metcalf. he will talk about the personal e-mail server used by hillary clinton and what it demonstrates about transparency and availability of government information. ♪ host: house republicans plan to release their version of the budget today that would partly privatize medicare, turn medicaid into a block grant, and as more war operations fence department's budget. -- to the defense department budget. you can see that on www.c-span.org. overseas general elections take late today in israel for a new 120 member parliament. the jerusalem post reporting a high turnout. and looking at the iran nuclear

negotiations, iran did ask about that letter. and last night, the one who spearheaded that that letter took to the floor to express concerns over iran's nuclear program. when it comes to the role congress should have in this process in doing with the wrong nuclear program, we want to ask our first 45 minutes how much influence congress should have over the process. the numbers are on the screen. you can make this conversation happen on our social media channels as well. the "new york times" highlights negotiations currently taking

place with the p5 plus one as it is known. according to this headline out of switzerland, iranians did ask secretary kerry about that letter. here is the response from the iranian foreign minister. an organization known as you gov

put out a survey about the letter. never asked whether it was appropriate or not for those republicans to write the letter. 42% responded that it was not appropriate, 20th percent said it was, and 31% said they were not sure. -- 28% said it was and 31% said they were not sure. and there was division on who could be trusted more with 36% saying they trusted the president more, while 31% prefer republicans, and about 33% of those undecided. when it comes to congress's role in the negotiating program -- the negotiation over the nuclear program, how much influence do you feel they should have? the numbers are on the screen.

again, you can post on twitter and facebook and send us an e-mail. the council on foreign relations in the briefing paper was talking about the current role congress has in treaties. the executive branch negotiates treaties and it must be approved in a two thirds vote for can be ratified.

there you go as a matter of a set up as far as the process. we want to get your thoughts on the role of congress in the process. peter, good morning. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: the comment i want to make is if the congress really wanted to make a statement reflecting the feelings of the american people to the iranian government, they could have done it in two ways. take a full-page ad in the new york times publishing that letter, or number two reconstituting the draft for boys and girls over 18. that will let the iranian government know the united states was really serious about these negotiations. host: let me ask you for

follow-up on that when you talk about the page ad, iraq -- why that route? why would that be effective? caller: because the new york times is situated -- is distributed throughout the world. it is serious commentary and political and social and geological terms. incidentally my grandfather was a representative of china to the versailles treaty conference. host: so you've heard of the senate role even back then. you mentioned the draft. why would that be an appropriate route? caller: it would solve a lot of social and economic problems that the united states suffering now. i was also drafted as a tourist visa student in 1948 in the korean war.

i think it had a very supreme effect on my life as a student and as a young person. host: that is peter from mechanicsville, maryland. this is oral on our independent line. go ahead. -- this is earl. caller: i generally agree with most republicans on this issue on -- these issues, but i think it was inappropriate for them to send a letter to iran for the president was able to finish negotiating that treaty. host: do you think it has a lot of influence as farce the process concerned? caller: obviously, because they are putting their nose in it and iran has already sent a letter back. i was a, it has put something in there -- obviously, it has put something in there to mess up the deal. host: los angeles, california

republican line. here is jack. caller: good morning. i'm jack strickland. first of all i'm calling from bel air california, but i'm originally from philadelphia specifically west philadelphia. i was discussing this issue with a friend of mine recently while i was in philly. some point during the conversation, a couple of guys who were up to no good essentially causing trouble in my neighborhood. got in one little fight and my aunt -- and my mom said i had to move to bel air. host: again the iran nuclear negotiation. call if you want to give your thoughts in the process. the numbers are on the screen.

if you want to reach out to us on twitter, or e-mail or a post on our facebook page. one of the things also coming out of papers today aside from foreign policy's domestic policy. this is robert pear talking about the numbers released by the federal government when it comes to those who are insured. the headline says a large drop is reported in uninsured.

president obama recently did an interview with an organization known as vice media. they talked about a lot of things, particularly about iran, and they talked about the process and his thoughts on the letter on the process. [video clip] >> i'm committed -- president obama: the absolute best result vision is a diplomatic resolution. and if we do get that, it'll be that i can verify they do not have a nuclear weapon and i will be working with the

international community to verify that. we can have that debate. for them to address a letter to the ayatollah, the supreme leader of iran, with they claim is our mortal enemy and their basic argument to then is, don't deal with our president because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement, that is close to unprecedented. host: again that is an interview that was conducted with the vice news. you can find more on their website. darrell is in alabama, independent line. we are talking about the role of congress in these iran negotiations. what do you think you -- what do you think? caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. americans forget that these negotiations are being done under the off as of the un security council, which we

ratified. and all agreements that are made under such negotiations are binding on us. in my opinion, it would be great, i think, for congress to have some say. but legally, they really don't have any say. host: lamont's in ohio, democrat line. thanks for calling. caller: good morning. my comment is this. it's not really about the different parts of government having to follow each other. the real issue is that president obama is a black man. as far as congress and the

president not on the same page, it's really about race. anything that he tried to do, they're going to make sure that entails. host: a tweet this morning saying front -- congress has the final say on negotiating the treaty. missouri, independent line. cap, go ahead. caller: good morning. we were just watching tbn commenting on whether or not the senators shouldn't send the letter -- should have sent the letter to iran. we have kind of bounce back and forth. but it's things like everybody has gone out of because additional lines -- it seems like everybody has gone out of the constitutional lines. this is such an important situation to educate the world let alone the people of the

united states -- about half of us have no clue as to what is going on. i think the attention brought it to the top, and everybody now is at least talking about it. if we don't get this one right our kids are in a lot of trouble. host: what do you think about this letter? i know you were talking about it. ultimately, how much do you want to see congress involved in this? caller: i want congress involved in everything 100%. i don't think the president has the final say on something so important. i think he's doing a lot of good things, but i don't he should be going around congress. our government was not set up that way. everything now, judicial congress, presidential, every new so political and everything is falling apart and nothing is getting done. that is what these elections are about now.

we are teeter tottering on whether or not our nation is going to survive. i spent three years in the navy during the vietnam war. 58,000 of us got killed and nobody could care less about that. and here we have the kids getting killed in iraq afghanistan, etc. and nobody seems to care about the politics on both sides. they seemed to bounce back and forth. if it was their kids and their families getting killed, i think things would be a little different. anyway, there is my two cents. i hope everything turns out all right. host: task from missouri -- that was passed from missouri. here is another tweet from rick. you may agree or disagree or weigh in on the role that congress should play.

even as this goes on overseas plenty of activity here on capitol hill. particularly the senate. neil laszewski from cq will call joins us. he is a staff writer. good morning mr. liszewski. guest: good morning. host: what happens in the senate this week echoed -- this week? guest: when it comes to the war authorization for isis, we're kind of in the waiting point in the senate. the big action on that one come i believe, is in the house this week. there is scheduled to be a hearing at the house armed services committee, as best i

can recall. we are waiting in the senate to figure out exactly how we can possibly put together, if the senators can, some kind of agreement where we can actually get the votes that are required in order to be able to put together any sort of plan that can even get out of the committee on foreign relations with bipartisan support. at the hearing last week, there was very little evidence of that. what we are kind of looking for this week, and probably people on the senate side will be looking for it as well, watching to see if anything goes differently tomorrow at the house armed services committee when general dempsey and secretary carter are over there or if it is sort of a repeat of

what we saw in the senate last week. host: is there a significant amount of distance between both the senate and the house on their approaches to this issue? guest: there seems to be significant amount of distance between democrats and republicans and the white house generally. while it is plausible, i suppose, that you could see some sort of authorization that could come out of the house with a partisan vote, there doesn't seem to be anything that could get a broad consensus. i don't know that whatever might be originating out of the house wouldn't even be too broad for the obama administration. one of the big problems that they've had so far is this question of whether or not ground troops should be excluded

from the consideration as part of this authorization. many people do not want, particularly republicans, to tie the hands of the president in this affect? -- in this affect. host: one of the editorials in the "new york times" this morning goes on to the loretto confirmation -- the loretto lynch confirmation mess. where do we stand on this? guest: there's a bit of a knot right now. i don't think people saw it until over the weekend when the jordin leader mitch mcconnell made an appearance of one of the sunday morning news programs -- the majority leader mitch

mcconnell made an appearance on one of the sunday morning news programs. speaking of the effectiveness of the trafficking bill, which was something that was initially thought to have broad support was able to move to the senate and off the floor. today, coming up about 11:00 a.m., we will see senators having a procedural vote, a debate cutting off a filibuster on the democratic side in this case on that bill to address human trafficking. but there's no sign that the vote will get the 60 votes that are needed, because of this debate going on over a provision that bars the use of funds provided in the bill for abortions. and once you get abortion politics into the pot on just about any issue, it seems, you

will run into a problem getting the 60 vote magic number. it's possible that these cloture votes, in fact, they are expected to fail today, which would leave open the question as to whether or not loretto lynch -- loretta lynch, the current district attorney in new york gets called up for a vote at all. looking ahead on the congressional calendar, next week is, in fact, consumed by the budget resolution, as it is expected to be, as my story in this morning's rollcall notes. and if that's the case, then congress is gone for two weeks for the spring recess that has easter right in the middle of it. and then there's the possibility that lynch does not see the light of day on the floor until

mid to late april. host: the senate budget, how does it compare to what republicans are expected to unveil today? guest: the senate budget resolution has been -- is going to be somewhat different from what their house counterparts are offering up. although the key, i think, in the senate budget is going to be how they handle this question of how the caps on spending for defense might potentially be elevated. there is some significant concern with a segment of republican lawmakers that the budget numbers for defense and national security are simply not high enough. they were all sorts of proposals about how to be able to plus of that number, whether it is

borrowing from future years, spending in effect, or using some other maneuvering in the fed balance sheet. that will be the big question, because of course, with republicans now in control of the senate, they need to find at least 51 republicans ultimately by the end of next week, who will vote for the budget resolution. that is the new challenge for the committee chairman. host: mr. love new ski, thanks. our talks have been on the role of congress and how much it was they should have on negotiations with iran. joe from democrats line. caller: hi, so disrespectful to interrupt the negotiations. i'm sure congress should have gone a about it in a different way.

i wish they would at least have the respect to contact this president, who is played by the rules from day one. who tried his best and has continued to try his best to dig out of a hole that a lot of republicans and the last president got us into. it was disrespectful and disruptive. it shows the first african-american president to appear weak by americans. that is my opinion. i'm just so sad by this. host: artie is next, from new york, democrats line. caller: pedro, how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i've got the feeling

that this is personally, church-based. you know, these evangelical extremists in our government today is a serious threat to our security. it's a very dangerous move by these senators. there should be repercussions. host: michael from atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning to you. my point is not about republicans, you know, a budget for cakes and racist haters. my point is about democrats white democrats. host: michael, are you there you go -- are you there? caller: yes, i was just saying, my point is about the democrats.

