we will discuss historically black colleges and universities. you can join the conversation. host: good morning, everyone on this tuesday, february 10. here are your headlines. yesterday, president obama said he will wait for a solution -- a diplomatic solution in ukraine. also the "washington times" reporting today that the congress could send the president new authority to begin fighting isis as soon as today. we will be talking about security issues, that is, cyber security. should the u.s. go on the offense when it comes to

cyberattacks? the numbers are on the screen. also send us a tweet or go to facebook. you can also e-mail. we will get your thoughts in just a minute about whether or not the u.s. should engage in a offensive cyberattacks. the five by five writer from rollcall joins us. tim starks, what do we mean when we say going on the offense when it comes to cyber security and cyberattacks? guest: it's a very good question. the line between offense and defense insider security is very narrow. obviously, defending her networks makes it harder for people to intrude on them, but

there are people who say part of the defense is offense. you know, you need to make it if someone attacks her networks, you can attack them back. it is a deterrent, if you will. there is no question the u.s. has conducted cyber offense, you know, they would say in the name of cyber defense. you look at the attack on north korea probably as an example of that. after the sony break-in. but it's difficult to define what cyber offense is. host: and under what scenario with the u.s. engage in this? guest: the defense department has asserted its right to, basically go on cyber offense when trying to defend the nation , our allies, and interests. that is an official defense

department report from late 2011, for instance. that would be one area where they would go on offense name of defense. host: what countries have demonstrated they are a threat in this arena? guest: you have to start with united states. but as far as a threat to us, china has demonstrated some advanced capabilities on cyber. they have not conducted anything that might resemble warfare, but they have stolen military secrets from the united states. that is moving more toward offense then mere security and espionage. russia has demonstrated a real cyber capability, if you look at the war in georgia. there was a demonstrated capability to go on that kind of offense. and another country that can do

a good job of that if they want to its israel -- is israel. if you look at the effort between the united states and israel to create the worm that when after the iranian nuclear capabilities, that is another example. and there might be some terrorist organizations interested in developing that. but those are the big players on the national scene, the nationstates that have real severe ability to conduct attacks. and it is easier to attack the private sector than the u.s. government. host: what are the current rules of engagement? are there any? and as the united states follow them? and do other countries have any sort of rules of engagement? guest: if there are any rules it is hard to discern them.

it can be difficult for anyone to suss out what they might be because some of these delve into the classified sector. when i talk to people, they tell me there are not any obvious rules of the road on this. it is a very murky area. and it's something that they been working to develop for a long time. it's cyber command under different departments and a joint effort with the national security agency. they were recent calls in congress after the recent attack on sony to develop a formal policy on cyber offense, to develop more formal capabilities. but it is a very murky area. host: and where it is all about stand? what does congress want to do? what is the administration doing? is the united states prepared for cyberattacks? guest: even though there is this

new or call for something to happen on formal cerebral -- cyber offense rules, it is still in the developmental stage. i was writing about cyber security back in 2009 or so, and a couple of years later i started asking about the offense site command people were saying, we are still trying to figure it out. that is still rearm, they are still trying to figure it out. -- still where we are. they are still trying to figure it out. there was a 2012 defense authorization bill basically saying we give you our blessing to conduct cyber offense, but in a very vague way, not a specific way. as far as the u.s. overall defending itself, it is probably more events than any nation if we are talking about the government. but it is till relatively easy by the nature -- it is still

relatively easy by the nature of cyber attack to conduct an attack on the u.s. government. we were leaking secrets to china on accident for a very long time because our defenses were not very good. we are probably still leaking some of those secrets in u.s. government agencies. and certainly, the private sector is very vulnerable as well. host: if the u.s. were to have engaged in offense when it comes to cyber, what agency would be doing that? guest: we would almost certainly be -- it would almost certainly be the defense department, some combination of the u.s. cyber command of the national security agency would be leading that kind of effort. it's possible that there would be other agencies involved, but those would be the main ones to look at. host: the "washington post" is reporting this morning that there will be a new agency to sniff out threats in cyberspace.

the sony pictures hack spurred the u.s. to set up rapid source of intelligence on attacks. this announcement will be made later today and it will be an executive order put out by the president will stop what do you know about this -- by the president. what you know about this new agency after what role will it play? guest: it looks like it will be a separate agency within the cell -- the intelligence community that collects all of the threat data and puts it in one place. it's the kind of thing back when the entities who were -- back when the entity was starting to be formed, people were asking about why can't the office of

the director of intelligence do this? i think you will probably hear some similar questions. why do we need a separate agency to do this? we have the department of homeland security, the national security agency. why can't one of those agencies handle the? but the obama administration thinks many to be a separate effort. host: back to the topic of going on offense and asking our viewers whether or not they think we should be engaging in offense when it comes to cyber attack and going to turn to our viewers here is just a minute and have them was on to this and get their take on it. what is happening next on this front? is there legislation percolating? is the administration planning something? who will make the next move? guest: that will be an

interesting question. there has been at times a little bit of tension between the administration wanting to do this on its own without any kind of congressional interference and congress wanting to get involved in running the rules, but also not wanting to get overly prescriptive. i think with north korea, the sony attack, there was increasing interest in actually congress doing something. you saw the chairman of the homeland security committee saying we need to strengthen our capabilities to do this. i've not seen any formal written legislation to do that yet but that does not mean we will not see it from chairman mccall perhaps. or a defense authorization bill perhaps.

i wouldn't be surprised to see something like that this year. at the same time, i would not be surprised to see some pushback from the administration saying let us figure this out. we've been working on this for a while and we are still trying to develop the rules on our end. give us a little space. host: tim starks with rollcall, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: what you think at kosher the u.s. be engaging in offense of cyberattacks? let the decision makers out here know what you think. should this be something that the u.s. does? in stark mentioned the chairman of the homeland security committee, michael mccaul. here is a statement from him saying assaults from cyber jihadist will become more common unless it ministration developed a strategy for properly responding to these

cyberattacks, including those like north korea attacking sony. without some rules of the game for offensive responses, cyber threats and intrusions will continue and escalate. the numbers are on the screen. while the wait for the calls to come in, let me show you what defense secretary nominee ashton carter had to say last week at his confirmation hearing. he was asked by senator deb fischer, republican of nebraska about his views. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> we need to improve our defenses, but we also need to improve our ability to respond. those responses can be in cyberspace or other ways, but certainly, they should include the option to respond in cyberspace.

>> and the option to respond would you say that would include demonstrating the capability to do so? is that part of our deterrence when it comes to protecting our country, our agencies, and private businesses when it comes to cyberattacks? >> i agree with you, i think deterrence requires that a potential aggressor know you have the capability to respond. they obviously can't know all the details or they may be able to counter your response, but they certainly need to know you can respond. host: defense secretary nominee ashton carter at his hearing on capitol hill, laying out the arm -- the argument for effective cyber operations. what you think about this? jimmy in bryan, texas, republican, you are first. go ahead. caller: this is a bad idea, because this will actually be used against the american people. if they do not keep these

secrets that they keep from two categories of people, terrorists and the american people, then you wouldn't have to worry about these attacks. all they are protecting his businesses and themselves. host: what you mean, protecting businesses? caller: like sony, a foreign company. not the american people. when have they come to fix your computer or tweak your antivirus ? they are not doing it for the american people. they are doing it for themselves. host: ok. joel in tennessee, what you think? caller: good morning. i would like to -- first thing i'm sure the united states has been on the offense since the

first high school kid broke into the national defense computers years ago. and another thing, all of the software is used on about 90% of the computers in the world, it was written in the united states. and another thing what people can do, though, to protect themselves is not use their birthdate and their phone number or something like that as a password. and windows, microsoft windows is the most vulnerable operating system on the planet. host: all right. jim in silver spring, maryland, independent. what do you think, should the

u.s. engaged in cyberattacks? caller: yes, and i could draw a parallel. suppose you had submarines off our coast who were sinking our ships that move cargo about. we would have no hesitation whatever in thinking those submarines. -- whatsoever in thinking those submarines. the internet is a two-way street and we should use it both ways. host: ok, jim, when it was reported that the u.s. shut down the internet in north korea, you think that was a good move? caller: a good thing. just desserts. host: all right. jamie in manassas, virginia, republican. go ahead. caller: we are to be very straightforward and we are talking about taking preventive

measures with something like this. the u.s. is probably the largest jupiter -- contributor to this in the world. host: all right, jamie. we will take more of your comments. keep dialing it. should the u.s. engage in offense of cyberattacks? take a look at what lawmakers on capitol hill are saying on this issue. senator angus king, independent, says and -- the aunt them breach, this is an insurance company, he says it is yet another example of why congress must act on cyber security. and steve daines, from montana saying it is an acceptable that we don't have concrete notification standards for victims of cyber security attacks. also, from the homeland security committee chairman, michael

mccaul, we agree with bloomberg. following and then hack congress must get serious about cyber info sharing. and from jackie spear from california, how many more hacks like anthem before we admit the private sector cannot solve this problem by itself? and dan coats says neither industry nor government alone can broadly improve our nations cyber security. this question comes as the "wall street journal" reported yesterday that the debate is deepening over response to cyberattacks.

and you heard what the defense secretary nominee had to say. if you want to hear more from

him, go to www.c-span.org. and as we told you, this morning in the paper, ellen not a shema from the "washington post" had a story that the executive order is creating a new agency to sniff out cyber threats. she will in making the announcement at 12:45 p.m. eastern time and we will be covering it on c-span two.

