week that the irs has now declared that if they pay taxes as illegals, that they are now able to get tax refund. so this is going to be an immediate burden upon the taxpayers. and if you look at the work done by the heritage foundation, robert rector, you will find that many more people who come here illegally -- who and upon

our safety net system and our entitlement programs -- then you will find is necessarily productive workers. having said all that, i'm a strong supporter of a worker program. we find that when we talk to those who come across the border to work that most of them -- in fact, the vast majority of them -- are interested in coming to america for good jobs. and then they want to return to their country. but the problem is this administration has crated huge barriers for people to come back and forth legally. so what i would like to see, and it doesn't require any type of loss to be passed, but the administration would simply make it easy for farmers and factory owners and so worth to bring these people over, let them work, let them send money back to their families, and then return. and then when the season comes back again, to return. so i believe in immigration as the core of america's greatness

but it has to be a systematic system. one in which we know who is coming, we have the capability to know when people are here illegally, and when they leave. and we should utilize that. we are a nation of laws. to simply say that, well, you came here illegally, but we are simply going to forget that. it really makes no sense in a democratic nation, as we are. so we need to fix the system but first we need to abide by the laws we have. and not have a president who is perfectly willing to really -- the laws and do things that no president has ever done simply because he is unhappy that congress has not done what he wants. and i think the next question is for you. host: and i'm going to think the caller for that comment about

"the washington journal," and move on to this call from sydney in oakland, illinois. the republican line. please go ahead with your comment. caller: ok, i have two. number one, i saw several months ago that 92% of the downs people are aborted. and i -- i think we take better care of our puppies that are downs people. i find that atrocious. i find abortion atrocious except when the mother's life is in danger. the second thing i need to know is -- presently, is the federal government funding planned parenthood in any way? i just want his feelings on the abortion issue and the other question is or this be taken to court because these are special needs children? and number two, are we funding

planned parenthood to the federal government? host: thank you, ma'am eared guest: -- ma'am. guest: well, no question about it. planned parenthood aborts over 300,000 babies a year. that is over a million berries -- babies that have died at the hands of land -- of planned parenthood. but now, we have the secretary of health and human services who ignores it and is allowing states such as california to require, to mandate that there is abortion coverage in all of their interns policies. so if the government is paying any part of those insurance policies if you are buying insurance in california -- and this could happen in other

states -- dollars are going directly to subsidize abortions. we are a nation that is slightly in favor of her life. we are about 51%, 52% pro-life. that has grown quite a bit over the years, but it is not even close when it comes to taxpayer funding of abortions. overwhelmingly, americans feel that that is wrong. and i would vote today to -- to stop all funding of planned parenthood. they will make the case that well, those dollars are not used for abortion directly. but, you know that monday is fundable. if it goes into one account, that means that the overhead and things are taken care of by government funding so that there is more money to be made it through abortions. and believe me, the abortion industry is a very profitable industry. that is the reason why some people are willing to do it, despite the fact that they often

cannot live in the same community because they're such outrage against people who would kill humans in the womb. but even worse than that is, again going back to capable, to provide abortion in late-term. six months or later in gestation. that is abhorrent because not only our taking the life of a human who, in most cases today, could survive outside of the will with some help, but you are putting the baby through torture . i think we have to re-examine ourselves as a nation. is this really what we are about? are we willing to put humans through this? i think the caller for the questions, and hope i was able to answer all of her questions. host: and the last call for congressman fleming comes from sam in arkansas. the democrats line. good morning, sir.