i'm a black president. they should be standing behind the president and not being torn apart. host: would you think about the iran process. do you think they have taken enough of a stand on this process? caller: what i'm saying is that they have left him in the wind. if it was george bush republicans would be up in arms. host: next call from new york, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro and good morning listeners. i'm an american of iranian heritage. first, i would like to say that the republican senators really went way beyond their bounds to establish directly a song with the ayatollah oh -- direct liaison with the ayatollah over there. they should not have done that. they should have allowed the president to do is due diligence to the end.

as far as the prime minister's concern, it's really not called for. he went beyond interfering in internal affairs. it's the only superpower in the world and he should not have been invited. i hope we will get this nuclear issue behind us. because ironically, as unpopular and undemocratic the current government is in iran domestically, they are the only ones that have done anything in the past 35 years. it is the effort led by republicans that has put us into two wars that are not ending and cost trillions of dollars, thousands of americans dead, and hundreds of thousands of locals are dead or injured. host: if you're from kc on our republican line.

westminster, massachusetts. caller: good morning. first-time caller, super excited to be on c-span. i just want to remind the nation, and anyone else, congress is a coequal branch of government. i think of seen the president lately asked -- acting with total autonomy and little respect for the bounds of power in the country. host: casey, do you think ultimately congress should have a say in these talks, even if there is not a deal that comes out of it? caller: without a doubt. people elect congress and it is a coequal branch of government. the president needs to be reminded of that. the letter may be partly that reminder. host: you heard our guest talk about the senate version of a

budget. according to this write up in the "new york times," the store reports that it was spending a medicaid cuts substantially over 10 years. that is scheduled for release at 10:30 a.m. today and we will stream it at our website www.c-span.org. let's hear from janice from colorado on our independent line about the role of congress, how much influence they should have. janice, high, go ahead. caller: i think they should all be working hand-in-hand. this is some of the most ridiculous politics that is

played all the time, i guess. the president for policies are not that terrific. somebody needs to be keeping an eye on them -- foreign policies are not that terrific. somebody needs to be keeping an eye on them. and i get so tired of people saying that they disagree with his policies because he's a black man. guess what, he's half white. i think congress should be involved in it. it's like with health care. if you like your policy, you can keep your policy. well nobody knows what's in this agreement, and opening new what was in the health care law either. it just seems really ridiculous. netanyahu said the best thing, the most telling thing. he said that iran is not using it nukes for israel, because they can hit them right now. they got their eye on us here in the united faith, because they

cannot hit us yet. that was very -- the united states, because they cannot hit us yet. that was very telling. host: on the floor yesterday, several reactions to the letter that was said. senator tom cotton went on the floor, and also republican dan coats, republican from indiana, talking about why he did not sign the letter. [video clip] >> senator coats. -- senator coates: i think most senators are in agreement over the overall objective of avoiding a bad deal with iran, but the said -- but the strategy that we need to accomplish is in question. and we are divided now in a way that makes the school harder to achieve -- makes this goal harder to achieve. host: senator dan coats weighing

in. on twitter -- here is henry from south carolina. our independent line, henry, go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm a 60-year-old man, and the truth of the matter is like one caller said earlier we skirt around this. i've never ever seen a president treated like this president. can you imagine that congress -- if congress had gone around reagan when he was negotiating with the soviet union? this president, if you look at the way he was treated since day one, they got together and talk about how they would defeat them. it not only affects america, but

look at what is happening in the eyes of foreign fully -- foreign people. we have a nation that will sit down at the table with america and seriously negotiating, and you have a senator that has been in the congress only 60 days. he is still fresh. he doesn't know people like george carey and everything. and if you -- according to secretary kerry, congress has been briefed. any to stop acting like this is not about disagreeing with the president's policies. no president in my lifetime has been treated like this man has been treated, and everybody knows it. but we are afraid to talk about it. host: james is net. caller: i want to follow up on the last caller.

as african americans, we have been in this country longer than anybody other than the indians. this is straight races. this president has been disrespected from day one. when america realizes that among -- that, we can then did with the truth. host: senator tom cotton, the one that received a lot of news because of the one that -- the letter that other senators signed onto took to the floor yesterday. it was his very first floor speech, but he did talk about other issues as well as iran and his concerns over it. [video clip] senator cotton: the threat of radicalism in -- my thoughts on the nuclear negotiations are

well known and need not be rehearsed at length here. i will send the note that the foreshadowing of the present allowing iran to have enrichment capabilities and accepting an expression date on any agreement, to quote from benjamin netanyahu, it doesn't block iran's cap to the bomb but paves their path to the bomb. host: if you want to see the full floor speech by senator tom cotton, go to our website www.c-span.org. back to your calls. the topic of how much influence congress should have on negotiations with iran, decatur alabama, democrat line. here is robin caller:. good morning -- here is robin. caller: good morning. i personally think the letter was very inappropriate.

for the congressman to do that you know, they want to be involved in this negotiation and have's and say so. there are other countries involved other than america. they want to have so much say so in this, and they cannot even sit down and pass a deal that would benefit america. they are so partisan. i'm not sure -- not saying that they should have some -- i'm not saying they shouldn't have some say so. the we are not the only country negotiating. is this not an agreement instead of a treaty? host: zach from vermont democrat line. go ahead. caller: i would like to make two

or three different points. the first one i would like to make is that this letter that congress sent to iran, you know in in difference to the president, this is evidence of racism in this country. and second i would like to make a statement and rebuttal to the other caller that made the statement about the president being half white and half black. she is correct. the president is -- is half white and half black, but he identifies himself as african-americans. that is irrelevant. he identifies as african-american, so they should respect him. host: to the point of the discussion of the influence of congress in this process, what is your comfort level as far as how much they should be involved? caller: that's what i'm trying to say. he's doing it -- they are doing

it because he's black. they don't even like him being president. the point i'm trying to make is that black people in the united states need to wake up and smell the coffee. this is evidence of racism. you've got all these different incidents happening in this country. he has been struggling as a president in his two terms. he cannot make anything that he tries to pass -- congress, they won't approve it. he's made executive orders and everything. but they still don't want to recognize that it's racism motivating this. everybody's trying to ignore the point, the actual problem. they don't want to go back to the problem. the problem is that these are traces of racism, traces of slavery in this country. host: mike is from michigan

independent line. caller: i've been watching c-span for a while, and today it seems to be really bad. you are getting a lot of democratic caller's calling into cannot seem to focus in, you know, on the right of -- they cannot focus on anything regarding the issue of the topic. everybody wants is it at the only reason republicans have anything to say about any news because of the presidents race. -- the president's rates. it's getting embarrassing where in country everything is blocked by the color of skin. we are not allowed to have intellectual progress or political progress. we cannot do anything because everyone has to focus on this man's skin color. it's embarrassing that they are winning the argument. no one is allowed to make any sort of reasonable comment or

any sort of progress toward anything because democrats and blacks are constantly saying oh, they are racist. this has nothing to do with skin color. nobody has ever mentioned obama's skin color when arguing about his overseas, unless they were black or democrat and defending them. host: mike, as far as the iran negotiations and influence of congress, what do you think about that? how much do you want to see congress involved in this process? caller: i think it's find it they said that. congress and the senate and the president, they've all been fighting since day one. that's why we have the three powers, so they can keep each other in check. they are going to have conflict. but to reduce everything to an argument about skin color is embarrassing for the nation. we need to get past this. republicans have moved on.

the people that the democrats are complaining about started dying out in the 60's. they are talking about a fantasy that has not existed for a long, long time for we made it through the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, and a -- there was plenty of racial harmony. and now suddenly, al sharpton comes along and everything is about race. host: virginia, in pennsylvania republican line. you are next. caller: who negotiate with terrorists? i can't even understand why there is negotiations going on. the man wants to destroy our country and israel. the whole thing is ridiculous. and about racism, the way to solve that is for every job there should be one of every color. and make everything fair and the

country will run a lot better. host: from robbins, illinois, tyrone is next. democrats line. caller: hi, i'm responding because i'm saddened that republicans have written the letter, but in as a just they have written this letter to the iranians, to me, that is an insult. did the iranians ever respond to their letter? host: it was briefly mentioned and the papers reported today was briefly mentioned in the negotiating process in switzerland. the iranian foreign minister somewhat commenting on it and then asking for more clarification on the u.s. position. caller: i see. thank you. host: william, louisville kentucky got independent line. caller: i've been calling in on this program is . i have not called in for a long time. a lot of the people calling it today, let me tell the people calling you today, congress is

an equal branch of government. it's not above the president but not below. it's an equal branch of government. and as far as centrifuges go you know what iran is doing. they could behind them all over the place. they could be buying nuclear material from north korea, from china. what do you think they are building intercontinental holistic missiles and regular missiles for? they are building those missiles for the singular purpose of housing the other weapons. -- housing nuclear weapons. anybody with any degree of thought would know that. what on earth are they building up for? ask yourself that. and let's forget about this nonsense about race. for god sake, it's in what is

the best interest of this country. as long as they start -- keep building these missiles, it doesn't matter about the agreement you come to. i keep thinking of hitler and -- they will sign whatever agreement you want and then violate it. host: looking at the "wall street journal" as far as looking at the timing of moving up fed interest rates.

john, illinois, democrats line. caller: pedro, i've got a topic for you. you should tie the violence and disrespect that is going coast-to-coast across this country, tie that to when the congressman said you lie to the president, he called him a liar. tied at to the topic and see what response you get from the listeners. the guy for michigan must be living in a cave. the person for -- from kentucky must have been smoking pot for 100 years. if this ain't a racist issue you guys are all living in a cave. make that a topic and see what response you get from the white republicans. thank you, pedro. god bless america. host: the post reporting on the

elections in israel today, the general elections deciding the new parliament. that is designed to union portion of israel's parliament. there's the prime minister casting his vote. and as it plays out, we see what happens as far as the results are concerned. there is the prime minister casting his vote. coming up, we will talk with two legislators this morning. the first will be steve king republican from iowa. we will talk about the budget being issued today and iran and egypt.