we are asking all of you to weigh in on this. washington is debating whether or not the u.s. should engage in offensive cyberattacks and wanting to write rules of engagement. what do you all think? the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us a tweet or go to our website -- or you can e-mail us. or you can go to facebook. here is governor bobby jindal, potential republican candidate in 2016 talking about the debate

over whether not to help out ukraine by sending them weapons. [video clip] >> i do favor the united states providing arms and more assistance to our allies in the ukrainian government. i am for that. i think we need to change president clinton's calculation change -- president putin's calculation, change the way he's looking at this. he needs to fear real repercussions. many of his actions are based on what he views as a white house that is going to lead from behind, which is not leading at all. i think there needs to be serious consequences. i think it is good that the german and french leaders are talking the the possibly of tougher sanctions. what i worry about is even if they are successful in coming up with a new agreement with russia, with the ukrainian government and with the separatists, the reality is that

the last agreement has not been respected by the separatist or the russians. the demilitarized zone has been violated. anything we can do to change the calculus of putin is a good thing. that can be more assistance to the ukrainian government. falling oil prices have also had an impact on president and his calculations. host: republican governor bobby jindal, also a possible presidential candidate in 2016. if you missed it, go to www.c-span.org. christian science monitor breakfast talking about lots of issues. and yesterday, president obama in a joint news conference with chancellor merkel said he will wait for a diplomatic solution over whether or not to send you weapons to ukraine. and he is waiting for germany's leader, along with france's leader as well as the russian

leader and the rebels to all me to tomorrow -- meet tomorrow in europe to discuss some sort of peace deal. he will wait for a diplomatic solution over whether or not to send weapons. many democrats and republicans are urging the president to send weapons to the ukrainian government. back to our topic, should the u.s. engage in offensive cyberattacks? anthony, go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, everyone. my answer to that is, yes. cyber security and cyber offensive attacks, you have to really understand the definition of them. and in that, cyber is just a technology. it's just like the horse got replaced by the automobile. and the longer we don't as a

nation address the fact that we live in space and cyber is just a way people communicate across space, then we will forever find ourselves being the one on the active end of what is happening to us instead of the proactive action of dictating what others do to us. host: anthony, do you consider any cyberattacks from this country on another country and act of war? caller: yes, just like you would consider buying an act of treason -- spying an act of treason. you should also consider any action that affects our social, economic, political, and any other "ism" that affects our nation and well-being, it's an act of war. host: ok.

let's hear from reed, republican in washington, go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to say there are different pieces to this, but first, i don't understand why the president of the united states removed the missiles from that theater. that provided a lot of protection for ukraine and western civilization, from any aggression. that is really a mystery to me. but in terms of cyberattacks, i do think it is an active war. i've been doing software for most 30 years and i can against the comment that one color set about microsoft. it is like swiss cheese. it is incredibly full of bugs, and it doesn't have any competition, so it remains the number one operating system that we use. the way it works is a symbol malware that is on your machine that you don't detect, or the latest antivirus get through your firewall, what it does is it downloads the component so he can hack into other systems.

while front facing committed by not get into the pentagon it can get into someone's computer that is in the pentagon. and that is how it gets in postop my solution is -- that is how it gets in. my solution is we need a military layer on all of our firewalls that circumvents the operating system. host: a military firewall on all of the devices that people use on a daily basis? caller: it's actually very thin layer the disease -- that is easily defined call stack. on the internet, there are protocols that are stacked up together for different functions. it can be adapted and i don't inc. anybody should worry about with the militant -- i don't think anyone should worry about what the military is maintaining. they would not have any access to the device itself. that is how firewalls work will stop they are a separate layer. microsoft would still be responsible for your security, in the sense that none of your data would get out. but my point is that the

firewall is the most important thing. host: since you do software, i want to get your take on this. back in december and the l.a. times, and op-ed -- read, your take? caller: i would go with that.

because there are so many components, encryption is one part of it. if they can get a node in the network, then they are not worried about encouragement -- encryption. so much of what goes on behind the scenes of any network is not encrypted. if they have already penetrated and have a trojan war, whether or not the data is encrypted -- it is highly unlikely that it is encrypted. i would agree with that statement. host: next, kansas city, terry, democratic column. caller: whenever i were -- here the word government and internet in the same sentence, i think that is a bad thing. private industry has plenty of money to pool their resources and create the staff they need to solve the problem of hackers. hire a black hat hacker to show

him -- then the black ways. and like the guy just said, a trojan to discover all that they are doing. the internet is not broken. the government will break it. there is even a new type of internet that is the dark web. if they break the internet there will be something different. host: all right, terry. back to this piece from yesterday. they write that mr. obama has labeled the sony breach cyber vandalism.

return to all of you with your thoughts this morning. annapolis, independent color what do you think? caller: i firmly believe we should be attacking anyone who attacks government systems. and if possible, even live operating systems as opposed to the type that given salt on -- that get installed on the hard

drives, like windows. host: the front page of many of the papers this morning is the action here in washington yesterday by the supreme court. here's the story in the "wall street journal" front page. same-sex marriage clears hurdle. the u.s. supreme court cleared the way for alabama couples to wed, making it the 37th state where same-sex marriage is legal.

that on the front pages of many of the papers this morning, and that decision by the supreme court was not unanimous. dissent coming clarence thomas and justice scalia. and to some, including justice thomas, who offered spirited defense -- dissent -- the failure to order a stay with the strongest signal to date. and also from the "washington times" this morning, taxpayers pay 72% of health subsidy.

that in the "washington times" this morning. and also in the paper next that story is one featuring bernie sanders, vermont independent, is claiming the far left lane in the race to be the democratic nominee for the white house. and he was yesterday talking about this will recover that event at the brookings institution. this is what he had to say when we asked about the upcoming appearance of benjamin netanyahu speaking before congress. [video clip]

>> again look, we disagree. the president of the united states heads up our foreign policy and the argument that the president was not even consulted, that is wrong, and not a good thing for our country. >> are you thinking of not going? >> i am not thinking of not going. i'm not going. [applause] host: the independent senator therefrom for, potential democratic nominee, talking about he will not attend that speech this morning, despite pressure for some -- and despite pressure for some to cancel benjamin netanyahu's speech, he will be coming to washington and giving that speech before a joint session of congress. and the secret service's number two resigns amid pressure from lawmakers.

back to your calls. larry in going no, maryland, -- larry in maryland, we are talking about issues of cyber offense. what do you think? caller: i don't know if it is the right way to approach it. i've listened to a lot of the comments that your other colors have made. and for a lot of knowledge in regard to what is going on. when people say military grade defenses, i don't really think i know much in terms of what is going on entirely in the military. the air force has a very good program when it comes to separate offense. it is a fledgling. i wouldn't say formally.

cyber security is almost an extension of the society. if you go into a bad neighborhood where there are gangs, you will get ripped off. and if you let proper security in your house with wires and gates, you'll be ok. the same applies across the board. in regard to the comment somebody made about microsoft is this and that, that is all hogwash. all -- all operating systems have one label,. . people have to be made aware of good practices on the internet and how not to expose themselves , just the same way you don't go around flashing your money and opening your wallet in public. the same thing applies. a lot needs to be done to make

sure society as a whole is secure. and then the usual in regard to penetration and hacking by whole countries and whatnot. host: all right, larry. tommy am a defendant in tennessee. what is your take? caller: i think cyberattacks are to be expected. i think the best way to defend is simply reroute the cyberattacks to our greatest enemy right now, which is isis. isis, when they get close to legalize, we may not be talking about anything anymore because -- close to the goal line height -- the golan heights we may

not be talking about anything, because mr. netanyahu will take the decisive action. i just pray that we can stop them before they get there. host: president obama be sending up to capitol hill as early as today language that would be granted a new authority to fight isis. it was senator jim imhoff from oklahoma telling the newspaper that. cliff, go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to say first of all, thanks for c-span. it gets a lot of people's voices out there. i believe the cyber attack on sony shears was called an inside job by some people. -- sony pictures was called an inside job i some people. the fbi has come out and confirmed it was an inside job not the government of korea -- north korea.

and if you engage in cyberattacks, just like the cheney saying we need to go to the dark side, ok. host: the "wall street journal" reports this.

and as we told you, president obama is heading to stanford am a california on friday, where the white house is holding a day -- the cyber security summit. he will be talking about various issues and encouraging them to share more information with the government to prevent this sort of thing. we got a few minutes left to get your thoughts on whether or not the u.s. shooting gauge in offense when it comes to -- should engage in offense when it comes to cyberattacks. we want to get your thoughts. in other news, "the washington times" with this headline that jon tester is leaving the white house to work for hillary clinton.

mr. podesta served as the final chief of staff for the clinton white house in the 1990's. pamela in port washington maryland, democratic collar. what you think about this? caller: well, good morning. host: good morning. caller: forgive my voice. i have a cold. i want to comment on the collar -- caller before the one that just spoke, the one that said americans need to practice better practices on using the

internet. a lot of these hacking attacks seem to happen with big companies actually -- i'm not going to say allowing, but some type of way hackers seem to infiltrate their systems. we have nothing to do with those practices. i would say that the government and these large entities need to practice those practices. and also, i think that we do need to do something to combat cyberattacks. because if we don't do anything, it's just going to escalate. they need to start prosecuting these different countries or --

what you call them? gangs that are infiltrating and hacking our systems instead of just slapping them on the wrist. host: ok. let me move on to russell woodland hills, california independent color. our last. -- independent. our last month ahead. caller: we came up with this. the new seaward that goes on, i've been hacked twice and had my information stolen. it ruined my credit for over two years. it's just unbelievable that there is no system in place to stop this type of behavior where we have the technology to be able to stop this. this is a new form of just been able to get your information and once they got it, especially blue cross, they got into the v.a., home depot.

they get into everything. and once they got it, they started buying and selling and turning. we are getting ripped off. i don't know why the government is in such a long time to do something about this. host: all right, russell. coming up next we will talk to democratic congressman gerry connolly of virginia, a member of the foreign affairs committee . and we will talk about the u.s. response to the escalating situation in ukraine as well as a number of other issues. and later, representative luke messer, a member of the policy committee will be here. but first, i want to show you this headline from "the new york times" this morning.

take a look at what president obama had to say that joint news conference when he was asked about that issue. [video clip] >> we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections in two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received an invitation from the white house. and i suspect she would not have asked for one. [laughter] so, you know -- [laughter] some of this just has to do with how we do business. and i think it is important for us to maintain these protocols.

because the u.s.-israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this is an a relationship founded on an affinity between the labour party and the democratic party, or the cooed and -- qud and republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends the on parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to security and shared values that we have. the way to preserve that is to make sure it does not get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. whether that is accurate or not, that is a potential perception and is something we have to guard against. now, i don't want to be coy.