caller: how are you doing this morning? well, i'm originally from shreveport, louisiana. and the republican party, they say they care about all americans. why in the top committees is there no minorities there? and why is steve scalise still there and one of them top positions? guest: i think that is a great question. we do not have -- or have not traditionally had as many african-americans or women in the republican party. particularly in elected office. we had made great strides among women, and now we are making tremendous strides among african-americans. in order for us to have more african-americans in the house of representatives is republicans -- is as

republicans, we need them to step up and run for office. i have encouraged a lot of young african-americans, and other minorities, to do that. if you do that, it is important to embrace the principles and values that republicans hold. and that is, number one, to be pro-life. to have freedom for all. to be responsible, when it comes to this nation's finances. two want to economic freedom and to encourage small businesses to flourish because that is really where the jobs are. the vast majority of jobs are there in the small businesses. so, we celebrate more african-americans. and we elected two this past time, and we are very happy with them. one, of course, is very well known. she is originally from honduras. a great family story. she was a mayor of a city in utah. her dad came here with i think five dollars in his pocket and became self-made.

she is doing a wonderful job extremely beautiful and articulate. we could use a lot more like her. so, we encourage more minority involvement. and i more than happy to help those in louisiana and across the states to do that. host: ok, to fight a questions. here's a covers to this morning. bobby jindal's troubles at home. it talks about the fact that louisiana is currently in a deficit situation. do you want bobby jindal to run for president? guest: i think, the more the better to run. he is a very intelligent man. he is certainly a strong core conservative, and i like that about him. you are right, there are some reforms and new louisiana -- reforms in the louisiana that we need in terms of spending, and we have not come post that. they have a lot of the same

problems when you try to reduce costs. you know, it can be very difficult because people want to hold on to institutions. and government funded things that they have had for many years. so it has been a very tough poll for governor jindal. i think that we have a deep ranch that we are running for 2016. host: and in the "usa today" this morning, paul reyes is in new york. the gop snob of univision a missed opportunity. the fact that the rnc will not be sponsoring a debate in 2016 on univision for spanish-speaking americans. guest: of course, i'm not directly affiliated with the rnc and i have no decision-making on that. i think we should certainly be inclusive, but i think one of the problems that had last time was we had so many debates that we -- we wore ourselves out.

had one candidate reading up on the other candidate beating up on the next candidate. then the democrats, of course, only had one candidate. that was barack obama. so i think are going to try and change things a bit so that we don't injure and disable our candidates. so i don't know that that is a snob, as much as it may be, hey, we're just reducing the number. host: and allied, one more. this is a tweet from a viewer. i cap announce that. here's a treat. why don't republicans have the house working on friday? is it because they want everyone to be part-timers? guest: [laughter] well, we work either from monday evening through thursday, or tuesday evening through friday. the reason why we don't

necessarily work a full so-called five-day a week, is that we have to travel back home. and we have to participate and also to the activities back home. also, when we are not going home, we are also -- often going on delegations to various countries or places around our country. soon, i will be going to look at the after the five strike fighter. if we are in session, we can't do that. so part of our job is to gather information. we have field hearings when we are out. so that is why, early on in our discussion, i told you that i don't have a -- have any extra time to work at my practice. host: john fleming. the republican from louisiana. shreveport is this district. they could for being with us. we have about 20 -- we have about 40 minutes left this morning in our "washington journal." where going to turn our attention to another media issue. and this is about fox news.

here is a headline in "the new york times." fox news website offers on edited isis execution video. we will look at some of the articles as we go through this morning. but we want to hear from you. should news media, should fox news post this isis execution video? and the execution video that they posted was the burning of the jordanian pilot. so we want to get your input on that. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for for independents. we'll be right back and take your calls. >> keep track of the republican led congress, and follow its new members to its first session.

new congress, best access. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> this sunday on "q and a." on writing an article for the times and the awards he gives out at the end of the. >> the sydney awards are given for the best essays of the year. they can be in journals, or obscure literary magazines. the idea is they always come around that christmas week. between christmas and new year's. and the idea is that is a good weekend -- week to step back and not read. to step back and read something deeper and something longer. to celebrate those longer pieces. i do believe magazines change history. "the new republic" until its recent destruction was the most influential really did change