and we will talk to brad sherman, democrat from california. in case you missed it yesterday, the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee held a hearing on in reducing improper payments by reviewing death records by the social security administration. one of those was the inspector general, who testified on this process. here's a little bit of it. inspector general: my office investigate hundreds of cases of security -- social security issues every year, but recently once it out from the rest. a man opened to bank accounts with social security never said belonged to people born in 1886 and 1893. we can safely assume these people, who today would be 129, and 122 years of age are

deceased. however, according to the database of social security number holders, these people are alive. they are living in the sense that ssa does not have dates of death for either person or number of older records. our auditors found out these two records are anything but unique. we recently reported that 6.5 million people whose social security records indicate they are over 120 years old do not have a gate of death on the social security number record. without a date of death on the ssa database, these people do not appear on the master file. i should note that none of these agent holders are improperly receiving benefits and overpayments are not occurring. but these inaccuracies create a significant voice in the ssa death data -- a significant void in the ssa death data available to the public. this is relevant to today's

discussion on improper payments, because benefits from aged and irs and other popular -- public and private entities identify inaccuracy. the recovery improvement act of 2012 included a do not pay provision, which requires a list of eligible individuals before making payments. to identify and prevent its own and other agencies improper payments ssa must collect and maintain accurate death records. it's equally important to ensure living individuals are not deceased in ssa's records. there are 1000 cases each month in which a living individual is mistakenly included on the death masterfile. ssa moves quickly to correct the situation whenever it occurs. the agency reports it has not found evidence of past data misuse. however, we may -- we remain

concerned that it could lead to financial hardship and distress to those affected. host: if you want to see more of that hearing, taking a look at those records of the social security administration, go to our website at www.c-span.org. the whole hearing is posted there. joining us now, republican steve king, representative of iowa joining us, just back from egypt. what took you their? guest: it was a delegation that was planned and put together by the subcommittee chairman of foreign affairs. we put this together -- we put this off for some weeks or months. i have visited egypt several times now. and it was --assisi.

they have done a lot to keep their promises including draft a constitution ratifiy a constitution and elect a president. now it looks like egypt has a plan. egypt has a plan to move themselves into the 21st century. it will be difficult to achieve, of course, but you have to have vision in order to achieve. i was very happy to be there in the conference and meet with a number of other visitors -- ministers and ambassadors as well. late onset or a night, president assisi saved it -- late on saturday night president assisi saved is so we could talk with us. we had a long discussion. host: what about isis?

did you discuss any of that with him? guest: we did. i was very impressed with him. i compared america being under attack from all corners by isis and radical islamists and his statement was, well, they are surrounded by it and it is internal for them as well. the safest border they have is to see itself. he needs american equipment -- the we have a contract to deliver apache helicopters to them. those are now been delivered. there are some parts that have not been delivered. and some increment doesn't life it does not parts first -- it doesn't have certain parts.

there are political reasons for this not happening in a timely fashion. in that absence, the egyptians have struck a deal with the russians to buy $3.2 billion worth of equipment. i took -- i talked to the state department about that and they said that the egyptians are have any money and the russians don't have any permit to give away, so don't worry about that. well, now they have done that. they are diversifying because they don't have the confidence in us. and our relationship with egypt has gone down dramatically. we are trying to hold that down to -- hold that down together. egypt is not only the key to peace in the middle east, but i believe it is how we address it -- address radicalism in the long-term. host: what should the united states be doing instead of what they are doing? guest: the obama administration

stood up morsi, and they were committed to morsi, who was a member of the muslim brotherhood. and when people came out in the street, 33 million strong, and demanded they get their country back, the of ministration found themselves 180 degrees off with the people of egypt. they have to turn this ship around and get behind the newly affect -- the newly elected assisi. that is what needs to happen, so there is support again for the egyptian people. my message and the message of my delegation is, we do not support as americans the muslim brotherhood. we support the egyptian people and the government elected by them. i know they will resist sharia law and move egypt into the western world more so than they are today, and move into the 21st century with finances technology, innovation

education, all of the things necessary for them to be a prosperous nation. host: the of steve king of iowa talking about foreign relations and other issues. if you want to ask him questions , the numbers are on the screen. there are those in the united states that would want to see egypt doing more promoting democracy and human rights. are they doing enough and is that a concern for you? guest: i hear the criticism and yes, i have a concert, but instead i think we need to hear more about what they have done. -- i have a concern, but instead i think we need to hear more about what they have done. there were several christian churches burnt in the last two or three years. they wrote in the constitution that not only can they reveal these churches, but a lot of them are being rebuilt with

egyptian taxpayer money. and they opened them up so that new christian churches can be built in egypt. the core of christianity has a much greater respect in this constitution than it did have under the morsi regime. i was able to meet with and congratulate mr. moussa, who was the chairman of the constitution committee. he wrote a lot of that into the constitution. i think they have done a lot for human rights and i'm confident they will start moving egypt into that more moderate, western -- and let me make a statement here. it is broad and i think it has meaning. we watched as ataturk came to power in the aftermath of the ottoman empire. he moved turkey into the western part of the world, at least as a bridge between east and the west. we have seen them drift back the other way in the past few years under air to one e --rdogan.

i think egypt could help move them back in the way. host: the washington post talked about president el-sisi, talking about a couple of bloggers. and they talked about the new law. guest: well, if you look at canada, they prosecute people for hate speech. that happens across europe, too. this site which is not seem to need to be more serious than the rest of what is out in the world. maybe the post is comparing america's constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and speech and assembly to what is going on right now.

i don't advocate for restrictions on speech or activity but they also have a security circumstance there. there have been hundreds that have been killed in egypt in this civil strife. let's give them a little bit of time and see how this get stabilized. i know the muslim brotherhood they were seated in the front row on june 4, 2009, when president obama gave his speech of the university of cairo. that sent a message to the egyptian people that this administration support the muslim brotherhood. that is the biggest concern in each of right now, the message about the united case and whether or not we support -- the united states and whether or not we support the egyptian people or the muslim brotherhood. i'm more concerned about that then -- than the concern about freedom of speech that might not be quite to american standards today. stabilizing egypt is more important right now. and let's go on and push for the freedom of speech and assembly.

host: john from pennsylvania republican line. you are up first for our guest. caller: good morning. they give for taking my call. happy in patrick's day. it's a true honor. you are one of my favorite congressman, congressman king. i have a few comments if i might. i will try to be brief. i have been quite disappointed with the leaders of the party the speaker and the senatorial leader mcconnell. it's as though they did not -- they use the issue of immigration, illegal immigration and the amnesty, the unconstitutional immigration action the president took and use it as an election tool. and then when they get elected they effectively just drop it. as far as i'm concerned, it should be the number one issue.

politicians have to learn that if they are not going to follow through, why would people want to go to the polls to vote? republicans lost a lot of voters , traditional republican voters in 2012 because they just weren't motivated. republicans are not advocating for them. senator sessions is a fantastic spokesman for our cause, so to speak. i strongly feel it is time for resolution in the dear joe. -- doho. the american intelligence agencies put out a report and they concluded that iran does not have nuclear weapons. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your your i

should be brief. first of all, with regard to amnesty, i don't think this is a question. they should go back to the original policy and memos.

each of us, in the house and senate -- these are lawless decisions. there are threeeach of us, in the house and senate -- these are lawless decisions. there are three equal branches of government. they envision each grants of -- -- branch of government through the constitution. the president of the united states actively usurped article one. all legislative powers.

i have hope for the constitution. i'm troubled.

i'm very concerned. it is an existential threat to israel, but also the world. troubled. i'm very concerned. it is an existential threat to israel, but also the world. i think a lot of the world is at great risk. caller: good morning. you -- we are having a hard time over here. when are you going to get together and help us? the black man and the poor person is hurting. we need jobs. answer me on that. we are hurting. guest: thanks for calling in. it is a broader map. western civilization. what will we do about jobs for this country is another part of your question. there are, right now 93 million

americans of wosome are retired. that takes jobs away from everyone.

it's -- any job where the law on immigration is in force, that opens up a job for an american green card holder, or immigrant.

force, that opens up a job for an american green card holder, or immigrant. we tighten up our immigration gradually in the process of doing so, the labor market gets tighter. and jobs are available to more american people. that is how we increase the average annual gdp per capita. that is what we should be doing and public policy. host: house republicans are expected to unveil their budget. they are saying it would partly privatize medicare. what do you think of the approaches? guest: i support them generally. . what do you think of the approaches? guest: i support them generally. of course, i am the author of the repeal obamacare. the first draft goes back to 2010. the obamacare piece of it is costing hundreds of billions of

dollars. it is hurting people. we have lost all the time that we could have been improving our health care system in the united states with this administrative behemoth that reduces resources. i will continue down that path. that repeal, by the way, past the house. that repeal, by the way, past the house. now, i would like to see the senate take up the repeal. then, with medicaid to the states. the states will do a better job of managing the resources. i think that is a very legitimate thing. i recall democratic governors asking congress to grant them a block grant to medicaid. this is bipartisan. i think it is a good approach, a good start. the budget balances by the way.

you won't see that proposed by the president or the other party either. i have long pushed to bring about its budget to the floor. i think it should be a little tighter than this one. i promise the chairman to look for a more conservative bill that balances sooner. i think he has laid a good foundation. host: here is rotting in maryland. independent line. caller: how are you doing third? good morning. mr. king, i have a lot of respect for the years of our government. you start off the conversation -- let's be honest to the people. -- let's be honest to the people. you complain about the muslim brotherhood.

you are saying be president of venezuela bad for locking up political prisoners. this confusion lends itself to us americans being criticized in foreign countries. you have to, at some point in time, -- thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for speaking up. we had different views here. having traveled in and out of egypt several times on a previous trip, the minister was bonds. i see this thing in a different way. egypt is a muslim country. 90% or 91% muslim.

that doesn't mean that they embrace the muslim brotherhood. in fact, they rejected it. 30 million to 33 to 33 million people took to the street starting on june 29, 2013 and pleaded with the military, get our country back. yes, we have had one election,. morsi started implementing law. the egyptian people rose up against it. they didn't want it. in my meaty -- meeting with the president on saturday night he says that that meeting, muslim brotherhoodbrotherhood, wants to impose

that law. they want to impose divine law. he stopped and said sharia law. he tipped his head down. they have a parliament that does not want to accept sharia law. they rejected. you can be a muslim and separate government from religion, at least in theory. if that can happen, we can have a more peaceful world. if the world will always have to deal with islam as if it is coming to impose sharia law on the rest of the world, we will always have to deal with bloodshed and strike. i want to see peace in the world. i want to see peace in the middle east. i want to see a stable region and i see a lot of potential there. host: you talk about your trip to egypt. "roll call" reports that the trip was canceled by seeger boehner. is that the case? guest: it is. i thought was time to move someone in who would protect the institution of the united states

house of representatives from the speaker's chair. that is my prerogative as a seated member of the united states congress. i think michael to uphold the constitution. on the funding that we had touched on, with the funding of homeland security, the funding that was determined to move forward that would fund the president's lawless executive amnesty, i oppose that. this bill that was set up for months was all signed off on certified, the committee chair had also signed. the tickets were bought. everything was punched. the schedule was all there. i had my backpack. i was ready to take assignment -- take a 7:00 flight, and we got the word that the certification have been revoked. that came at 5:15 a.m. the day of us will be taking off at