the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran , iran sanctions. i've been very clear, and angela agrees with me, and david cameron agrees with me, and the others who are members of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they are about to be completed. we should play it out if, in fact, we can get a deal. then we should embrace that. if we cannot get a deal, then we will have to make a set of decisions. and i said to congress i will be the first to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran. but what is the rush? unless your view is that it's not possible to get a deal with iran and it should not even be tested, and that i cannot agree with, because as president of the united states, i'm looking at what the options are we do

not get a diplomatic resolution. those options are narrow and not attractive. and from the perspective of u.s. interests, and i believe from the perspective of israel's interest, although i cannot speak obviously for the israeli government, it's better to get a diplomatic solution. there are real differences substantively, but that is separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netgear on -- mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome jerry connolly, democrat who sits on the foreign relations committee. this issue of ukraine, do you believe that the united should be helping out the ukrainians and sending weapons. why you -- why? guest: the ukrainians clearly

need defense, and i think the u.s. should be providing equipment and training to the ukrainian military to fend off an illegal incursion that is rather extensive on their sovereign territory. not doing that from my point of view, it sends a clear message to that amir -- two vladimir putin that he can change the borders of post-world war ii europe that had been set for 60 years f with impunity, and that is a dangerous message to send to a kgb thug. host: as you know, angela merkel disagrees and she was urging the president not to make this decision. i want to show you her reaction and then get yours. [video clip] >> the question of certain measures has actually been dealt with. the president has not yet made a decision. what is important for me is that

we stand very closely together. the question on renewed dramatic effort -- renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed and are in close touch, and no one wishes more for success than the two of us that sandy are side-by-side. host: -- than the two of us standing here side-by-side. host: congressman, what you make of her response? guest: i certainly respect angela merkel and i think we need to be cognizant of and respect the views of our allies. but i will point out that in the post-world war ii era the europeans have often been very reluctant to deal with real threat in our midst. it took u.s. leadership on kosovo. it took u.s. leadership to end serbian aggression in the continent. it was not european leg. and thank goodness we did. it ended the conflict by a firm

read solve -- firm resolve by the united states, bringing along our nato partners, and we were able to end the conflict. showing weakness in the face of really, naked aggression -- in this case, russia -- i think is an unwise course. with all due respect, i think angela merkel is wrong. if you can do it diplomatically, that of course, is the desired option. but i believe that part of diplomacy needs to have a military element as a backup that we will strengthen defensive posture incapability of ukraine, and that is something that couldn't has to calculate. right now, he doesn't. and right now, frankly, angela merkel is signaling to him he need not worry about it. i think he should worry about it. host: on wednesday in europe, putin will be meeting with

angela merkel and france's leader as well as others to try to broker some sort of peace deal. you don't think that can happen unless the military option is on the table. guest: i think it is highly unlikely to happen, and quite friendly, the behavior of the last year and a half proved that. in the face of tough sanctions in the face of a collapse of oil prices, and in the face of a really serious blow to his economy, it has not deterred him at all. in fact, fighting has flared up in the eastern ukraine. and he has illegally annexed crimea. what is it he's going to understand it seems to me -- what is it he's going to understand? it seems to me part of what is missing from the equation is power. the diplomacy not backed up by the military threat of the

ukrainian military, i think, is a mistake. host: president obama said he will wait for a diplomatic solution. does he look weak to vladimir putin? guest: i don't know how he looks to vladimir putin. i guess, probably everybody looks weak to vladimir putin. we have to figure out what vladimir putin respects and understand, and that his assertion and power. that is what he understands. senator gray had that wonderful expression, "always be bold" and that is what we need to be in the face of russian aggression right now. host: i want to get your reaction to the president's press conference yesterday. he was asked about a redline. take a look. [video clip] >> we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian generals as part of a long-standing relationship

between nato and ukraine. our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on our offensive operations, but simply to defend itself. and president poroshenko has been very clear. he's not interested in escalating violence. he's interested in having his country path tanneries -- his country's boundaries respected by his neighbor. there will not be in a specific point in which i say, oh clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is an ongoing analysis of what we can do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that it's done through diplomatic means. host: congressman? guest: well, with due respect to the president, i think the

failure by the western alliance to respond to the illegal annexation, blinged illegal annexation of the crimea -- blatant illegal annexation of the crimea, which resembled something of our past -- you know, it looked a lot like the phony sudeten lands push in a different era. it should have been responded to. that was my redline. and it still is. we can never acknowledge the illegal annexation of crimea. it is the sovereign territory of the ukraine and changing those boundaries cannot be done at the barrel at the gun. if we acquiesce to that, then we are quibbling over the price in eastern ukraine. what moral standing have you got to object to "here, but no further"?

i think ours should have been a much more forceful response. and i favor and across the board more forceful response, healthy ukrainians in a much more aggressive way -- help the ukrainians in a much more aggressive way. certainly, the goal is to restore sovereign territory and remake those borders and get the russians to respect that. but how will you do that? moral persuasion alone is not going to frankly, bring you the restyle -- the desired results with someone like vladimir putin. host: we are talking to democrat gerry connolly who sits on the foreign affairs committee. we are discussing whether or not to send lethal aid ukraine. the "washington times" this morning with a story, the pentagon is prepping to send troops to ukraine.

and the u.s. government has committed three her $20 million for assistance to ukraine, of which -- $320 million for assistance ukraine. how much will it cost? guest: i don't think we know yet. what we need to find out is what you need is. there are russian tanks russet the border, ending the fiction that this is dissatisfied -- there are russian tanks crossing the border, ending the fiction that this is dissatisfied ukrainian. certainly, let's send antistate methods -- antitank weapons to the ukrainian military. there has to be a response to this reckless military incursion and the ridiculous fiction that they are not involved. they have to pay a price for that. part of that price has to be, i

think of on the battlefield. and the only way they fair price is if the ukrainians are equipped and trained to respond to the threat on their own territory. host: ok, let's get the calls in. matt is from new hampshire independent. caller: good morning, congressman colony -- congressman connolly. guest: good morning. how is the snow up there? caller: very deep. i enjoy you because you are not partisan. you do not throw parts of the other side. my first comment is very simple. i don't have a problem supporting ukraine. i'm a problem with my disability not being funded. you want to fund ukraine, fun my disability. i know you have spoken at on this matter and i greatly appreciate that. nato has a responsibility. european nato partners are not

funding their share of nato. guest: that's right. caller: if the republicans want to send weapons, and you, and me, want to send weapons, let's pay for it. the republicans passed things they don't get paid for. the democrats passed things, they have to be paid for. can we put their feet to the fire for this? and can we get disability reasons dated? because if i have to take -- reinstated? last year, i am seriously going to hurt. guest: you are on social security disability? caller: yes, and earned disability. i was hurt when i was 42 years old and industrial reaction. i took electricity that it would take to fry someone in the electric care -- chair. a very frightening experience. i just don't want to see a cut. i took a cut from what i would

have learned from retirement. when you become disabled under 65, you automatically take a cut in benefits. my supplemental insurance that goes along with my medicare cost me an additional $140 a month because i am not 65. host: i will have the congressman weigh-in. guest: i think your story is very important to remember. some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have highlighted the abuse of the social security row graham and certainly, we want to weed out abuse, people cheating the system fared we have to understand it is for people like you therefore people who no

longer can work through no fault of their own, because of industrial accidents, or other problems on the job. i had a great grandfather who was killed and my grandfather and his mother and his siblings they gave a storefront to my great-grandmother. she was allowed to run a little store, a storefront store. it was a company property. that is how she may do and took care of her family. there was no program for people like her. that is my social security disability was created. people on it deserve to qualify for it and it is helping them to read productive lives after something terrible, such as what happened to you, has happened there i absolutely -- absolutely

agree, reform is fine but let's not use it as an excuse. i want to emphasize the issue is not the narrow one of let's send weapons to the ukrainian military. the issue is how best do we resolve and restore peace and stability of borders in europe with respect to the ukraine? part of that piece is, i believe, providing the ukrainian military with necessary training to deter the military threat from russia, to regain control over their sovereign territory. it is not a narrow issue of sending weapons or not. it is a broader context including the diplomatic initiative, which we support. i hope it succeeds. but i am sick after all -- i am skeptical it will. host: republican, your next.

caller: good morning. a quick question for you. it is slightly two-part. in reference to the constant points we make about how the russians are into the ukraine and taking their lives and things like that, to piggyback on the, from new hampshire how is it that annually, the huge call in america -- the thing that gets me is the fact that they give them money annually, interested in the future presence but best of america not acknowledge the fact -- an essential threat to i think

americans, really, if you think about it their request congressman? -- about it. host: congressman? guest: every country has contradictions and problems and obviously the united face has issues. -- the united states has issues. obviously, there are problems, including our alliance with israel. i would not characterize israeli behavior as apartheid. there are important internal issues in israel that will have to be addressed, especially longer-term, given demographic trends. that is why the administration has pursued, and may be

reluctantly, the netanyahu ever met has agreed to a a solution. that is a complicated and difficult and challenging set of issues we hope will be resolved so there is more of a resolution of some of the issues the caller identified. >> will you attend the joint session where netanyahu will be speaking? guest: i do not know whether i will do that or not. netanyahu has spoken to congress before and he is always welcome as a friend and ally. but i think he made a terrible mistake in accepting this invitation at this time on those terms. it is clearly designed vice speaker boehner, shamefully so, as a thumb in the eye of the president. that is a terrible breach and protocol but more importantly, it drives a wedge where none

existed before, on a partisan basis, with a key ally on a key set of foreign issues. that is very unwelcome. and i think we would all be better served if a different set of circumstances were found to have this. caller: good morning. my comment is about the ukraine and how we stick our toes into all kinds of waters. i think we should aggressively pursue a confrontation with russia. i think we need to get the borders squared away in the ukraine and i do believe we need to get boots on the ground and equipment to them. i think we should also be able to pay for it area -- it. host: do you see providing

ukraine as the first step? caller: yes. guest: i do not think we want to see conflict with russia, but i think you need to learn from our history. while aggression was going on in europe and the 30's, the united states was profoundly isolationist, no matter what happened. even the sinking of u.s. ships by german boats prior to the declaration of war was not enough to person -- precipitate us into a response. had we responded early to make an aggression, it would have set some limits and clear stakes for hitler and his end of thugs. now here we are in europe and we are seeing aggression, the

deliberate learning and encouragement of borders. we are seeing military action by the russian military, feigning to be crossing the border from russia because they're not always wearing russian military unit once. we have to end that fiction and set limits and those limits are sovereign boundaries, sovereign borders will be respected by the international community. if we let this go, if we kind of slide on this, there will be a price to be paid, but a much bigger price down the road. people like putin are very pavlovian. what is reworded and what is punished. all the rhetoric in the world is not punishment. is he getting away with his desire to create a russia, a resurgent expansionist regime that reclaims satellite

territory? or not? i want to make sure the answer to that -- and is he will not only be rewarded for that, but punished severely or that. part of that punish meant -- punishment has to be military calculation. not the only part of the answer him about part of it. i think we are nowhere near that discussion. host: would you go there if it would mean preventing a price to pay? guest: i believe what i'm supporting would preclude the need for that. that is what i'm trying to make sure we do not get into. i am saying, we can avoid that confrontation by a clear unambiguous statement of support for ukrainians and a statement to wound that he will clearly understand.