history. it created a voice for motto -- moderate liberalism. it gave it a voice. >> senate night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. "washington journal" continues. host: and fox news posted on their website the video of the jordanian pilot being burned alive by the isis forces. we want to get your view on the posting of that. bear -- here is just a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] the images are brutal. there are graphic. they are upsetting. you may want to turn away. you may want to have the children leave the room. right now. but the reason we are showing you this is to bring you the reality of islamic terrorism. at to label it as such. we feel you need to see it. so we will put up one of these

images on your screen right now. host: and we are not going to show them here on c-span. if you want to find them, there are lots of sources out there to find them. in michigan, what do you think? caller: i don't believe anything like that should be put up on a website or anything like that. all you are doing is advertising for violence, and creating more people that want to be excited by this violence. as far as fox news, it is just another piece of them tried to scale the hell out of everybody. i would like to make one more comment, going back to a couple previous guests there. we talk about immigration, and what to do on that, nobody talks about -- you really hear it on c-span -- they never talk about going after the people that hire them. that is where i wish you guys would call them out on that. i don't care whether they are democrat or republican. that is the key right there. host: that is carl in michigan.

talking about the facts that -- fact that fox news has posted the isis video on their website. inland creek, missouri. the republican line. what do you think? caller: i just said no, i don't think they should. host: y? caller: i don't know. i just think it is hideous reporting. and another thing -- i'm a pro-choice republican. so for the senator from louisiana, i just want to state that. that is all have to say. thank you. host: a tweet fox news has every right to publish the video. it is up to individuals to decide whether they want to view it. and this is a statement by fox news. fox news executive editor says the network had a good internal debate before deciding to post on edited and in full the isis video believed to have shown the murder of a capture jordanian pilot.

it is not a question of how horrible the video is. i cannot imagine a more horrible piece of video he said in an interview. the question is whether people have a right to see it and understand that there are actually people, although i have a difficult time calling them people, that would do this. the network, like most western media, has refused to show the video. tuesday night, he went to great lengths to display to explain his decision. yours have blasted the network for hosting -- posting the video. one analyst going so far as to accuse fox news of working for al qaeda and isis media arm. it is a misinformed notion, said the executive editor of fox news , of the suggestion he is aiding terrorist. you cannot hide information anymore. someone was to see this will find it.

i hope that anyone that clicked on the video on foxnews.com also got a lot of other information that put it in perspective. bob is in trenton, new jersey. bob, what you think about the isis execution video? should be show? caller: yes. that is what it takes. if you don't see it coming don't have the feeling inside. and they need to see it before comes here. what was really nice what happened in paris, a million people took to the streets. in jordan, when this pilot got burnt up, the people that came up to the streets there. but here, we had a person beheaded, president obama came out and made an announcement. five minutes later, he was on the golf course. people, when are you going to wake up? this is coming care. host: trish. hi, trish. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine.

caller: i have a comment. no, i do believe they should show the video because i think it gives isis the power and authority to continue to do the perfect things that doing. but i would also like to comment on the previous color on immigration. i worked for a government-funded program that had absolutely no structure. i watched day in and day out where they were getting cash assistance and medical and food -- giving it out like candy. where i lived out of my car. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for it to -- for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents.

we want to get your reaction whether or not you think it is a good idea or not. the front page of the "washington times" commentary. this is tom ridge, the former secretary of homeland security. muslim extremists may have just stepped on the lions tail -- line's tail. jason. hamden, connecticut. the republican line.

caller: hi, how are you today? excellent. i think the people need to see what is going on. they need to wake up, like the other guy said. i have two children in college and he asked the friends who is isis? they think it is a drink at the local bar. you think they would be a little bit more well-versed on the world matters, but a lot of people aren't. and they don't think it is that bad over there. you have to see what our guys are fighting for. it is horrible, horrific. people need to be woken up. we saw this with vietnam on tv and it gave people a different outlook on war and what really happened. that is basically it. host: thank you, sir. andy in illinois, what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that i think everybody should see the video. every american should see what evil really is.