7:00. one can only came at 5:15 a.m. the day of us will be taking off at 7:00. one can only speculate, it doesn't make sense to rationalize any other way, that the speaker is seeking to impose his will on sovereign congress. host: how was the trip paid for? guest: out of my pocket. host: in this interview, i also used to expand you say there is a growing alliance to perform a coup on speaker boehner. guest: i don't think i said that. if i'm asked to reflect on what is going on, of course those discussions have taken place. host: with whom? guest: those are the kinds of conversations that take place in back rooms. for that reason, those people want to remain anonymous. i think there are about 24 or 25

members. host: republican -- representative steve king us, republican from iowa. caller: good morning, steve. my question is on your researchers egypt. -- on your researchers to egypt. the president of egypt is

building the largest dam in africa. i'm curious how he can tell the people of egypt that nuclear power would it be used on the people of egypt to destroy the dam. i just want to hear your conversation with the president and update on the situation. guest: i miss the little bit of that. anytime that we say to our country you have to guarantee that the military equipment that we send you, or sell you, will not be used against her own people, that is a difficult guaranteed to actually secure.

i think the promise comes pretty easily. but, look at history. and 16 flying over you, will not be used against her own people, that is a difficult guaranteed to actually secure. i think the promise comes pretty easily. but, look at history. and 16 flying over his own people. comes down to the factors, the historical components, the level of trust, and the voters. you have all kinds of modus to defend egypt from radical islamist. he has known authority to attack registered -- attack the egyptian people. when christians were be the headed on the shores of tripoli, it didn't take long for libya to send a message. they were offended by the beheadings. he told the beheadings. he told the beheadings. he told us, this nation cried. we mourned and cried over the 21 christians who were beheaded in libya. i believe that. i looked him in the eye and i believe that. i would say, also, i asked him about a year or so ago, when they were setting up the civilian government, will be civilian governmen -- military take ordersmilitary take orders from a civilian government. his answer was yes we will. i did not have the expectation that he would be the president of the civilian government, but asked them that partly in jest. host: from new york, here is tom. tom is on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. thank you, mr. king. i just want to say thank you very much for sticking to your guns and sticking up for the american people.

my company was put out of my company was put out of business by a legal aliens. i had 25 taxpaying citizens working for me, now they don't have work. there's more work than i've ever seen my life, and it is all being done by a legal -- illegal aliens. i wish someone would take notice and come out here and see what is really going on. i want to thank you very much again, mr. king. i really appreciate it. guest: thank you a lot for calling again. you are living this. i spent my life and the construction business. i started construction company in 1975. we are celebrating our 40th year and construction this year. i sold my business to my older son several years ago. we watch thisi sold my business to

my older son several years ago. we watch this too. i drafted a bill to her three congresses ago called the new idea act. an acronym that stands for the illegal reduction act. it clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for federal income tax reasons. it gives the employee or a safe harbor if you use e-verify to verify that your employees are eligible to work. under a nobody, the irs would come in, run the social security numbers through e-verifyunder a nobody,

the irs would come in, run the social security numbers through e-verify, if it takes them out to say they are lawful to work in the united states, they would look at the wages paid, say y $50,000 paid, it would get switched over to the net income side.

a gives the employer the incentive to clean up his workforce because sooner or later the irs will visit you and it has a six-year statute of limitation. we have some practical things we can do. we need to tighten up the labor supply. we just out. benefits go up when there is a supply. i appreciate what you say. i appreciate your experience. i live it i would like it is some other members of congress would visit you. host: arkansas is up next. here's sam from arkansas. caller: representative keating i have two questions. do you trust netanyahu more than you trust your president of the united states? the other question. why, in the republican party, i want an answer to this, why in the republican party and the talk committees of the republican party, there are no minorities their? why is that? guest:under a nobody, the irs would come in, run the social security numbers through e-verify, if it takes them out to say they are lawful to work in the united states, they would look at the wages paid, say y $50,000 paid, it would get switched over to the net income side. a gives the employer the incentive to clean up his workforce because sooner or later the irs will visit you and it has a six-year statute of limitation. we have some practical things we can do. we need to tighten up the labor supply. we just out. benefits go up when there is a supply. i appreciate what you say. i appreciate your experience. i live it i would like it is some other members of congress would visit you. host: arkansas is up next. here's sam from arkansas. caller: representative keating i have two questions. do you trust netanyahu more than you trust your president of the united states? the other question. why, in the republican party, i want an answer to this, why in the republican party and the talk committees of the republican party, there are no minorities their? why is that? guest: the first one. do i trust prime minister netanyahu more than i trust the president of the united states. that is a broad question. i think you are referring to the iranian nuclear negotiations. under that, i would say i do trust that yahoo! more than i trust the president of united states because he is in the center of it. tel aviv is the number one target of the first nuclear weapon that the iranians could develop. he has a lot more at stake. it is the nexus central threat to israel. it looks to me that the president is so focused on getting an agreement with iran

that does not prevent iran from developing nuclear capability. a may delay it. why there aren't more african-americans within the republicanwhy there aren't more african-americans within the republican leadership and hierarchy? i look around and i see some pretty good ones out there. tim scott and allen west are personal friends of mine. i have seen how conservative african-americans get targeted from liberal african-americans. i think it is more about political ideology and not race. i count those folks as good friends. michael steele was chairman of the party for a long time. he is also a friend and i appreciate the work he has done. i would like to offer to all the conservative african-americans. we need your voice. take three or call. host: the letter sent by the senators. do you think it does long-term harm in negotiation? guest: one of the questions raised about it is if it interferes with foreign policy. when you have a president who has been pulling from congress the authority that is vested with it -- i wanted it to mention that earlier. when congress set, way to set, way to make, if you're going to engage in a treaty, we have a voice on treaties. that is constitutional. i think it is appropriate for the senate to reassert its authority to approve treaties. i figure is also prudent to do so. it keeps us safer. the president has said that the letter is ill-informed. come to congress and inform congress then. then perhaps the letter will not be ill-informed. i has watched as witnesses from the executivei has watched as witnesses

from the executive branch, including cabinet members, have sat down under oath, when there pulled in to testify, and reluctantly given us little pieces of information. sometimes redirected away from what we are seeking to do, often running out the clock. we filibuster here when congress is try to work with the executive branch. they do not see congress as a partner. this government cannot function legitimately unless congress and the executive ranch actually become part is again and work together. host: from wisconsin, jegene. caller: thank you very much st. patrick's day to you. on this immigration thing, i

don't know why it's so hard to figure out the all you have to do is sure all the illegals have to show papers that they are united states citizens. and that they can work in the united states. if they don't, there should be a heavy fine on the company itself. maybe even jail time. this is getting way out of hand. i'm with the guy from new york.

i understand him completely. i have grandchildren looking for jobs earnestly, and cannot find them. besides that, when your forefathers came over, they were about a million people from whatever part thing, i don't know why it's so hard to figure out the all you have to do is sure all the illegals have to show papers that they are united states citizens. and that they can work in the united states. if they don't, there should be a heavy fine on the company itself. maybe even jail time. this is getting way out of hand. i'm with the guy from new york. i understand him completely. i have grandchildren looking for jobs earnestly, and cannot find them. besides that, when your forefathers came over, they were about a million people from whatever part thing, i don't know why it's so hard to figure out the all you have to do is sure all the illegals have to show papers that they are united states citizens. and that they can work in the united states. if they don't, there should be a heavy fine on the company itself. maybe even jail time. this is getting way out of hand. i'm with the guy from new york. i understand him completely. i have grandchildren looking for jobs earnestly, and cannot find them. besides that, when your forefathers came over, they were about a million people from whatever part of europe they came from. i don't understand why there are 12 million or 14 million, how very many are here. guest: thank you. the labor force, your year picks it up much as mine does, and the gentleman from new york. we have anwe have an oversupply of foreign labor. i look back at the time when i was in high school. at that time, you could go to work at a plant in the area and punch the time clock, go to work every day, and by a modest home, send your kids to college. you could live a respectful life. at that time, the wages in the plant paid about as much as a teacher. over time, because of labor pushed into low skill jobs those jobs make half of what i teacher makes. this is replicated around the cou country. there are reasons why illegals out out when americans. they are mobile. they will go to where the jobs are. they have a network that brings their friends and family to fill

jobs. they are quicker action force. they will work for substantially lower wages. also, less liability for the employer. we have to have an administration that willing to enforce the law. i don't know the last time when there was an ice raid on a company that was hiring illegals. this president needs to be committed to enforcing the law. don't know the last time when there was an ice raid on a company that was hiring

illegals. this president needs to be committed to enforcing the law. we have not had a president that is serious about enforcing immigration law in a long time. it has diminished over the years. bill clinton was more effective than george w. bush. george w. bush was more effective than barack obama. thanks for your call. host: and up, maryland. richard. caller: countersinking, -- congressman king, you are consistent. america needs you. guest: thank you. caller: netanyahu, when he came to congress, 16,000 people cheered him on. when he came back, you would have thought god had wanted. -- god had walked in. don't worry about this treaty. here's what's going to happen. you can bet the ranch that carry an administration is going to to walk. they are going to say that iran,

we can't trust them. we will walk from a treaty, and then we will try to turn around and blame it on the republicans for interfering with the treaty with this letter, which was totally insignificant. therefore, israel, who completely controls this country, totally controls this country, -- what you mean controls this country? i want you to put the sign up and congress. there's only one thing better than being a politician. that is owning a politician. this, virtually, congress today -- their campaigns are totally financed by thethis, virtually, congress today -- their campaigns are totally financed by the aipac lobby. therefore, i just want to reiterate again, don't worry about this treaty. it's not going to be signed. you can bet the ranch. carrie and the administration are going to walk and give

excuses that we couldn't get an anti-new treaty, etc.. guest: it it won't be long. we will find out if you are right or not. from my view, some of the influence from aipac is real good. a lot of members of congress are also influenced by other things that have a significant and greater influence than aipac. i am one who supports israel and their independence. i have watched the history of israel from the time i was more or less a young and greater influence than aipac. i am one who supports israel and their independence. i have watched the history of israel from the time i was more or less a young lad, and identified lad, and identified with that country being shaped out by enemies who try to annihilate them from the face of the errors. i watched as arabs within israel have been able to hold property envelope, and are seated on to hold