>> ok. minnesota, independent caller. you are next area -- next. caller: i was listening to this conversation because i was from eastern slovakia a year ago. it is not the best and i very strongly believe the only way we can resolve this situation, sort of like president carter did when he wanted to invade poland, -- i believe that angela merkel and i respect her very much, stakes german. we need to have very strong political situation, diplomatic situation. and yes, poland right next door

that we can put more troops and that will show we really need in the business. guest: i agree with the caller. i think that is kind of the bottom-line. we have to show putin that we mean business. at the cost for him outweigh any conceivable benefit. right now, he has paid very little, other than some economic rice and, frankly, the plummeting oil price per barrel of oil is hurting him a lot more than sanctions. we need to up the cost factor so he recalibrate the overall cost of this. >> let's go to cindy next, a republican caller. democrat of virginia. >> good morning. how are you? i agree there should be a

military that cut in the ukraine, but i wonder, do you also inc. there should be a military threat, heavier sanctions, when the u.s. is doing what isis and iran? it appears obama prefers diplomacy over military threats appeasement over negotiations. on a personal note, i was deeply offended that during the benghazi and, you were extremely live by walking out during the testimony of a family member. regarding netanyahu -- >> excuse me, i want to respond to that peer that is absolutely a lie. it was fabricated by a republican staff at the time. there was an all-day hearing. the family of benghazi victims were supposed to testify first. all of us were there in our chairs respected -- respectfully to hear the testimony. arbitrarily, he changed the order of a hearing and put a different panel on.

there was no notification of when we would hear on the other panels and he knew that and he did it deliver early so he could then manufacture what this woman just repeated. it is a lie, not worthy of our committee or frankly congress as an institution. and you know, obvious the the lady calling listens layson much to fox news. but that is pure propaganda it is not true, and it is a lie. >> started out talking about isis and the president could send out some language that would grant him the new authority for isis. would you vote yes? question depends on the language. i am a child of the 60's. i remember how the resolution was abused and missed used to justify a wide war that

ultimately had half a million u.s. troops in vietnam. all of us of that generation are i think helpfully skeptical of any resolution authorizing u.s. military force. we want to see the fine print and we want to make sure limits are very clear and so, i do not believe this president has any expansionist intent with respect to military employment. i disagree with the caller using the word appeasement. i do not think there is anything about president obama's policy that would constitute appeasement either in syria or iran. i think he is the first president since the iran hostage crisis in 1979 to actually sit down with the iranians and engage them with negotiations. the question is, can we bring that where we can declare success, where we have gotten iran to move back from the brink significantly to forswear any

desire or ability to develop nuclear weapons, and to join the international community of peaceful nations who agreed to in sections and serious limitations on a nuclear development? i will be the real test. but i do not think negotiating with the iranians have so far actually produce the progress in quite some time. host: on citing isis, what limitations do you see him the authority? guest: i want to make sure we are not authorizing boots on the ground. i want to see that there are clear goals that are attainable. that is difficult for the president and us. it is easy to say what the president should be doing and what he should have done. i do not think the options are all that clear. trying to help the kurdish

military force seems to be a viable option because they actually have capability and we know with equipment, they can push back ices and have had some success in the battlefield. they are a natural ally and it is not uncomplicated because of iraqi politics, for example, but that is one option. obviously, the use of drones and ringing in others in an alliance to push back the military threat and isis will be part of the goal as well. i want to see that you're not want to see, what are the partners in the region? are they willing to step up and take a large part of the responsibility that we are also engaged in? the jury is out on that question. host: independent in georgetown in massachusetts, you're on the air. caller: thanks for having me on.

guest: how much snow do you have on the ground? caller: enough the -- enough what i like to ski. guest: i hear you could ski from your front door. caller: if you are on a hill, i think you could. this whole ukrainian thing is pretty troubling to me. i was able to talk to marry their -- there. guest: marcy from ohio? caller: yes. archer do -- fraud and people out of their tax money. also, you know, a lot of things happened before the forceful takeover and ps, which we have a

term for, it is called a two. it seems like what we do is we use that word for a takeover we agree with, and then we use a nice word like "people's revolution" or something if it is a coup we are on the side with. as we are talking about what is happening in the ukraine and we need to start day one the day after the forceful coup in kiev where they would forcefully remove the elected leader, that is where our days start and and we talked about how's aggressiveness is kind of going over everything. it is time we stopped pretending and stick to the facts. host: congressman. guest: there are a lot of facts in the ukraine. you cited some of them.

it is quite clear to me other facts include the pressure that food and put on the ukrainian government to get them to disavow their intent to join the european union and ultimately probably nato, and he put military pressure on them. the then government you are referring to caved against clear populist support otherwise, and when that government fell, used that as a pretext to do what you want to do all long, which was to regain control of crimea important naval base for the russian navy. he did that in an extraordinary transparently, blatantly, a legal way.

other -- utterly manufactured and fabric dated in a spontaneous show of her -- of support for crimean people. and the clear violation of the sovereign borders of the ukraine , bypassing all international -- to resolve this disc you. now, he is threatening the same on the eastern part of the ukraine. i believe we have no morals any to just to that if we do not start with i'm you. it is not ok and we will not turn a blind eye and will not recognize it and you will pay an ongoing price until and unless you reverse your illegal annexation of i'm you. host: -- of crimea. host: on our line for democrats. guest: did i hear you are a democrat in kansas? caller: we are trying to stay a

little pink here. i really want to make three quick comments about the discussion here. one is on the ukraine. i think nondirect military action from the united dates, we had a young officer on the news saying please do not let -- though i think it was very clear they did not want direct involvement from the west on their behalf there that will escalate things and have more people killed and more of the country ruined, bond, and such. >> i think it is important to stress, no one is saying we should their there are no calls for direct military involvement in the ukraine. by us or the west. caller: secondly, the third comment is i think israel, they have nuclear weapons and when it comes to negotiations with iran, they should put that on the table and say, ok, what is

israel doing? they cannot on their neighbors so it does not make sense for israel to have lethal weapons. everybody else would not want nuclear weapons either, like iran, we have been struggling with that for years and i think it is a waste of time. host: i love congressmen weigh in on those two issues. guest: i think i dealt with the first one. i agree with you, no one wants to see that and that is decisively why i want to preempt that action diplomatically and militarily in helping shore up the capability of ukrainians to defend their own sovereignty and to send a signal to the russians that their aggression will not be awarded. with respect to iran, i respectfully disagree. i think the interim agreement of the p5pluass1

group has helped and has worked. it is not the ultimate of the nuclear threat, but we have an engagement and the iranians are paying a high price for sanctions and they know it. their population is rested about that. got elected on the promise of economic reform and a return to more economic press -- prosperity. they have to risk the wrath of their electorate. on the other hand, we want to make sure iranians are not just playing us for time. if we become convinced of that, i think we have to look at other options with respect to how we resolve the nuclear threat from iran. host: watching us from

california, a republican caller. caller: good morning. please do not interrupt me, congressmen, like you did to the other republican one in -- woman. guest: i am sorry, i am going to interrupt you. she made a statement that was false and i corrected her. i apologize for that. you cannot make outrageous charges with impunity and expect someone to not respond or politely hear you out when you are impugning the integrity of the person in question. i reserve the right to defend my reputation and my integrity. host: ok, so molly, go ahead. caller: ok, about netanyahu, a light came from the president when he said we do not enter during an election and another country and netanyahu shouldn't speak because of that. obama sent campaign people into israel to campaign against netanyahu before an election.

as far as john boehner inviting him here to's the, nancy pelosi did the same thing and brought him to a session. the live comes very heavily from your side of the aisle. =-- -- lie comes very heavily from your side of the aisle. guest: i do not know how to respond to that vitriol. ok, that is your opinion. the way you phrased it highlights some of the problems we have with dysfunctional politics. when people ask why we can get more done here in congress, part of the answer is because we are so divided and there are elements of intolerance and hyperbole on both sides that make it very difficult to find common ground. i think that caller in some ways highlight that problem. it is a lie and pelosi is worse than banner and you know, can

reasonable people agree that inviting a foreign leader to come address a joint session of congress, which is a big deal, two weeks before an election in his or her country, is probably not the best thing to do especially when you know that foreign leader is coming here with an agenda, touches directly opposite what the president of the united states is trying to pursue. that is a very in-your-face confrontation on a key and delicate foreign-policy matter and i think it is unwise and imprudent. you can respectfully disagree or disrespectfully disagree, but i think there is a legitimate concern here that most certainly nancy pelosi never engaged in during her tenure as speaker when president

bush of the other party was in the white house. she never did that to them. >> california, and independent caller. >> good morning. the california coast. i would like to make two points. the first point is i do not believe we should send any weapons to the kiev of government, western ukraine, until they disavow the neo-nazi which the western media play case down as the far what just a far right. they are militia neo-nazis and are against all speakers. they want him executed. the southwest was taken over by mexico, all people speak english, so they will kill english speech or -- speakers english speakers will be upset. that is what happened in the ukraine. point number two, in crimea, crimea has always been russian. there was no threat to the russian naval base. the naval base was there that i have relatives in crimea.

they were cut off by kia and had no food coming in. they were preparing like hurricane and are very happy there back in russia. what was the death toll in crimea in russia? i think it was less than three. eastern ukraine, 5000 11 airline shot down. crimea is very much like what happened in kokomo. it was an illegal action and changed borders. we have to recognize changing borders. you are a democrat. wilson's uses of self-determination. one is local control. those are my points. thank you. guest: i understand the points you're making an iphone the will -- fundamentally disagree. that is a rationalization for a naked aggression that i think has no place in the 21st century europe. nor should it. your rationalization that crimea

has always been russian, that is not true. there is still a minority in their own country that most certainly does not accept this annexation and with respect to the fact that it is largely russian speaking, that is because it was deliberately repopulated during the stalin era by russians. if you want to use that as a rationalization for why it is ok for russia to forcibly and illegally annexed that territory, where does that and? -- end? that invites german -- germans to re-examine -- there is no end to the border adjustments by force that can occur in europe by that rationalization and that

is why i rejected their this is not the way to resolve the issues. host: on the floor, a democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: don't people realize russia has nukes? it could be unbelievable. don't you remember when russia was at war with afghanistan and we've survived afghanistan's weapons? that did not work out too well either, did it? guest: vladimir putin is many things, but he is not stupid and irrational. i think he is somebody who respects limits. we have so far not done a very good job of setting limits for him. i return to what i said earlier. the game here is to help raise the cost and lower the benefits

from his action so he has to recalibrate how he evaluates outcomes. we want to make the outcome he is seeking an expected outcome and we want to precisely do the opposite of what you fear, we want to make sure that by responding early and forcefully, we do not create a situation escalating and that gets us at all to the nuclear threshold kind of issue. host: you also set on the oversight reform committee, want to get to this story that the obama administration is thinking about creating a new agent the that would sniff out threats in cyberspace. it would be modeled after the national counterterrorism center that would gather and share it with all the agencies.