fox news is not the only one that showed the complete video. as far as news things. i just think if you have -- you should watch it so you know it evil is in this country. host: and he, have you watched it? caller: yes. host: and what was it like? caller: it is very brutal. it is very hard to watch. but i think we need to call out evil as it is because we didn't defeat not see as a -- nazis and fascism by not calling it what it was. and that is pretty much what i have to say. host: keith tweed said why did fox not show the beheadings of americans by isis? seems inconsistent and just wrong. fred and joseph, maryland. what is your view on this, fred? alabama good money. --

unlike the other news organizations, they keep covering up and protecting obama. these people are dead serious. if we don't wake up and get on track, we are all in danger. so i appreciate them letting us decide. i'm not going to watch it because i heard what was involved, but common sense tells me to just let us use common sense. host: terry. monroe, georgia. the democrats line. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: i do not agree with the video because i have lived it, i am been there, but my biggest issue is we have things going on in america just as bad. but it is not spoken about. the other guy, before he left, about -- he talked about education of america. host: so what you think about the fact that fox has a -- has posted the video?

caller: i don't like it per say, but i'm a soldier and i was over there. so i see those things going on and i don't agree with them. by no means. but, you know, speak about god and veterans here. we have to do what we have to do other than that. host: that is terry in monroe georgia. this is "the new york times" this morning. peter baker and david sang a right that president obama plans to release his second and final national security strategy today, laying out a blueprint for robust american leadership for his remaining time in office, while recognizing limits on how much the u.s. can shape world events.

that is from "the new york times" this morning. cynthia and -- in shelbyville tennessee. cynthia, what you think about the video? gcaller: i think it is ok to put it on there. you can watch it by choice. i don't see what the differences . the other media talks about it. i mean, they're just putting in context. it is not on the air so it really doesn't come you know,

make any sense that they talk about it. people can draw their own conclusions about it. we are facing extremist problems . and our president does, you know, he kind of frequent these people. so we have to understand that. and our soldiers are fighting against this kind of thing. so i think it is ok. host: cynthia, did you watch the video? caller: no. host: would you watch it? caller: no, i haven't watched it. i don't get on my computer that much. i just of get on their very much. host: ok. howard, the media critic at fox, had this to say. he disagreed with the decision. but he was on the show and said i see the arguments on both sides. i understand the case that we ought to show the pure evil that is isis. i thought our colleague handled it judiciously by just showing a couple of still images.

isis, i threw that many of us in the u.s. media are helping isis spread its propaganda. i thought the same way with the beheading video, still videos -- images of which became a most like wallpaper for isis. when that tactic became so familiar, those terrorists those butchers went to the even more sick and depraved and barbaric method of burning a man to death. i just have a concern that we are help spread the fear that isis so badly wants to spread. george in pennsylvania. a republican. hi, george. caller: hi. how are you this morning? host: good. caller: good. i disagree with fox for showing it; however, i think that we should be supplying the kurds with enough weaponry that they can do something about this. every time i see the tv and a

new story on it, i see these people with old weapons. the iraqis do not care for the kurds. the kurds have to defend themselves. and winds to beginning them -- we need to be giving them enough weapons to be able to handle the situation. thank you. host: melissa, right here in washington dc on our democrats line. melissa. caller: yes? host: high. what you think about fox posting the ice is video -- isis video? colored them well, -- caller: well my question would be where did they get the video from? if they went about it -- which

is what most media outlets do, then who do the pay -- they pay? host: let's say they got it for free. therefore, you have that answer. what is the next step? should they posted on their website? caller: well, i mean, they posted -- well, not they but the media posted the killing of saddam hussein, so i don't really see the difference. although, i do think because it was a prisoner, they should have probably put a lot more thought into it. also, they should have contacted the persons family before they posted it. so no, i don't think they should have posted the video. host: what about americans? to they have posted about americans? caller: i think -- i think that they should probably talk to

officials before they post anything of americans. because, you know, that is our person that they are prosecuting. or it emboldens isis to throw an attack, you know, freely on americans. so it is kind of a hard position to take. i don't personally know what they should do. but any posting of any type of execution is a very her thick -- is very horrific. it hurts, you know? host: all right. john is in pennsylvania. hi, john. caller: hello, peter. i do not watch the video. i'm not going to. it is up to fox to determine if they're going to shorter not.