property envelope, and are seated on the supreme court, and have rights that is really sad. i have watched them as a target. i've watched as the united nations world resolution after resolution that anti-semitism has grown. we thought it was suppressed after world war ii. it has grown. it is significant in europe and it here today. they are a free people. they are the outpost of freedom and democracy in the middle east. america's security and their security are tied together in a lot of ways. if it willing to face down iran i don't think we should the grade the efforts on the part of netanyahu to protect israel. let's see if your prediction is right. i will stand on the positions that i have taken. i've hoping to be reaffirmed -- re-informed. host: is israel changes the structure of parliament, what concerns you have as far as future relations between our countries? guest: i think the relationship

i've hoping to be reaffirmed -- re-informed. host: is israel changes the structure of parliament, what concerns you have as far as future relations between our countries? guest: i think the relationship between the united states and israel, between the apparent new prime minister if and when netanyahu loses, i think that barack obama will have a personal affinity there. israel, between the apparent new prime minister if and when netanyahu loses, i think that barack obama will have a personal affinity there. i think that the opportunity to shut down, and shut off, iran's nuclear capability will be significantly diminish if the shut down, and shut off, iran's nuclear capability will be significantly diminish if the election goes the other way. i'm not as concerned about the short-term relationships between the united states and israel, as i am about the long-term safety and security of the middle east and the free world. i see iran as a term of this thread. right now, it is a great threat to the united states as well. host: this is bob in virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i see iran as a term of this thread. right now, it is a great threat to the united states as well. host: this is bob in virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i was going to say a few things about the job situation, but you know, the people in this country voted the president in twice. not once, but twice. the majority of people. they certainly -- look, after what you said about respecting netanyahu more than the president, i think you are despicable. have a good day. guest: thanks a lot for the complementary comment on this discussion. host: on national security, they're still the issue of the aumf that has to be resolved. what's the approach? what you think is the best approach? guest: i have a draft of the aumf. i'm working with others to develop the house version of the aumf. i viewed this way. the president's proposal on this aumf isi viewed this way.

the president's proposal on this aumf is set a deadline on it. three years. he limits that. no boots on the ground. i don't know why any commander-in-chief would go to congress and say i want less authority to fight our enemies. that is what we are faced with. i look at the amf from 2001, and from 2002, and those cover iraq and afghanistan. essentially, they identify terrorist as our enemy. we are in a situation now where this war on terrorists radical islamic jihadists has gone global. i don't think there any in antarctica yet, but maybe that is next. i think we need an aumf that gives authority to fight this war against radical islamist wherever they might be. i think you need to be broad. a comprehensive approach that allows for cyber where warfare and begins to shut down the

intergenerational hatred that is being taught. i don't have a good plan for that. expand our human intelligence so that it is around the world. build a stronger relationship in support of the kurds. if autonomy is something they are willing to fight for, they will be significant enemy to willing to fight for, they will be significant enemy to

isis, and probably the most significant one. if we do all those things, it diminishes the need for americans to be involved in americans boot -- american boots on the ground. i would not roll rule that out. host: our guest, steve king, joining us. thank you. guest: thanks a lot, pedro. host: we will continue our conversation on foreign affairs with representatives brad sherman of california. that will be coming up. later on in the program, more about the personal server used by hillary clinton. we will talk to daniel metcalfe to daniel metcalfe on complying with the freedom of information act. that as "washington journal" continues on st. patrick's day. we will be right back. ♪

>> this weekend, the c-span cities tour learns about the history and literary life of georgia. >> this was an ironclad builds here in columbus, during the war. those oval shapes the ucr actually begun ports of the jackson. jackson is ironed with six rifles. the particular rifle firing today is one of the guns built particularly for the jackson. it was cast at the selma nabel works in selma, alabama and completed in 1865. the real claim to fame is strictly connected to the fact that there are only four ironcladsthe real claim to fame is

strictly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is here. that is why the facility is here. it's first and foremost, to tell the story of this particular eyeing clad -- ironclad. there were many ironclads. >> watch all of our events from columbus on saturday on c-span's booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now representative brad sherman, democratic from california. good morning to you. guest:est: good morning. host: can you talk a bit about the role of congress in foreign affairs. what are your thoughts? especially as these talks continue to go forward. guest: it might be more

efficient if we had an emperor. we have a constitution. we have a constitution. other countries would prefer to just deal with the president. if you actually look at the constitution, the policies in foreign policy is vested in congress especially when it relates to economics and economic sanctions. the only clause in the constitution because the federal government the right to vest that power is in congress. this differs from the way that people have heard -- steve king was on saying, i thought the constitution vests foreign policy in the president -- no that is just the way we have done things for the last 30 or 40 years. i think we ought to live by the constitution. even if it is inconvenient, or are for and prayed -- our foreign trade partners would

rather just deal with the executive branch. s would rather just deal with the executive branch. policy is vested in congress. host: the statement made by those signing that left in the senate, what do you think about the statement? was the appropriate? guest: first, the letter should have never been sent. the letter should have been sent, perhaps to the president. the president and the secretary of state are negotiating. that the inside, under the agreement on the meaning of treaties ands would rather just deal with the executive branch. policy is vested in congress. host: the statement made by those signing that left in the senate, what do you think about the statement? was the appropriate? guest: first, the letter should have never been sent. the letter should have been sent, perhaps to the president. the president and the secretary of state are negotiating. that the inside, under the agreement on the meaning of treaties and international

agreements, we would be in violation of international law is the president was able to full a foreign country into believing that he had the authority to do something, commit to do it, and he did in fact have that power. it is incumbent on all american presidents to make it clear, although they might prefer, to have bigger powers. and other country might prefer that the president has larger powers. that, the powers of the congress and the congress are described in the constitution. the constitution was never written with the idea of being a worldwide superpower. if the president wants to come to congress and asked us to amend the constitution, give him more power because we need more mp or form if we are going to play and a bureau role, the president is welcome to do that. host: what would you like to see, of the talks? guest: we made the tremendous mistake during the first eight years of this century, we had zero sanctions. congress had aspassed sanctions, and george bush refusedcongress had aspassed sanctions, and george bush refused to enforce them and

violated the law everyday. any hearings, we asked why he was violating, he said, we did not get official notification. they did not want to act. george w. bush said he was israel. are these the, he hates iran. these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama presidency, he has taken the most brilliant and totally effective sanctions strategy. sanctions move slowly. centrifuges move quickly. we finally got serious about sanctions of around 2011. they have had a bit of an effect. not enough of an effect to really take that iranians off their nuclear weapons program. we are in a bad situation. there is no good outcome from where we are now.

that being said, we have to look at the deal and see what comes out of it. my guess is that there's not going to be a deal so complete that the next president is in dealing with this issue. the big problem that we are giving up is even if we try to -- the sanctions we have now, people think, just turn of the sanctions. we are already doing it 100% when it comes to u.s.-iranian relations. we are trying to get other countries to follow our example. if the president wants other countries to impose sanctions, he will have to use threats because it will be very hard to persuade them to do something if this president told him not to do to u.s.-iranian relations. we are trying to get other countries to follow our example. if the president wants other

countries to impose sanctions, he will have to use threats because it will be very hard to persuade them to do something if this president told him not to do that. the big thing that iranians get out of this is the unraveling of international sanctions. they difficult economic threats. host: i guess, representative brad sherman talking about matters of foreign affairs. (202) 748-8000 our life for democrats. (202) 748-8001, line for republicans. (202) 745-8002 independents. go ahead. caller: i want to ask you, do we have a president that walks around on his hands and knees, going around countries and apologizing saying what we've done in this world to make it better? and then, comes back and sanctions are allies -- our allies and pays money to our terrorist? you have nancy pelosi paying

millions of dollars -- what kind of country are we turning into? guest: you know, i didn't hear all that, by think we are turning into the greatest country in the world. i think we are the greatest country in the world. it is very easy for us to argue about this policy, or that policy. i think that when you look at the economic and scientific think we are turning into the greatest country in the world. i think we are the greatest country in the world. it is very easy for us to argue about this policy, or that policy. i think that when you look at the economic and scientific it and technologogical advances in the united states, we have a lot to be out of. host: collin from ohio, you're next. caller: good morning. stephen king was asked whether or not he trusted the president of united states more than he

than he trusts and yahoo!. -- netanyahu. he based his answer on the treaty. i want to know whether or not you, as an american, trust the , as an american, trust the president of the united states more or less than you trust netanyahu? don't predicated on the treaty that has been sabotaged. i want to know whether or not you have more faith in the president of the united states than you do it netanyahu. guest: look. president obama is my president. obviously, it he is our leader. the idea that this is a personality contest, or it issues of favorsits, or trust, i

have a record of voting with the president. i voted with the appropriations bill, the last big moment this boat in congress. the word trust, in terms of this trusting someone, i disagree with just about everyone including my wife. i trust her, but that doesn't mean that if she says this is a good tv program, that i trust her judgment. she may be wrong. the fact is everyone in public affairs is wrong some of the time. as to their position on how to negotiate with the iranians, i think that i would come out probably between the two of them. the biggest problem we have is sanctions work slowly. we did nothing for the first 10

or 11 years of the century. host: is sanctions work slowly and nothing comes out of the deal, aside from sanctions, what other options do we have? guest: you could go to massive sanctions. this is where the letter makes a harmful. if the deal goes nowhere, then you have more persuasive power together with, hopefully more unity to take more economic risks to make more sanctions. they need their spare parts from germany. baby their spare parts from england. if you're going to go to germany and say, you better not sell one replacement part for mercedes truck, or you can't sell mercedes in the united states, you might see how germans would take offense to that. peoplepeople who like mercedes-benz

automobiles here and united states might take offense to that. there may be support any united states. you may be able to have massive additional sanctions. the president says that all options would be military options on the table. iran is pretty close to a nuclear weapon. all of the good ideas they had to be adopted in 2002 and 2000 and 2003. we have a variety of ideas that have allowed them to have obama or are dangerous, either economically or militarily. host: michael is up next. from california. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pegida and represented sherman. representative sherman, if we are tight about middle east policy, what are your thoughts on us, the united eights teaming up with saudi arabia

who beheads people on a monthly basis to fight isis, who beheads people. it sort of seems awkward doesn't it? what do you think? guest: isis, through their videos, have asked us to bomb them. we couldn't resist. we did. who beheads people on a monthly basis to fight isis, who beheads people. it sort of seems awkward doesn't it? what do you think? guest: isis, through their videos, have asked us to bomb them. we couldn't resist. we did. the greatest threat to us in the middle east is the shiite alliance. in iran, most of the government in baghdad, trusts aside and hezbollah in in southern lebanon. as to the beheading, it is indeed gruesome. i am certain that every execution has a gruesome element to it. there is something mid evil about the heading. saudi arabia, most of the time, punishes murderers and others who have gone through the court

system and are guilty of ask that they may be executed in some states in the united states. whereas, isis is executing have gone through the court system and are guilty of ask that they may be executed in some states in the united states. whereas, isis is executing people because they happen to be christian, or sunni -- rather, shiite muslims. it is not the gruesome this of the execution, it is the execution that is the issue. host: one of the headlines from "the new york times" this morning -- does that, gay issues? guest: it has been, give for a long time. we install them, and god knows we could have made a mistake. the fact is, the government in baghdad is very close to being an iranian satellite.