karzai think we need to have a conference of look about how we respond to cyber security threats. it is not just military and security, but on the domestic side as well and saw the other day a breach by chinese hackers of 80 million customer information database by one of our health insurance -- in the united states. credit information, and other information that could compromise their financial well-being. what are we going to do about this? how will we risk on? in terms of, i want to make sure it does not require a cyber pearl harbor before we respond. i applaud the administration for looking at away to approach this in a more comprehensive and thorough manner that helps deter, preempt, and respond to

cyber security threats, whether it he in the banking sector, the utility sector, the electric grid, all of them are potentially vulnerable and we have to dress them in a forthright manner. this is a great earth step and i look forward to seeing more details. >> the white house counterterrorism adviser will be talking about the new agency today at the wilson center and we will have live coverage of it on the stand to at 12:45 p.m. eastern time. talking more about the agency the white house would like to create, to share intelligence about cyber threats very -- threats. guest: i am a c-span groupie and i look forward to watching it. host: coming up next, we will speak with congressman luke messer of indiana. how he reacts to isis and the ukraine.

plus come immigration. later, our tour of colleges and universities continue. this morning, we are on the campus of the university and nasa -- nashville, tennessee. hg williams will join us. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> february is black history month. c-span buses on the road to speak with faculty and discuss public all the issues and

highlight the role in the american education system. and today, we will be at a university in nashville and talk with this president. on wednesday, we will meet with john wilson junior in atlanta and on thursday, we located -- visit a college in atlanta. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress here not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there are also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house in the senate. keep track using congressional chronicle on c-span.org very it has a lot of useful information including statistics about session of congress. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and sees a and.org.

-- and c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: back at our table, congressman luke messer, republican of indiana. thank you for being here. let's begin with isis. the president could as early as today send up to capitol hill some language that would grant him new authority to fight isis. is that something you could support when it comes to the floor? guest: certainly, i could support it. i do think it is important we have a debate. it has been 13 years. the nature of the threat is very different than it was in the times immediately following 9/11. we have obviously got the rising threat of isil or isis, something not talked about her teen years ago. i think it is time we had the debate. i also believe isil was a serious threat to america. i believe it is the cold war of our time and the president has a

lot of work to do to help the american people understand the true depth of the challenges we face and i think the president then needs to articulate to the american people what the strategy is for defeating isis and there is a lot afford to do, but i certainly could support it . >> do you think it would get strong support from republicans? guest: i believe a lot of republicans understand we have to stand up to isil and want to be supportive of the lee terry efforts to do so there nothing in american people, frankly have been skeptical of this president's leadership on the issue. he needs to define the nature of the threat, articulate a strategy for defeating isil. it can be done but it will take heavy work and i think very few people on my side of the aisle believe we could just drop a few bombs here and there and this thing will be solved. it will take a real, consistent military effort over time.

host: what should be included in a.m. u.s., the language that grants him authority to go after isis? should the option of boots on the ground be included in the authority? guest: once the president articulates the nature and danger of the threat and articulates, we need to give the commander-in-chief the tools we make to be successful. it would be a mistake to limit it only two airstrikes, or example. what would that mean? you think when osama bin laden had been defeated with special forces, well, if we do not crash this correctly, could we end up in a situation where the president could not call it federal forces if that is what is deemed appropriate at the time? the commander-in-chief will have to make the argument as to why he needs to have that kind of latitude. i could support it was the case is made.

host: when will it come to the floor? and will that debate happened? guest: it could be soon. is our urgent matters. we all turn on the television set and see the attached. once it is made, you will see the debate promptly. host: another issue is what to do about the ukraine. president obama in a conference yesterday said he will wait and let it die out in hopes that tomorrow and europe, france cost is leaders and germany's leader vladimir putin and others will come to some sort of agreement a peaceful solution. >> we are certainly all rooting for a peaceful solution. the problem is when you look at what has happened in the ukraine in the last several months, it has been anything but useful. president poroshenko came to his beak to congress a few months back, it was an incredibly

compelling case and he made the point we do not have to build a democracy in the ukraine. we just need to defend it. i believe we need to take stronger action there. i had an opportunity to be not in the ukraine, but lithuania, poland, and i can tell you they are unambiguous and the fact that russia will not rest on to ambiguity. if you want to do with russia, they need to understand strength and we have taken steps with economic sanctions. russia has not yet responded to those in anyway that has changed their behavior. i believe we need to look at providing at least military equipment that ukraine would need to defend itself cared i know russia claims otherwise but it sees if have been helping the russian rebels in that area of ukraine. host: let's listen to president

obama and what he had to say at that news conference yesterday. his hand whether or not to arm ukraine helped him out and i'll get your reaction. guest:[video clip] >> issue you raise about whether we can be certain the weapons to fall into the wrong hands, the -- do not lead to over aggressive actions that cannot be stained by the ukrainians, the kinds of reactions does it prompt simply from the russians. those are all issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is, is it more likely to be effective than not? that is what our deliberations will be about. host: congressman? guest: this is a judgment call

but to me, the best to make those judgments are the ukrainians on the ground. they would like to have the weapons and i believe we should provide them with them. there are risks associated with this. i am less concerned about what russia's reaction might be. we know what the reaction might be. it will be aggression. we will -- the real thing is will we support those who deserve to be supported? the rourke -- the ukrainians trying to preserve their democracy and freedom? >> bob is our first phone call a republican. go ahead. you're on the air. go ahead. >> he s. thank you, c-span. i wanted to say crap. host: i guess he lost his train

of thought. don in texas, independent caller. caller: how are you this morning? how much would it cost a taxpayer to do this? you see how much it cost tax payers to lose the money. to borrow the money to fight overseas. that should be put in front of american citizens -- host: ok. guest: there is no question we have limited resources. in many of these count -- these challenges, in dealing with isil or frankly russian aggression in eastern europe, the question is what is the cost of not acting?

often, by sitting back and not acting, we encourage further aggression. both our allies and enemies are watching. there are times, of course, out of moral authority and doing what is right, america steps i -- steps up. but the on that, it is important to understand the world has never been smaller. we have to be mindful and where we do not act, others will and it costs a lot more over time. host: stephen, shelbyville, indiana, independent caller. guest: that is where i am from. great to have you on. caller: i called your office quite a bit could i have not for a while. things are all right. i have a question about arming ukraine. i think it scares me, on the we. i do not know if they could turn against us. i don't know nothing about ukraine. i'm also scared about that war.

that is what i do not want to see. guest: i certainly appreciate your question and as we talked about, it is a judgment call and not an easy one year the responsibility of the in these kinds of battles. russia is clearly acting out of aggression in that region of the world. they have no claim to the parts of ukraine that russian separatists are staking claim to. i think there are of course risks to give the ukraine further arms to fight that fight, but all the best intelligence that russia is in small ways and big engaged in that region and i think it is the right thing to do for a democracy china to defend itself . if you get a chance, go back and try to find on the internet president poroshenko's speech he gave to congress a few months back. incredibly compelling case in a

request for support. while i do recognize and appreciate the risk you are concerned about i think we need to be supportive of the ukraine. host: madison, west virginia. democratic caller. caller: they talk about democracy, but every time there is a situation going on, they talk about war. i think putin is in a debt situation in this crisis, and a good thing that we have got some good friends with saudi arabia driving the crisis down. i think if we could negotiate with saudi arabia, increase the price, negotiate with, and maybe you backup a little bit here and he does have a lot of problems. >> i certainly will not be the defender of, but i will say

this, you make an important point that military responses are not the only responses we need to bring to russia. one challenge we have in bringing our allies to the region -- in the region to the table is that russia is the number one exporter of natural gas to all of europe and other countries within the region. one of those things that america can do is expand our -- expand our own natural gas production and exports, it would be important not only for our economy, but for our national security and our allies in the region, so they know that they weren't beholden to russia and their willingness to export national -- natural gas to them, you know, vladimir putin is behaving in ways that are aggressive in the region. diplomacy is clearly part of the answer, but i think strengthening ukraine's hands is also an important part of the

answer as well. host: our guest this morning shares the republican policy committee. chris, baltimore, maryland, a republican, good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask the congressman, i lean more toward the right and i and why you all don't like the health care and welfare programs and all of that, but why don't you all like to help americans but you all go help the ukrainians? guest: yeah, i think it is important that we first solve our problems here at home. the question started today with major international incidents. we live in a phone booth today. the world has never been smaller than it is today. events around the world also impact is here. you are right we have to get our own house in order and balance

our own budgets. growing our own economy. frankly, it is impossible for america to be strong abroad if we are not strong at home. i would agree with on that. host: let's talk about one issue at home, immigration policy. a standoff over that. what to do about obama's executive action over immigration? funding bill the house passed cannot get through the senate. what should be done? should you separate those debates? there is a deadline figure 27 -- february 27. they say the agency will shut down if congress does not fund it. guest: we need to protect our homeland. the agencies that force these are funded by the bill. i think we believe the president's actions are unconstitutional. a president cannot just ignore the parts of the law he does not like. and therefore make a law on his own without following the order

that we all learned in school house rock about, i have a bill, or i'm just a bill, and the way the laws are supposed to be made. no one wants to see these agencies shut down. i frankly believe we should -- we put forward a reasonable proposal, to backtrack his orders and allow us to send you to operate forward. some of the things the president put in his executive orders may well be able to be passed through the congress if we were able to have a debate on those topics. i think the senate has to work harder. the republicans in the house have spent a lot of time in the last two years having friends in the senate tell us how we need to stand tough and show the president that we mean what we believe. all i have seen it -- is a shrug of the shoulders. i think they need to work harder to demonstrate to the american people what the true vote is over there. press how do they do that? they need 60 votes.