listening to some of the other commenters the blind patriotism is a really dangerous thing. if all those people that talk about the evil -- and it is evil what isis has done -- but they ought to go back to and take a look at tamir square, what americans did there. what the wikileaks photo of gunships hovering over ap journalists and just civilian -- civilians and disintegrating them, basically, with 50 caliber machine guns. and just to finish it off, take a look at the upgrade -- abu grave pictures again. fine -- blind patriotism is just stupid. host: this is tony in fort lauderdale. hi, tony. caller: hey, good morning. that previous caller, the one before me, just would've emphasized a port i want to make.

i'm not going to watch it. i don't want to see it. i know what it is, and it is going to discuss me. but people have a right to see it. fox, i think, has an obligation to publish it. it is so funny that the same people are going to cry about fox showing that on the website. they are not putting it across my 7:00 news. the same people who would laud the "new york times" for secret. osama bin laden would have been dead 10 years before he had been killed if the "new york times" did not let him know that we are tracking him by satellite phones. but that is ok. i wish people would just put aside their politics, put aside the hypocrisy. if the press is going to be free, let it be free everywhere. thank you. host: hey, tony? a couple colors -- callers have brought up this point.

have seen the saddam hussein hanging video, but no americans. what about posting videos of americans being beheaded? caller: i would have no problem with that, either. i would not watch any of it. i did not watch the saddam hussein video. i have seen enough pain and death in my life. i don't need to see anymore. but if we are going to have a free press, we have to let it be free. host: where are you originally from tony? caller: i'm originally from jamaica. i have lived here 38 years. the greatest country in the entire world. host: this is janice. just a minute. we want to show you, once again the reason -- the reasoning for posting the video. [video clip] >> the images are brutal. they are graphic. they are upsetting. you may want to turn away. you may want to have the children leave the room. right now. but the reason we are showing you this is to bring you the

reality of islamic terrorism. and to label it as such. we feel you need to see it. so we will put up one of these images on your screen right now. host: janice, what do you think? caller: i think there is a world of difference between the public and the private domain, when it comes to, like, tv advertising in movies. i mean tv and the internet and everything else is in the public domain but if you want to go see a horror movie, you know, that is put out by mgm or the ever -- or the other movie companies and you pay to see or. but is a that they don't have a right, yes, they probably have a right. but my gosh, what your taste do they have an even saying that this is ok? i mean, or -- horro and abuse

and murder and all the other things. they have been going on in the world since adam and eve and cain and abel, but i mean, where do we stop? it is almost appalling. if you want to see a core movie, go to a movie theater. you don't need to cook -- click on to a story that -- about some poor person that disk upper . host: romney is in shreveport louisiana. caller: how are you doing, sir echo host: good, how are you? caller: so far so good. living the dream. the caller about the movies, that is true. but it is not real. you can't remember a movie scene that you saw in a horror movie three years ago. i saw the beheading, and i still remember it today. i can see it in my mind. it makes it real. and the only way to combat such

things is to know it. and to know that it is real. if you terrorize an abortion everybody in the country would know how terrible it is. you just have to see it to know it is real and never forget it. host: have you watched this video yet? caller: no, sir. i don't have to. i have seen pictures on other media. that is my point. we get to gloss over so much stuff and so much in the news. people get killed every day here, but we don't see it. so it is not a story. this is a story because we know it is real. host: kathy. columbus, ohio. hi, kathy. caller: hi, good morning. i think banning these images is tantamount to censorship. after all, the news and journalists have a responsibility to report the news. and to report not only in part