the shiite alliance, iran, most of the forces in iraq, certainly in the southern half of the country, assad and hezbollah has killed hundreds of thousands of people. isis has beheadedkilled hundreds of thousands of people. isis has beheaded some and a very gruesome way. hundreds of thousands of deaths. that shiite alliance has committed terrorist acts on every inhabitable confident on this world. that shiite alliance has killed thousands of americans. we are focusing, instead on isis. i thought netanyahu had a good line. in your enemy. i think the biggest enemy here is the shiite alliance, four more so than isis. host: from louisiana, gerald. caller: good morning, senator. why are americans, republicans,

so hell-bent on board. that's all they talk about. war, war, war. netanyahu came down to the united states, in front congress -- why can't they forgive iran? why do we have to go to war. ? why can't they let president obama restore peace? why do our people always have to step out for the europeans? what are the european people going to step up for themselves? we have been in this war for centuries. all we get out -- all we get out of this is death.

that's all we get out of this war. the only thing republicans want to do is go to war. guest: asthat's all we get out of this war. the only thing republicans want to do is go to war. guest: as americans, we want this to be over with. there is a cry from republicans, it ought to be like world war ii, we gear up, we go to war, we get a complete victory. they were demanding a strategy that achieved total victory over isis, and all other enemies without american casualties. that cannot be achieved. we are going to be facing problems. we are going to be facing terrorism for quite some time. i wish that i could tell you we just have to work hard for a couple of years and every thing will be fine. that is not the case.

the kind of peace that weguest: the

bank of the united states was first by the founders generation. the same political leaders that wrote the constitution. in addition, congress has fully authorized the federal reserve

addition, congress has fully authorized the federal reserve to do everything that they are doing. it is well-established that in many cases, congress can create and empower an organization of the federal government to carry out its act. that being said, we need to audit the fed. we need to look more carefully at what they're doing and i'm not oneand i'm not one to the flex in the direction of the federal reserve board. i don't think they are unconstitutional. they do have probably more power , and a number different areas. host: georgia is up next year. steve. caller: how are you doing this morning? i just want to say that the koran says that iran is not supposed to negotiate with the great satan. in 2011, the democratic convention, they voted god out of the platform, 304 times so that the president would run.

wouldn't that be against them to negotiate with the president? shouldn't they be negotiating with the republicans that fear god? thank you. guest: someday, you will have an expert on the theology of shiite islam who can tell you whether or not the iranians are violating their own rules by sitting down with us. ice thi god is a lot -- i think god is alive and well in both the democratic and remote and parties. host: don from houston, texas. caller: good morning. i too have a question directly related to the federal reserve. related to the federal reserve. as you know, congressman, our revenues from our country comes from income taxes, primarily. we also get rebates back from the federal reserve on the

interest payments that we pay them. they get to pay a certain percent ofcaller: it appears to me that the federal reserve and you are a cpa. he would understand that our loss being passed to the taxpayers as a red duction of the interest being paid, as opposed to being chargeback the member banks. is there anything that we can do to have the federal reserve absorbed those losses opposed to using those capital losses as an operating expense and forcing us to pay it back you go thank you. guest: i'm not sure i followed

every part of the question. what the federal reserve hasn't changed -- has engaged in quantitive engaging and printed money and bought u.s. government bonds. it can collect the interest on those bonds and get that interest back to the united states treasury. and so that is saving us to money. we expect that would be unwound and that may change the bookkeeping entry as to the number of the number of quantity of bonds of the fed owns and the interest that the general fund is paying and, in effect getting back. i think that the policy of the fed has been, during this recovery, and is not a complete recovery, but this recovery, the

most important thing it is helped achieve is the policy of the federal reserve -- quantitative easing, low interest rates and that doesn't get the coverage it deserves because it is not a political organization. you know, you get brad sherman and stephen king together, maybe you will have the world wrestling federation but there is nothing similar to a federal reserve ward meeting in the world wrestling federation. although c-span may not have the highest ratings, imagine what a c-span -- i guess of the cover their private meetings you would have very high ratings. most of what goes on in the fed would provide you with a very low audience. host: if they decide to raise interest rates, how does that affect americans directly? guest: i think it would be a bad thing at this time. the low interest rates are necessary because the economy is somewhat worse than economists

are telling us. you talk to my colleagues. we are all in touch with our districts. nobody has said come to my office and i open a bottle of champagne and tell you how wonderful the economy is in my district. the higher interest rates short-term, would be affecting the long-term rates that people would pay for in mortgage and -- in mortgages. that would slow down economic activity. it would d press housing prices, just a little bit. and it would depress consumer spending because a lot of people spend because they heard the house three blocks away sold for a good price. that price will be a little bit less with higher long-term interest rates. the chief reason to raise interest rates would be to avoid inflation, but if i make a list of all the economic worries i

have, inflation is not one of the top two or three. host: up next is alan from ohio on the republican line. caller: good morning, c-span and good morning, mr. sherman. first of all, i tend to believe that the israeli prime minister is right on iran. they will have nuclear weapons underneath this administration. it might be 10 years down the line, but you know the plan is. americans have been left out of it. we do not know what is going on. another thing -- this has been the least trusted president in my 45 years. i can give you 20 reasons right now, but i will give you one. we debated health care for two years. it had only been delayed it -- debated for a month if we were told that it was going to be taxes. everyone knows that and mr. obama knew that. it was just put on us and delay tactics. people i've talked to -- we are not ready for another lawyer.

another thing real quick -- my question is iran, are they on the terrorist watch list? are they a terrorist sponsored state? thank you, c-span. guest: iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. they have done more in the government to sponsor terrorist activities in south america tuchman north america -- south america, north america, the middle east, and europe. as to the obamacare bill, the affordable care act the text was available to everyone. the text imposing a tax feet or penalty -- take your pick -- on those who did not get health care coverage for themselves. that text was available for months and months and everybody

had a chance to read it. you can take the same provision of law and the thing called a penalty. i could call the fee. pedro could call a tax. the supreme court called it attacks. it is what it is. the language imposing it -- the amount of money that the taxpayer fee was in the statute for lots of people to read. that being said -- there are a lot of drafts and problems with this bill and i will tell you why. we ended up passing what they call the beta version. we were still working on the bill. senator kennedy died. even more surprising, his republican said excess or arrived. at that point, the democrats in the senate went down from 60 to 59. did you complete lack of republican cooperation, -- due

to complete lack of republican cooperation, only the bill that senator kennedy voted for had nothing else for it. no change, no amendment, no technical corrections could pass the senate. we were in a situation where we had to pass what was supposed to be just the senate draft and then there would be a house draft, and then we would get down to finalizing the document improving it. instead of that process, republican said, we know you can pass this bill, but we will not help you polish it or change it or improvement or debug it in any way. we had a choice between that and nothing. given the deterioration of our health care system that it was beginning to suffer in the years before, as more more people were uninsured, going to emergency room's, having care and the thousands of dollars which they didn't pay for or couldn't pay for, hospitals not being able to collect for that very expensive

emergency care, raising their rates on everyone else, driving up the cost of health insurance for everybody else and more employers dropping health care coverage for their employees because rates have gone up. that downward that spiral on the old system was in full swing when president obama took office. we passed a bill that stop that. the situation is not perfect but have we done nothing, our emergency rules would be -- rooms would be chock-full of patients and expensive care, not having insurance and not be able to go see a doctor and only able to get medical care when you say you have to take care of it because i am an emergency situation. more more people about insurance as the price got higher and higher. you have the system now that stop that spiral. host: slidell louisiana on the democrats line. will, you're next. caller: i would like to ask the congressman. i'm a veteran of the army.

i wish he would tell me that fighting this iran war is an agreement. full strength of the draft. [no audio] host: jake in rochester indiana. independent line. caller: good morning. it is st. patrick's day and i just wanted to wish you guys a happy st. patrick's day. one more thing -- i'm sorry earlier when you were talking about immigration -- i'm a union labor. i have been democrat all my

life, but i have started to listen more towards the independent lines and go along with some of that because i am a constitutional person and i believe in our constitution. i do not think our representatives in my senate in our executive branch have really been honoring the constitution and both rights. also, i make less money now. i have a wife and children. i make less money now than i did in 1990 because of the lack of work. i notice mostly because of manufacturing, however, as far as immigration goes, i've worked with so many hispanics and i know how they got into the country. they pay $30 to $40 to a mexican -- to a mexican official in mexico and a fudge their birth certificates. instead of being born in 1969 it says they were born in 1950 nine.

they come here and then they get to collect social security 10 years earlier than what they really can't. not only that, they also fudge paperwork and this is a fact. it came right from the horse's mouth. people with criminal records just pay a little bit of money down in mexico and come across here and get a visa and then they work a way through and become national citizens, or i should say citizens of the united states. this is true. i cannot believe that the democrats and president obama just wants to bring all the mexicans in and give them amnesty so they can vote democratic because -- let's be honest here. we know that the republicans kind of took this last election and people are disappointed with the administration and it is highly unlikely that democrats are going to be reelected to the executive branch in 2016. i really believe -- i tell you

i'm real disappointed and i know this is basically the base of -- the motive of why they want this amnesty because they are not going to have the votes reelected a lot of democrats. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: first, i heard you were a laborer and as for construction keeping low rates is critical. the financial accounting standards board is about to come out with a no announcement -- an announcement that would penalize people that signed long-term leases. if that goes forward, i've been fighting it for years it would be a devastating effect on construction in this country. we do have to take with a grain of salt documents from foreign countries where that foreign country does not have a well-established rule of law. that being said -- to say that the comprehensive immigration bill was about bringing in

illegal immigrants is simply not the case. the comprehensive bill has much stricter, much more effective enforcement then we currently have. it was a cap -- balance bill which on the one hand, provided a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here. on the other hand, it would verify enforcement techniques to draw the line and not allow -- or dramatically reduce the number of legal immigrants in the united states. it should've been passed and it would've been passed had it not been for politics. in fact, many republicans were for it until the tea party told him they had to be against it. i do think that what the president was trying to achieve and is still trying to achieve would do a lot to help our labor markets here in the united states. the idea that the federal

government could or would the port 11 million people. i've been with the federal government for a wild -- i do not think i would trust them. host: let us try willian slidell, louisiana one more time. go ahead. caller: i want him to know that i am a veteran and had to towards in vietnam. these people realize that they are going to have to come up with a draft. this volunteer force is not going to be able to help things. even with the draft, we would not have one vietnam. this is what will [indiscernible] guest: i do not hear every word, but i do not think that we need a draft.