democrats have fended off this three times and held up a filibuster. >> for example, when ran ball -- rand paul was concerned about drones, he did a filibuster. one might read was concerned about the health care debate a year and a half ago, during the shutdown, they stood on the floor and read "sam i am, i think" the zephyrs brought the attention of the american people to the debate. i have not seen that kind of effort out of the senate yet yet i understand what the map is. without some of the democratic senators coming along, it is difficult for the bill to move here it but, the fight matters and the debate matters and you need to bring it to the american people. we clearly have done it over in the house. i just have -- i just have not seen that out of the senate. >> doesn't matter enough to shut down the homeland security

department? >> i think it does. it is about way more. if a sitting president can't ignore -- can ignore the law and make it whatever he wanted to be then we live in a very different country moving forward. we all understand that for decades, at least, really from the beginning of our republic, when the law was passed, the president has to ask to the laws. to do that sometimes requires a little discretion. but this is way past discretion and this is frankly a president who said expressly himself, for years, he said he does not have the authority to do the very things he is now doing. and his justification is for did -- for doing them is that he cannot pass through congress the policies he believes are best for america. host: are you worried the republican party will put the nation passes homeland at risk of shutting down the agency?

guest: a lot of the areas that would be funded would not shut down. they are the sort of agencies that have to operate whether we pass the spending bill or not and by law, would continue to operate. no one wants to see a shutdown. that shutdown would come because the president is unwilling to step back from his executive orders and the members of his party are unwilling to vote for laws that would require the president to step back. clearly, we have got to solve this in the next few weeks. no one wants to see our homeland that endanger. i believe it is important we take a stand against this president's lawlessness and we have to make the case to the american people that it is not just about immigration. it is about the balance of powers and whether the president can operate almost as a de facto

king. >> politico just posted this story this morning. billions of dollars. congress's standoff, republicans seem to be battling not only the president but their own rhetoric overspending. the spending bill by the house gop turned out to actually widen the budget deficit over the next 10 years according to the congressional budget office, as a result the 39 point $7 billion measure would need a supermajority of 60 votes under senate budget role, even if republicans get past the filibuster. guest: i believe the american people understand it will require dollars to secure our border. they want to see us spend the money it takes to secure it. another part of the estimate essentially says if the workers come here and may contribute to the economy, their tax dollars would be a revenue source, and there is some debate about, when you back end the cost of social security that they would receive later in their life and career whether that is positive or not.

the on the debate, and i would not want to leave the topic without saying, you know, i am certainly a republican who believes we need immigration reform. i believe there are policies we could find common ground on. virtually everyone recognizes we need a stronger national security, our border is bad for the economy, bad for national security and it is bad for the people caught up in a broken system. we need a work visa program that works and is better for employers so they know when they hire somebody, they're in compliance with the law and would frank to help the workers who are here for seasonal reasons. we have areas of the economy where we have shortages and we need to meet the needs as well. if we focus on border security and getting an enforceable work visa program, we have opportunities to make real progress. >> back to calls, a republican. go ahead.

caller: good morning congressman. i'm amazed of the unique position of congress and how they just fight their position and do not have to forget how the same congress opted to invade iraq. so everybody is wrong, something is wrong. we, our congressmen, congress, which looks like, -- [indiscernible] host: do you believe iraq, that they are not considering the lesson of iraq? caller: i am talking about the invasion of iraq. guest: i was not here when the

invasion of iraq happened. there was clearly intelligence put forward by a series of agencies that ended up being wrong. as i have read that intelligence, 90% certainty there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. clearly, when we got there, we could not find them. it is hard to justify all that went into that other than to say i think no one camera -- can regret sodom hussein is gone. he was a terrible leader and terrible for the people of iraq. beyond that, i think you're right. there needs to be more done to have a rigorous debate in congress to really challenge the intelligence we receive. to challenge the administration and the for chatterji -- the strategy we put forward. it is important we have another debate, because we need to have a robust conversation as a country about what the right strategy is moving forward.

host: virginia, john is next, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i want to ask the congressman if you look at ukraine we're not together. when we are attacking our president every day about decisions he wants to make, and someone like ted cruz supporting what putin is doing, how do we solve the problem? my next question is, you mentioned ted cruz. they do not believe anything but their way. how will you be a politician when you are not compromising and do not put your country first, rather than your party? guest: first, i cannot defend everybody else's positions on every body else's topics.

i work with senator cruz on education reform topics because we believe every kid in america ought to have an opportunity to go to a great school. >> i do believe it is important we stand united when we look at policies that go past our shores when you to be strong because our enemies and allies are watching and they look to america for strength. our president falls short of that standard at times. host: congressman messer works on the committee and he also

served in the indiana state legislature. joe in texas, a democratic co aller. caller: were you in the military? guest: no i was not. caller: thank you. the iraqis are a bunch of cowards. can you say that word? they are cowards. cowards. host: clearly when we thought the iraqi army twice, they were no match for our soldiers. i think wasted in your question is the fact that strong ground troops of those that were defending an important part of any military campaign, i would believe that to be true. only thing i would add is that

some want to ignore that we live in a dangerous world. if we withdraw, others will enter. if we make these decisions, and they are admittedly hard ones, no one relishes sending people overseas in potential harm's way. america has always enter the bell in times of crisis. i believe we will do so again. host: it from page of the "washington post" had the story -- had this story. that battle coming up and the u.s. is preparing iraqi forces for it. guest: the iraq he army is no match for the american army.

many americans are concerned about having american boots on the ground. we want to limit where that occurs. we will have to train these folks. host: a republican caller in florida. you are next. caller: good morning congressman. what i don't understand is all the fear mongering about russia. we only lost have a million people in that war. they were given russia in the conference. there were given the country of ukraine. you talk about aggression. you keep playing with putin and you will get us all killed. if we have a war with russia it will arrive in the lower 48. as far as aggression goes, you say we cannot tolerate aggression with russia, but what about israel? they seem to attack everybody generally unprovoked.

nobody seems to talk about that. you and the rest of them are taking jewish lobbyist's money. host: you are making lots of assertions there. hold on. you don't have evidence of that against the congressman making the ascension that israel attacks all of its neighbors unprovoked. guest: there is a lot in those comments. if you want to defend vladimir putin and russia, you can. i will not. this is not the first time. aggression in crimea and georgia -- excuse me. mitt romney declared it russia is america's biggest geopolitical foe and president obama left that off -- laughed that off.

we are seeing russia is a dangerous foe, but we also have to understand they only respond to strength. when you talk to the leaders in that region of the world, they will tell you it is better to get russia in the four head with a shoe than to speak with them out of passivity and weakness. no one relishes or challenges in that region. we need to be clear about who our allies are and speak with strength in dealing with them. when it comes to israel, they are our best and most consistent ally on the planet. i stand with israel. it has nothing to do with any jewish lobby. i represent an area of the country in rural indiana where there is not a large jewish population at all. i have had the opportunity to travel to israel and meet with benjamin netanyahu. they are in a hostile region of the world.

if those around israel stop attacking israel tomorrow, there would be peace. if those around israel disarm, there would be peace. if israel disarm the, she would be destroyed -- if israel disarmed, she would be destroyed. host: do you think it was appropriate for the speaker of the house to invite prime minister benjamin netanyahu to speak before a joint session of congress? guest: i think it was entirely appropriate. the speaker of the house extends these invitations. i understand it is a matter of courtesy over the course of history. no one has ever pretended that somehow the president has veto power over who comes and speaks before congress. could there have been more courtesy? maybe. i think we live in unique times. we need to be clear that we stand with israel.

we need our best ally in that region to help the american people understand what the true breadth and depth is surrounding negotiations with iran. we cannot allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. if they ran does, the world will be forever changed. i think regimen netanyahu will be an important messenger. host: richard, an independent caller in virginia. caller: thank you. i am 86 and i have been a republican for many years until the last seven years. listening to this congressman and other leaders in the republican party, they have turned globalists and america is second. globalism is primary. i have been in two wars and now

they want us to generate another one. they would stomp on us over there. they would stomp on europe in a week. guest: this conversation has gone in the direction of conflicts around the world because that is the world we live in. there is a big challenge with isis in the middle east and with russian aggression in the ukraine. i 100% agree with your caller that our core priorities need to be at home. america cannot be great overseas if we are not strong at home. we need policies that reduce our deficit, deal with our debt, and grow the economy where jobs can help families build a life for themselves. that is my priority as well. the idea we can draw up the

bridges and somehow america will be safer, both history and current events show that not to be true. as much as we would like to ignore conflicts around the world, we do not have the luxury of doing that. if america doesn't lead, nobody will. america will suffer in the long run. host: dorothy, a democratic caller. caller: one question about the disability situation. i have heard people say there is fraud and abuse, but i know for a fact that you have to be under doctor's care. you have to go to the doctor, and you have to clarify that. i don't know how people can fraudulent do that -- how people can fradullyudully do that.

we would be wiped off the map in a war with russia. it would be disastrous. host: let us take the first part of what you said because we have not addressed that issue yet. guest: no one is being cavalier about the challenge of russia. it is a big deal and one that is to be handled with wisdom. to the questions about disability you do here studies that have cited there is a lot of fraud in all of these government welfare programs. this is america. someone who is legitimately disabled, we should try to help them. the question is do we have too many able-bodied people on disability? that has to be so.

as we look to deal with many of the challenges we face with trying to balance a budget and we can balance and at least 10 years if not sooner. we need to deal with abuse within these programs and then management. the reality is i have seen an indiana -- i have seen indiana balance budgets. host: you have legislation to deal with the issue of balancing the budget. what are you proposing? guest: i support the budget that says we could ballanance within four years. i believe in the no pay provision of two years ago. senator steve daines of montana and i've put together legislation that said no balance budget, no pay.