-- really deny the public the news. the information necessary. however, nightly news like abc cbs, nbc where there are children at home, maybe watching, you know, the evening news, they could provide a link along with cable news stations. you don't have to air it if it don't want a lot -- if they don't want to, but it would provide the public with an opportunity for the completeness. and lastly, in the 60's -- the 1960's, the vietnam war came nightly it or -- into our living room. as of those horrible images, it sparked an eight night at the antiwar movement geared so these images have a role to play. and to deny the public -- i

think it does us in injustice. i will hang up. thank you much. host: christine. pennsylvania, democrats five. christine, you are on the air. what do you think about fox posting the execution video? caller: i think that fox has made money for years on fear. you know. the war machine makes -- makes the industry incredible amounts of money. and i think that fox, by showing this, did the wishes of the terrorists. the terrorists posted -- this is a quote -- it can't be taken down, unquote, because of what fox has done. what an american news station has done. that is incredible. that is incredible. fox did what they wanted them to do. it is just creepy. it is actually creepy. anyhow fear, the propaganda, it

makes fox news tons of money. they sell soap like you wouldn't believe. from what i have heard, 60% of what fox claims is lies. but it makes money. host: ok, that is christine. this is the "new york times" this morning. writing obama is assailed for remarks on isis and christianity.

he said the president's comparisons were insulting and pernicious. a little bit from "the new york times." albert. fox has posted the isis execution video of the jordanian pilot. what is your thought sir? caller: yes, i come home every

day and the evening news shows people getting killed over in vietnam. and -- and -- people don't need to see this because -- to realize what is going on. host: ok, albert, thank you for calling from indolent -- from midland city, alabama. joan in new york, you're on the air. caller: yes, i am conflicted about the showing of that video. you know americans -- after hundreds of years -- still did not know how to handle the first amendment right. freedom of speech. on one hand, we want to be spoonfed the news, and on the

other hand, we want to have it -- the -- the news media censor it for us. personally, i watch that video. i have always been confused by that kind of anchor and extremism -- anger and extremism eared i don't understand it. i still watch videos of what happened with 9/11. you know what? i, to this day, i cannot have them that can of extremism. so, i consider myself a reasonable person. i do not know. when i watch that video, yes, it did bring it home to me from halfway across the world what was going on and the degree of brutality. but i'm not sure it helped, in terms of my understanding how

any human being could do that to another human being. so, you know, like i said, i think, as americans, we want it both ways. and we want censorship, and on the other hand, we object when it is applied. personally, if you don't want to watch it, i think then you have the right to turn off your television. or change the channel. but i don't want fox or abc or nbc or anybody else deciding for me what i should feel. thank you so much. host: hey, joe, why did you watch it? caller: you know, again there are few things in this world that still befuddle me. to be honest with you, just the level of disbelief -- i thought, maybe it would help me somehow

try to understand what would motivate anybody to -- to do that to -- one human being to do that to another. i thought it would maybe shed some light, but it didn't. and i'm just as confounded now as i was before i washed it. our sympathy goes out to that gentleman's family. i cannot even imagine what they experienced. having it repeatedly shown over and over and over again. but the fact is, it happened. host: thank you, ma'am. i believe in one of the reports it said that in jordan, they showed it on national tv in jordan. kelly and williston, north dakota. the republican line. caller: yes, i think it is only fair that they show it. why shouldn't they show it? why should they censor the news

so much? it is not government gold. i mean why are people outraged -- i just don't understand. host: barnes is in cypress texas. barnes, are you with us? caller: yes. host: please, go ahead. caller: yes, my opinion, and i'm 70 years old and have seen quite a bit, but this video should never have been shown in the united states because a lot of stuff happened back in those days when they should have reported it. there was an -- was not even a tv or nothing. all of a sudden, this happened and they put it on live television for everybody to see. i feel like fox news is biased. and a lot of things they say on fox news, in my get us all in trouble. they need to shut it down, or

call their men, and make some kind of -- call them and come and make some kind of writing with them that they cannot stand television. host: thank you, ma'am. thank you to everybody who called in the spring. we are going to go live now to an announcement. >> you should -- you should silence your phones, but if you want to tweet, the # itsinourhands. [indistinct tetter chatter]