i do not think that this is a war that we can put a million or a half a million soldiers and marines on the ground. we could win it in a couple of years and come home. what it is going to take is perseverance. we could gear up and do anything that the big war hawk wanted to do for two or three years and leave and we would still have the problems. the question is -- how do we have to long-term policy that the country can support and the only way to do that is to have a volunteer force and apply them in the terms of the plying the air and drones and very limited occasional ground special forces, perhaps. and have a policy that is not so expensive in lives and money that we are unable to sustain it. i think that the system that we have now -- a volunteer force

engaged in limited military operations is what we are going to be doing for quite some time. i think that is unfortunate but this is not an enemy that is going to go away in a few years. host: representative brad sherman california. thanks for your time. coming up on the program, we will take a look at the loss that affect government e-mail and those who send it. we will be jones -- joined by daniel metcalf. he is in the transparency -- we will take a closer look at hillary clinton's e-mail server and issues surrounding that would "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> this weekend, the c-span city tour as part of the media, to

learn about the history and liberty life of columbus georgia. >> we are right in here side the museum and the remains of a confederate ironclad. this was an ironclad built here in columbus during the war. these are the gun ports of the jackson. the jackson is armed with six rifles. the particulars of dust the particular rifles that we are firing today was built for the jackson. it was passed at the selma naval worsen selma alabama and completed in january 1865. it is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclad from the civil war that we can study right now. jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that

there are more than just one or two ironclads and that there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday on in eastern on c-span book tv and sunday at two afternoon -- 2 p.m. in the afternoon on c-span3. >> now isis rears its ugly head and we are shaky. you cannot undo decades of soviet era and saddam era stuff within eight years. especially when you taught them models where u.s. partners with them. afghanistan -- according to the president's announcements we have 10,000 troops there in a training and advising role. we will drop down to 5000 and zero the year after that. i was warned that we will see a similar result to what we saw in iraq when isis attack. the afghan army will be shaky without u.s. help you >> this sunday on q and a, retired army

lieutenant general on the failed u.s. strategy in iraq and afghanistan and what we should of done differently. sunday night at eight eastern on c-span q&a. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is stand metcalf. -- dan metcalf. he is the former founding director of the information and privacy. good morning. as far as her former job, can you tell us about this office and what it does? guest: it is something that we established in 1981 to do for primary things. one is to handle litigation. two is adjudicated administrative appeals taken from the freedom information act. third was to handle classified information appeals on behalf of the attorney general. we staff that. but primarily, we gave government wide policy advice

and guidance for the administration or implementation of the freedom of information act. that involves writing a lot of guidance memoranda, conducting training, employing a hotline that was available to all federal employees. we were the ones that had to tell everyone responding to the freedom of information act request that all 100 federal agencies what was the right thing to do and what was the wrong thing to do. host: you are responsible for making sure that information can get out does get out for those request that comes in? guest: yes. things were handled properly and procedurally. they were done in a substantive way and for sensitive information. host: is a bit of text on the freedom of information act. it provides that any person has the right to obtain access to federal agency records, except to be said that such records are protected from public disclosure

by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. what are some instances with a get information from one of these request? guest: your audience might imagine national security classified information. information that would include a violation of privacy -- law enforcement files are not want fortune files. business that comes into the federal government and has commercial sensitivity. also, internal decision-making documents. there is a large privilege called pre-decisional privilege. pre-decisional information whereby a recommendation is made -- that person does not have to worry about appearing on the front page of "the washington post" next week and there's far more pander in the process. host: we are taking a look at the issue of the former secretary of state e-mail.

the headline says that when it comes to the e-mail that former secretary of state put out there , her defense was called "laughable." guest: the full formulation of that quote is that person just in that she properly had the wherewithal to happen exclusively private e-mail account in the way that she did on her private e-mail server and that that would suffice under federal records act and the freedom of information act. that indeed is laughable. i call that a prescription for circumvention of the freedom of information act. host: what do you mean by that? guest: if someone were to avoid a foia, short for freedom of information act request, if someone were to request e-mails to or from her, the first step

in the process of handling that request is to search for records. if there were no such records within the state department because they resided entirely outside of the state department, that would insulate those e-mail records from even the possibility of foia exposure. one of the things that i've said without much fear of contradiction is that based upon my first-hand involvement and a number of things in the clinton administration, i have absolutely no doubt that secretary clinton well knows the operation of the freedom of information act and knows what she was doing. host: we will continue this topic of transparency in the federal government. for republicans 202-748-8002. we will take those calls in just

a moment. expand on that last point -- that she noted. guest: there were two dozen scandals that are rented -- corrupted during the clinton administration. when there is scandal or controversy, there are always records pertaining to that subject matter. there are invariably issues about disclosure of those records or not. it could be in response to the freedom of information act request. it could be in response to congressional inquiry or subpoena or a whole host of things. there will sever such -- several such record issues that developed and came to a head during the clinton administration, including two scandals that had never ever enter the public domain amazingly. after all these years. i know that, and i've no doubt

secretary clinton was involved in of and some of those that she well knew how the freedom of information act work. host: the problem was that she used her own e-mail service exclusively? guest: exclusively is the exact right word to use in purposes of this analysis. yes. it is not permissible for a federal employee, a high-level federal employee in this case, to use a personal e-mail account occasionally. you can imagine that you have a very busy secretary of state responded the crisis around the world around the clock and at three clock in the morning reaching for device and maybe she might not have her official government e-mail account device handy, or that aspect or that part of it in haiti. there are instances in which the personal e-mail account can be used and then there has to be follow-up under the the policies

adopted by the national archives and records administration which implements the federal records act whereby probably thereafter those personal account e-mails are forwarded it to the federal system, where they then can be maintained and preserved and available for potential public access. so the key ingredient here is what you say -- exclusively. host: is this a system where if she said of a personal account and sent it to somebody at the state department, there would be a record of that account and their impacts -- in their inbox, but not a record that it went out to it? guest: in other words, the recipient as a state department employee would be there. that would be part of the state department system. but for the latter, there would be no record of an outbox because the outbox was purely private. even the record of the state department employee is problematic because you can't have a consolidated response to

a freedom of information act request if someone is seeking all of her e-mails and they are scattered about at all these different state department employees. then, there is the fact that there were other government employees, according to her press conference statement, say the department of defense, and those e-mails would not be in the same agency. and then there is the other category -- the mystery category so to speak of e-mails that went neither to state department employees or federal government employees. she was very careful to use the phrase "vast majority" of for e-mails in category one or two. state department or other federal. one has to wonder about the un-vast minority so to speak because that is not really covered in any way whatsoever at the recipient level. host: we have callers for you and our first is george in washington dc. george, go ahead. caller: professor metcalf, i

want to give you the opportunity to burnish your centrist credentials. i'm a moderate democrat. it sounds that you are like a hillary clinton critic. didn't you also criticize the justice department? guest: i criticize the installs justice department openly after i departed. this would be in the spring of 2007. yes, i felt that i had to speak out because, quite frankly things under alberto gonzales were extremely embarrassing. as a matter of fact, subsequently to that in 2008, i agreed to bring a lawsuit on behalf of young applicants for legal positions called the attorney general's arms program there, where there was a scheme by which people were screened out on political or ideological grounds. to make a long story short, i wound up hunting alberto

gonzales down like the dog he was an imposing him for almost seven hours. we prevailed as a matter of law and establish new law under the federal records act as well as the privacy act of -- and the government settled that case for more than a half-million dollars. i tip my hat to people being critical of conservative republican administrations. that is for sure. host: st. petersburg, florida. republican line. caller: i think that public officials have more discretionary authority so that they can protect their political participation. guest: well, i'm not entirely sure about discretionary authority. i can tell you that under the federal records that, first and foremost, the only discretion that secretary clinton properly

had was to, as i say occasionally use a private e-mail account where it was necessary if she then followed up in the way that i described. if you talk to anyone at the national archives and records administration, where they have the responsibility of the federal records asked -- act like i had, they would tell you exactly that. host: our guest this data metcalf. he is also the director of the justice department privacy bill. hawaii on the independence line. go ahead. caller: i want to ask mr. metcalf a couple of questions. if they decide they need to get -- host: go ahead. you are on. caller: if they physically need to get that server and the secret service whoever is

protecting that property, do they not become accomplices in some way and how would mr. metcalf get that server if you wanted to get it? the other thing is -- i just want to say that i am independent, but after seeing mrs. clinton in that news conference, i indeed laughed until i fell off my chair. guest: well. let's put the laughter aside for just a moment and focus on that server. what i should say right at the outset is that i am not an attorney with criminal law background. i do not mean to imply that there's criminal law involved here. when it comes to the process of physically obtaining something that is admittedly be on my expertise. i would imagine it would have to be a serious matter and the serious enterprise that would lead to anyone properly and authoritatively attempted to take a step to obtain that server. i cannot tell you that secretary clinton could not have 10 more

clear at her press conference where she said that the information on that server will remain private. that is our position and it remains to be seen if that will change in any way. host: 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans bit with a have to get permission to set up the server? guest: permission is a word you have to be careful about. so not to my knowledge for certain things would have to be allowed or permitted. it would be one thing for something to be permitted in the sense that no one tackled her in the hallway before she did something and another thing for it to be allowed in the sense that it was properly or proper under the law. she, to my knowledge, there was nothing that legally prevented her from having her own server.

she had it already. the key thing was that upon entering office in 2009, she then proceeded to use only a personal e-mail account that was tied to that server. so it is a personal you motown that is the key and that -- it is the personal e-mail account that is key in that sense. host: lettuce tossed it to tauscher. -- let us listen to tauscher. caller: what about the pages that she has already submitted? i really find it quite offensive that people in washington spend more time having 59 hearings on benghazi. this, i'm sure, is going just throughout that whole suppose it controversy -- supposed controversy. i can understand mrs. clinton wanting to have privacy because i am sure that there is no expense and no number of people

for example, on the fox channel that would be willing to spend 50 hours a day looking up any miniscule amount of something that they could blow up into a huge controversy. this is what is wrong with our government. instead of paying attention to the things that need to be done, we search around, digging around, lifting things, and rocks and stuff, to see what little tiny thing we can blow up. i've offer transparency -- i am offer transparency, but my heavenly days, this is not one of those areas. guest: i can say, in turn, i am offer privacy. it is very easy to imagine that there's wrong privacy interest involved in much of what was on her personal and still personal perhaps, e-mail server.