it is our job to make the budget balanced, just like families have to do as well. whether we are able to get that bill heard will be a question we have to see. i certainly believe it is a principle that should guide us. host: we go to jonathan in florida, a republican. good morning. caller: hey congressman. how is it going? i am actually calling for two things. i know you will not tell the people the truth, but what is going on in ukraine is actually a neo-nazi coo. host: where did you read that? where did you get the information? caller: tax wall street party

website. credit 1% wall street sales tax because wall street pays more taxes. that is what needs to be on the agenda. republicans always do the attack talk. both sides work for wall street. guest: i do believe we need to protect and preserve social security and medicare. when he to make the changes it takes to preserve those programs. those who want to continue those programs unchanged -- anyone who looks at that will say it is unsustainable. there are concerns about the influence of wall street and the fact that folks want to make sure we are looking for the main street economy, not the wall street economy. whether taxing wall street we

the answer, i think when you to grow our economy. government last year took in $3 trillion, the most in history. they are not challenges of revenue. we just spend far too much. as far as your conspiracy theory in the ukraine, i am not aware of any of those facts. one president for spoke, he made the case of a free people living in a democracy the ought to be protected. no one relishes this conflict. we did not start this conflict or cost this conflict. russia did. i have not talked about american troops being in the ukraine or having american strikes there. all i said is we need to provide it sanctions -- provide further sanctions for russia.

we need to expand american energy production and natural gas production to our allies in that region are not as beholden to russia as they are today. we need to look at providing the ukraine and their military the weapons they need. host: we appreciate your time in talking to our viewers. guest: great being here. host: coming up next, h. james williams joins us as we continue our tour of historical black universities. here is a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i believe we have to overcome>> ignorance. it is amazing just how little they know about iran.

by the same token there is great misunderstanding on the part of a rainy and in key positions of leadership -- on the part of a iranians in key positions of leadership. we operate under certain rules. i cannot attribute certain marks to members, but i can tell you that i met with high ranking members and they had several very important points to make. number one is that they are all deeply concerned about what affect our congressional elections last november will have on president obama's capacity to implement any agreement. that is a deep concern to them. they were very troubled by the prospect of the iranians putting their best deal on the table only to have it rejected by the united states congress or rejected in the united states. this would be a political

disaster for them. they need assurances that if there is a deal that is worked out, they want to be confident it can be approved and implement it by the obama administration and not scuttled by congress. the other thing i took away from the conversations especially keep in mind it is populated by a more conservative element in a iran, but they made it clear to me they are determined that iran will preserve its rights specifically the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. >> somewhat argue there is not such a right. >> they certainly perceive they have that right. i am mindful of that dispute. >> washington "washington journal"

continues. host: we are making a visit with howard university and we will continue to fisk university in nashville, tennessee. joining us on the bus for a conversation is fisk university's president h. james williams. good morning. guest: good morning and welcome to the historic fisk university. host: thank you for having us on board today. tell us about your background. your experience includes several awards, specifically in teaching. i want to know what you learned as far as teaching college students and how you apply that to what you do day-to-day as the president of the university. guest: this whole life is about teaching and learning. we are teaching or learning all the time.

in order for a teacher to be effective, he or she must love the subject matter. that teacher must also love the student. that is fundamental to who i am and what i am trying to do when i am in a classroom. i think good teachers are doing that. as president, often i am in the position of trying to teach. teaching isn't lecturing. certainly not anymore. it is about interaction and engagement. what i tried to do in my day-to-day business is make sure i am engaging my colleagues so we can work together, learn together, and grow this university. host: when you are looking for a teacher or professors for university, what do you look for? what is that something special you want to help bring the university along? guest: we are looking for that caring personality.

the person has to love the subject matter and the student. they have to love facilitating education because that is what we are about here. that is what we are looking for first and foremost. that that person has that kind of personality. they want to engage students and understand that teaching is not just about lecturing or having folks listen to you, but rather having them get involved and engaged in real learning so they begin to understand. that is really the essence of learning. host: talk a little bit about your university. you are in a state which features prominent colleges. how do you sell your university to students, particularly african-american students interested in attending a university? guest: we have a history and

tradition of academic excellence and leadership excellence. we also have a social justice excellent aura that we carried it from years ago. the notion is if you want to be involved in something special, you come to fisk university. not only do you get to walk these hallowed grounds and get to feel what it means to be a scholar, what it means to be a leader, what it means to be involved and concerned about social justice issues, it can only get that by being here. we talk all the time about encouraging students and getting them to look at fisk. when they visit this campus, we know we have a good chance of capturing them, if you will. while you made think you are choosing fisk, fisk actually chooses you. we have always been a leader in

the stem area. science and technology have been our calling cards, especially these days. that is a very compelling prospect. when we tell students about these kind of opportunities they want to see who we are. the fact that we are smaller is a real benefit because at fisk university we tell parents that your son or daughter cannot hide. we will know who your son or. and we will know them by name -- your son or daughter. we will know them by name. we will get them engaged all the time. not just in the classroom, but every day and every hour inside and outside of the classroom and in the living center. we have a great environment with a lot of highly intellectual and highly motivated scholars who challenge each other as well as their faculty members to be the

very best they can become. host: you mentioned your college's size. is it a concern, specially of people are looking at universities saying with such a small student body, what kind of services and education can i receive with a college that small? guest: we talk about our size being an advantage. we are trying to grow our numbers back to 1200 1500. there has never been more than 1500 students. that has been a great advantage. whenever i am around the country talking, i can feel the sense of love and respect they have not just for the university, but for each other. that is irrespective of the classes. we understand that for us to be sustainable, we need to continue

to grow our enrollment and go back to the 1500 mark. host: are you concerned for the store of historic black colleges, or to clearly the size? maybe 300,000 students total attending these types of universities. as far as sustainability is concerned, what is your sense of the future? can you sustain or can the system be sustainable? guest: absolutely. first of all, they continue to be relevant because we have proven we can take students from all walks of life and help them make the best of themselves. that tradition and heritage of working with students one at a time and caring for them one at a time makes all the difference in the world. we will be able to continue to compete, but we do have to make some changes. our traditions heritage, history are strong, but we need to make sure we are adjusting so

we can be competitive going forward. that means making sure we are identifying our niche programs and those that have service well over the years. that we are moving them along so we remain on the cutting edge so we can compete not just for african american students, but for the full array of students in this country and around the world. we are trying to do that. i believe we are. we are collaborating more now than we ever have as a group of historically black colleges and universities. we are supporting each other and helping each other map out a future that promises to be fruitful. i am encouraged and optimistic that we will be able to sustain ourselves, the naysayers notwithstanding. host: the c-span and our bus visits historical but colleges. if you want to ask h. james

williams questions two lines to call on. you can call 202-748-8001. again, our guest is h. james williams the president of fisk university. we have our first caller. go ahead. caller: i attended fisk from 2000-2002. it was one of the most wonderful experiences of my life. i follow up with the news there. the question i have is about the new resident's hall that has been talked about in the media. i was wondering what he can share with us about that and what he thinks that signals about fisk's renaissance as we

alumni tend to refer to this. of time. refer to this period of time. host: how come only two years at fisk? caller: i won a scholarship to fisk. it is a very historic school. history has been my calling. i left after 2002 and finish my degree at norfolk state university. i have worked in the nonprofit sector and in education. i am working for myself right now as a business owner doing correspondence, resumes, cover letters, and things like that for people trying to better themselves. that was my situation after leaving fisk. guest: first of all, i would say

this is a good example of one of the real concerns you have. you asked about whether we would be able to sustain ourselves. one of the real challenges we have is trying to address the affordability issue. we understand how important it is for families to be able to know and to be able to plan for how they will finance their son or daughter's education. we here are particularly concerned about the gap. we call it minding the gap. we believe there is a gap where this is what it takes for a college education virtually anywhere, and this is where families can afford to pay, at least that is what the federal government says. what we find is that students and families cannot afford what the federal government says they can. what happens is that gap widens.

here is what it costs to be in school and here is what we can afford to pay. here at fisk we are trying to figure out how to close that gap. we are trying to squeeze it as much as we can. we do our best to manage what price we have to charge. we try to do what we can. one of my concerns is that with all the federal government talk about reducing the perkins loans and stafford loans, those kinds of moves will hurt our ability to close the gap. the gap will get wider and we will have to work more diligently. we believe we can do little things to help that whole process. for example, we recently instituted a tuition freeze. it means this fall, students and

families will know that you come in to fisk and you will pay this number as a tuition and fee number. that number will not change for four years. we are trying to encourage families to be able to plan and finance their son's and daughter's education. we are trying to encourage students to come in, be serious and graduate in a timely fashion. we hope the tuition freeze will help us with the issue. host:i want to get to the question that was asked about the living learning center. what we are trying to do here is make sure we can effect a renaissance. when need to reinvigorate ourselves in so many ways. the building is a manifestation of our commitment to moving this place forward in a very aggressive way. host: we hear from janet in

kentucky. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. first off i would like to say that we love nashville. in college, we learned many things. because of my education in college, i do not believe we should become involved in the affairs of overseas or redrawn into their wars. it could be a conspiracy to draw us in. i don't think we should do that anymore. i was just wondering what you think about our involvement in the affairs of russia or isis or jordan? host: go ahead. guest: i guess my reaction is

that we live in a global society now, and what happens anywhere in this global society has an impact on all of us. i am not a proponent of fighting wars indiscriminately. we certainly don't want to risk our son's and daughters'and daughters ' lives. host: someone asked if you university has a foreign student program. guest: we do. we recruit and enroll international students from all across the country. they come from literally all across the country. we are looking to grow our international enrollment. we have an international center that we are developing.

we expect to be able to recruit even more international students as we move through time. the students come from literally all over the place. from eastern europe and africa and the islands. from all over the world. host: we have a line set aside for students who attended the university. iourour caller is from chattanooga. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. i had the privilege of attending tennessee state university in 1977. on my v.a. disability entitlement program, i was given the opportunity for a job at fisk university. you can imagine i love nashville. i call it my second home.

we here in chattanooga would love for this type of atmosphere to be able to spread. beyond these mountains education is very much lacking in the city of chattanooga. for us to be so close to nashville, we really do a disservice to our young students. they very seldom get the opportunity to attend an hncu like i did -- an hbcu like i did. guest: we want to make sure we are doing what we can do, not just for nashville but for the state of tennessee and the nation as we have done over 149 years now. if there is an opportunity for us to be more involved in chattanooga, we want to do that. we want to encourage the young

folks there to apply and come visit fisk university so we can have an opportunity to connect with them in ways we might not have done in the past. host: your university is combined with vanderbilt university in a program. what is that program? guest: we have what we call a bridge program. it takes students in physics from undergraduate through masters degree to a phd. we have been very successful. that program has produced more phd's in physics that are minority than any program in the country. we rank in the top 10 of all masters degree persons in physics. we have that relationship with virtually every one of the universities in this region.

we have some kind of arrangement by which we share academic programs and support each other throughout this community. host: you were talking about stem programs earlier. are historically black colleges or universities adapt or are there a lot of them to offer physics and higher science programs? guest: yes, we have quite a few. some are in engineering. others really delve into the sciences. we do a great job across the country, hbcu's that is, to make sure our young folks have those opportunities. we graduate minority students in the stem areas. host: the graduation rate? guest: it is in the stem areas

in particular. minority students who go elsewhere and are not able to finish those programs for whatever reason, many times they wind up being discouraged. they wind up changing their majors and not persisting through those stem programs. to our colleges and universities, they do. we encourage young folks to come to our institutions because we do a great job in the stem areas in particular. host: a caller from florida next. go-ahead. ahead. caller: the morning. i think historically black colleges are a good opportunity for people to go to. they have been a wrong around for a long time. they say diversity is one of the biggest things in teaching

college-aged students. how to black colleges handle that besides the foreign students? my second question is that in melbourne we have a main street named lipscomb. i always wondered what the historical reference is. thank you. guest: first of all, i have to admit that i cannot really give you any information regarding the lipscomb name. i am not knowledgeable about that. i will say we agree that diversity is very important. it is very imported in our environment as well. our young folks have to understand how to work in a pluralistic society as well. we do everything we can to make sure we give our students those experiences. number one by sending them out. number two by bringing in students from other colleges and universities around the country and around the world.

we do a great job now of recruiting more and more for diversity. we are making strides and headway in that area. we have rising percentages of minority students here. we are probably still less than 3% at this point, but we are doing a better job of recruiting so we have the diversity here in our community that we need. the other thing i will say is that when it comes to faculty and staff, fisk university has a history of a very diverse faculty and staff throughout its existence. for over 149 years now. we value the diversity element. beyond the race issue of diversity, we have students from literally all around the world and across this country. we have a pipeline virtually to los angeles and oakland and houston and dallas.

the troy and chicago miami and new york city and washington d.c. we do a great job of bringing all these different mindsets and ways of thinking from across the country and around the world together so they can come to this melting pot of learning and understanding. host: here is jenny from tallahassee, florida. caller: yes dr. williams, dr. williams. would you give the world information about why these schools are called historically black schools? i attended florida a&m and i have never had anyone say to me that you can't have this job because you attended a historically but college. -- historically black college. guest: i am not sure i understand the question.

host: she asked about the nature of the hbcu's, but if you can apply it to fisk university specifically. your efforts in religious institutions are important, is that correct? guest: absolutely. folks gathered here as the civil war was ending and the group got together in nashville to say what will these soon to be freed slaves become a part of the society? fisk university was conceived in the fall of 1865 and we began in january 1866. the idea is that african-americans and free slaves -- at fisk, it was about all americans having an

opportunity to educate themselves in ways that would make them real contributors to society. that is our heritage and our history. it was making sure we help folks be ways contributed citizens. host: where does the university get its name? guest: from gerald fisk who was one of the founders. he provided the lane on which it first started business. host: here is sean in massachusetts on our other line. we are joined today by h. james williams, the president of fisk university. caller: the morning. -- good morning. i wanted to know -- what really

struck me at that school was racial diversity, and not once did i hear anyone talk about the race thing. i had a couple of quick questions. do you think the hbcu organization is perpetuating the racial differences? my second question is why are you not talking about the racist president and all the nasty things he has done? host: my apologies. guest: that is ok. i missed the second part anyway. we have never rejected anyone of based on their color or race. why we continue to exist is not to continue to perpetuate any differences or separation. it is an opportunity to serve. i worked at notre dame and

georgetown for many years. they have heritages and traditions of serving particular populations. they don't exclude others and they did not exclude me. i was able to go there and be a part of those programs the same way we want folks to be a part of our program. host: you talked about the pell grant situation. a person on twitter asked about this effort from president obama offering to for years of community college. they're asking if proposals like that will affect your college's revenue. guest: we hope not. we have a similar program in tennessee that goes into effect as fall. to this point, we are not showing any ill effects of students having an opportunity now to go to community college free of charge. we believe we will still be able to recruit, track, and retrain the students we have

always recruited attracted, and retained. we can connect with these committee colleges and make sure we have the kinds of articulation agreements to allow students to move smoothly and seamlessly from community college to our institutions that we will all be better off as a result. if the program that president obama is proposing will actually bring more students into college than we otherwise would have rather than having students choose not to go to a four your institution-year institution, i think we will be fine. host: your endowment is $20 million. is that a concern going forward? guest: it absolutely is. we know we need to grow the endowment. we have instituted a whole host

of plans to get that endowment to where it needs to be. we know we will be able to get to where we need to be. the endowment certainly has to be grown. host: from new haven, connecticut. go ahead. caller: i want to apologize for the gentleman before who was very rude. i have two comments in reference to the race issue. do you believe that hinders -- like the other general and had said, do you think they should continue to be historically black colleges? the reason these colleges sprung up was because of our lighter skinned brothers and sisters who denied his education, so we had to provide education for

ourselves. they need to understand that. the second question was, do you have any job openings for a phd with african-american studies and english? [laughter] guest: first of all, your last question first. we absolutely do. the english piece is where we are actually looking for someone, so we would like to have that resume. when it comes to the race issue, we believe we should have diversity. it is important. we need to also be an anchor to most of our communities across the country. i think about north nashville and what we mean to this community. and what we mean to african-americans in this community. we provide an opportunity that

we might not have if we were not here. we are always trying to contribute to the greater society, but we have a response ability to the smaller society as well, if you like. our notion has been that we have to make sure that all of our citizens are well educated and all of our citizens have the opportunities that are afforded to us as americans. host: you talked about your role in stem education. someone on twitter says how should black colleges address the issue to make humanities more relevant. is there a shift away from the humanities to more of these sciences and skills fields of study? guest: i think maybe there is. some of the discussion we are having right now about the value proposition of colleges and about employment and how much

money you make a soon as you get out of college, i think that is fueling that whole notion as well. that you have to be in the stem areas if you want to be a productive citizen. obviously, that could not be further from the truth. we believe in the whole person and developing the whole person and focusing on the intellectual skills first and foremost. if we developed the skills the way we must, those professional skill sets that change over time will be adaptable. we will not have a problem with those. we are really proud of what we have been able to do to zero in an highlight the importance of humanity. especially here at fisk. our students who studied art in the music business, a whole host of sciences as well and humanities, they wind up better prepared to be able to lead the

world. they are better prepared to adapt to a dynamic environment. they will then be the leaders as we move through time. we believe we do a good job of providing those folks the opportunities to make a real difference in the world. if you have attended and hbc u 202 -- caller: when he was going to talk about diversity, i was hoping you would mention the great diversity within the black community itself. is the people that are straight black americans -- you see people that are straight black americans and people from around the globe that come to hbcu.

i was wondering about the impact of the hjbcu in the community that may be denied access to jobs and income otherwise and how hbcu's are such a great help to the black community especially throughout the south. how can an alumni network be built or how should it be built to help build your endowment that you spoke of earlier? guest: i think i got the gist of that. our alums are very committed to our university. i will say that of fisk and

most hbcu's. we know they will be supportive and we can get to where we need to go with the endowment. host: from indiana, here is brian. go ahead. caller: good morning resident williams, how are you doing today? guest: i am doing well. caller: i want to encourage you to keep up the good work, but i encourage you to please reach out to a program here in the city of indianapolis called center for leadership development that prepares high school students for college curriculums. it is a gold mine here. i was in attendance at a gala last year with a gave a scholarship for someone. being a proud alum of fisk, i encourage you to reach out.

it is run by dennis bland. thank you. guest: center for leadership development. i got it i got it. thank you. host: how did you end up the president of fisk university? guest: what i tell young folks all the time is they need to work hard at whatever you are doing whenever you do it. they you to keep an open mind open eyes, and an open heart and you need to follow where the lord leads you. i took the securities around here and all the studies and education and experiences i have had in the past. they have prepared me well to serve as president here at fisk university. it was not a great divine plan of mine to be a president of any

university. as i progressed through time and as i learned and gained experience, i realized i do have an opportunity to make a contribution. that is what i am trying to do here at fisk. host: charles from buffalo, new york. go ahead please. caller: thank you very much. this series has been outstanding. to dr. williams, first of all, thanks for the work. i probably have as much hair -- we share the same hair malady. my question to you is how amongst the leadership and executive level of do we foster or encourage a broader participation so they look at us

as viable institutions for not only educating but also providing a group of individual supportive of the american system of economics education as well as social acumen. had we go about increasing the number of people looking at our institutions and sending their children and others to participate? host: thank you. guest: i think we need to make sure that first of all we are making ourselves as competitive as we need to be. that we are providing the cutting edge education that prepares young folks to not only be able to go into the job market, but to be true leaders for their communities. i think we have done a good job of that to this point. i think we need to do more of that. when need to tell our story more broadly -- we need to tell our

story more broadly and more aggressively perhaps so people can understand who we are, what we are, and what we are doing here. i am really proud to say that our young folks here at fisk have not lost that edge. they understand their responsibility -- and the response ability inherentthe responsibility inherent on those who have received an education. host: from judy in virginia beach, virginia. you are on. go ahead. caller: yes, i wanted dr. williams two comments on -- to comment on the historically black colleges and universities. i attended knoxville college in tennessee. i have two brothers who attended

virginia state and graduated from there. i have no problems with my grade point average, but theirs were not high. they were provided an opportunity to go to school, obtain their college degree without having any problems getting in. guest: first of all, i think one of the major advantages is you just have a community that provides a comfort level for a lot of students who come to work with us. that us -- there is something to be said of that. i think that is why students go to georgetown and notre dame. they feel a comfort level in that environment because they have grown up in those kind of environments. one of the major advantages is that in the historically black

colleges and universities, when we went to north carolina central university and the faculty members said to us that we did not do this well enough. -- because of the subtle racism that still goes on in this country sometimes students wind up saying i did better because i am black or because i'm african-american i got a lower grade. you rarely have those kind of situations to confront you. by and large is the whole notion of this is an environment with which i am comfortable so i can

learn better. i can zero in on educating myself the way i need to. host: joining us on the c-span buzz, h. james williams -- c-span bus, h. james williams the president of fisk university . thank you. caller: thank you. --guest: to guest: thank you. host: a hearing being held on the top of vaccinations and preventable diseases. we will go to that hearing about to start.

>> will each have an opening statement and we will enters our panel of witnesses. senators will each have five minutes of questions. we have to panelists today -- two panelists today. we will end about noon. we will have an hour for each panel and i will and the first panel at 11:00.