i do not think anyone questions that. the difficultly is that you mentioned the 55,000 number as to pages of what she printed out. she went through a step or take a step last year in 2014, in which in response to a special request from the state department, she delineated between what she viewed as personal and what she viewed as not personal. that is what led to her producing 55,000 pages of e-mails. i believe that is an accurate number. that is to the state department to be reviewed for possible public disclosure and paper form. indeed mrs. clinton has spoken of that rather pointedly. the difficulty is that is only part of what was there and then there is a question about the remainder. just as when she uses the phrase "vast majority", that is only

part. it could be a large majority. it overlooks completely what the remainder of that might be. one has to be very careful at exactly what she says and how she says it in the context of what she speaks because, if you look at the transcript of her prance -- press conference carefully, as i was asked to do for media outlets, there are a number of pronouns like "that" or "it" have shifting meanings from one point to another. a friend of mine even joked that it might determine what the meaning of "it" is -- which sounds somewhat reminiscent of the clinton administration. host: bill on the democrats line. caller: good morning mr. metcalf. i like to ask you -- was she in violation of the law she was

ending -- sending e-mails? the log require her to put them on a government server -- did the law of require her to put them on a government server? thank you. guest: we should be very careful of the phrase violation of law. to the average person on the street, that something someone has done something illegal, of violating a criminal law and having criminal sanctions. i do not know if that is really part of the landscape. all. when i talk about law and what she said she did, i talk about whether it is contrary to law and contrary to a legal requirement. i'm certain that what she did at least this she and others has described it, is contrary to the federal records act. it is as i say a blatant

circumvention of the freedom of information act. host: jolie from texas. republican line. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, mr. metcalf. how are you doing today? guest: i'm doing fine. i am sitting at a location where i lived in was 45 years ago did. caller: but you don't live there any longer? guest: no. i was a teenage intern at the justice department. caller: you have been expense for a long time. this is dealing with a lady who says that republicans are looking under rocks for skittles bid you mentioned to scandals involving the clintons that have not come to the public light. i knock on to ask but they are because that is up to you. my question to you is -- are they important enough to where it would affect hillary's presidential run as far as her credibility and hurting -- her

integrity go? guest: certainly for one of them, the answer is definitely not. as for the second one, very probably not. in both instances, although i did continue to be amazed that they have never made it to the public domain, we are talking about the circumstances in which i had an ethical obligation as an attorney, having given legal involves that involves in the legal analysis of affect pattern to protect the confidentiality of what i learned and what i did , despite the passage of time. there is no sunset provision on an ethical prohibition that protects my secrets. i'm on able to say -- i am unable to say much about either of those two except to give you that limited assurance that i've given you. host: that was julie from texas. wisconsin -- can you speak of bleakley to them at all or no?

-- obliquely to them or no? guest: let me speak slowly. i'm not really surprised that one of them never enter the public domain, because although it was a high level potential controversy or difficulty, very few people knew about it and it did not, in fact, involved a member of the executive branch. the federal government maintains information on a lot of people in the a lot of positions. that one, for good reason, will never see the light of day. i'm pretty sure. the second one -- it involves clinton administration folks in a more general way. i know firsthand knowledge as to whether secretary clinton was aware of what was going on. i can tell you that i undertook an extensive legal analysis of

the fact pattern at the request of the assistant attorney general of the office of legal counsel. a brilliant man by the name of walter dillinger. that fact pattern was handled in a way that was consistent with my legal analysis. i felt gratified that the hard work that i put in on short notice made a difference. host: michelle in wisconsin. go ahead. caller: happy st. patrick's day to you people. i'm calling about the transparency thing. i am for transparency. i do believe it is a good thing. what i do not understand is transparency should be through out our whole system. they want transparency with hillary clinton and they want transparency with benghazi. come to find out a few years later after everything was said and done with iraq and president bush, then leading us to believe that it was over weapons of mass

destruction. one come to find out that it was basically over oil. there was no transparency about that. there was also some assumptions that the government kind of knew what was going to happen before 9/11 happened and nobody really take any serious precautions about it. i believe transparency should be throughout everything, including money that is donated for cpacs and everything because it is getting where big corporations with billions of dollars are actually running our country and not the people who vote people in. host: thanks, caller. guest: transparency is a good thing, but one has to remember that on the other hand there are important interests that are entitled to protection like privacy and national security

and government decision-making and business interest rate that is what the foia are all about. you do not want to get me going on president george w. bush, for whom i've zero respect frankly. you do not have enough time on this program. host: there's a front-page story on "usa today." is called white house goods records rules. the white house is resolving a federal regulation that subjects as office of administration to freedom of information act making official policy under president george w. bush and obama to reject the request for records to the white house that the cleanup of the rules is consistent with court rulings holding of the office is not subject to the transfer into law. can you explain that? guest: it is news to me, but not necessarily shocking. i know a great deal about that because i used to advise the office called 08 for short.

it was subject to the foia as it was good what changed is that price chosen -- vice president cheney woke up and said it was not part of the white house is to speak -- so to speak and did not apply. that was the office in charge of white house e-mails that were set up their blackberry system that involved the republican national committee and the rest is history there. what -- when president obama took office and missed high expectations, exceedingly high expectations on how he would change things for greater openness as compared to what they were under the george w. bush administration. one of the things that i am on record -- i included this in the article that was published meant. it was expected that he would reverse vice president cheney's decision and make that office and entity subject to the foia

as it had been in the clinton administration. as been one of the many disappointments frankly about the obama administration transparency activities or lack of statements on respects especially on the freedom of information act. that was not done. i know they had taken that position as a practical matter recently. i didn't know that they took a formal step. if they did as he read from that report, i would suggest that the timing is pretty poor. host: here's michigan. richard, republican line. good morning. caller: my question is -- we are all after clinton right now which is for debate. guest: not all of us. i'm not after secretary clinton. i just calling it like i see it. caller: i appreciate it because you sound quite intelligent.

my point is -- we had 47 senators betray our government. i do not care if you vote for republicans or democrats. 47 people went against our government which is law. they should be prosecuted under treason that. why isn't something being done? the puck in parties to be a dam good party. since the team party gotten in there -- tea party got there they let them run the party. they tend to make better things our country and our sulfate i'm 72 years old and i see most of it. let us go after them for treason and elect some real republicans. guest: ivan informed -- i have an informed opinion on a lot of things that we've been talking about today. but i do not have an informed opinion about that thing in

particular. i would dare say that whether something is treason on that -- or not is a matter for other folks to consider rather than myself, especially not in a program like this. host: two men -- do members follow the foia act? guest: that act has never applied to congress. and other nations of the world like mexico for example, that applies to their congress there, but no. the latch is that to my classmates if you were a member of congress and you are about to enact and establishments -- establish this onerous law and you have the power to apply it to yourself or not, what would you choose? that is exactly the choice that congress made. and fairness it it is not just this end of pennsylvania avenue that is outside of foia, but also the other end at the white house. there's nothing -- something

called the inner white house and the outer white house. they and our white house is likewise not subject to foia. it is called the presidential records act which is counterpart to the federal records act and where one ends, the other begins and vice versa. host: here's steve and maryland. you are on with daniel met cap. go ahead. caller: just an observation and a comment. we understand that this issue is being debated. do you believe that the inspector general office of the state department will look into this matter and through their independent review determine whether or not administrative violations have occurred or potentially criminal? i want to stress the fact that this is not a debate of whether something was correctly or

incorrectly, but we have a system in place that i believe could easily address this and protect privacy, if required. what are your thoughts on that? guest: my first bought working back from front is that i have no basis in speaking of anything that might be criminal. put that entirely aside. it is one thing to violate a criminal law and it is another thing to take action that was contrary to law that was civil in nature. those civil sanctions would be applicable to an existing federal employee not a former federal employee. the question about the inspector general investigation is quite interesting and not something that i hate considered as a possibility until you mentioned it just a minute ago. i do know that historically the office of the inspector general at the department of state is more active than most. let us put it that way. there's a strong position --

tradition of aggressive activity in that office, no matter which presidential administration is in power at the time. it is not inconceivable to me that there might be such an investigation. i do not know if i would go so far as to say it is likely. if there were to be one, i think it would focus on what happened during the first week or so of secretary clinton's tenure. sometime early in 2009, she must've had what i call "the meeting." by that, i mean to say when a new cabinet officer come in, there is a meeting and which the top career administrative percy -- person of the agency. at the justice department, it was a particular person in a particular location and it will sit down with a new cabinet officer and say, here are the ins and outs and do's and don'ts of federal ethics standards of the federal records that, of the freedom of information act, of the privacy act, the procurement

requirements, and things like that. it is in that meeting that nowadays in the let tronic h there were logically be a discussion on how the new secretary with the active and how she would be conducting business, not just speaking to people, not just preparing old-fashioned memoranda and pieces of paper that go from one place to another but communicating in ways that include electronic mail. i can only imagine that at that meeting, somehow, someway, it ended with secretary clinton going out and doing what she did, which is establishing a regime in which she used her personal e-mail account exclusively and connected it to her private e-mail server. that is why i say it is conceivable, depending on how this plays out, it might die down. if it does not, there could be some pressure on the inspector general of the department of state to look into exactly how

that happened or why it happened and why other things to not happen. one of the questions that will be asked -- and i will just let it with this -- is whether there had been contact between the administrative folks at the state department and the people who have the government wide responsibility to oversee the proper implementation of the federal records acts, specifically those folks at the national archives and records administration. i have the occasion live this morning -- earlier this morning to receive communication from some old friends, shall i say, at nara are very familiar with the federal records act in general and the circumstances in particular. although i am out of government now and i should not be given official information and pass it on, i will go so far as to say that if you were to think, sir, that no one at nara was properly

contacted on this i would have no specific basis on which to disagree with you. host: clayton, north carolina. gordon is up next. hello. caller: three things. 1 -- they fought to get computers and because they said it would help with records. it would make it quicker. why is the piece of paper that hillary clinton is supposed to sign the day that she lives taking so long to find? i have a feeling that the government is trying to figure out which way it is going to hurt less. the third thing -- like what you just said, they have to have pressure put on them to bring any charges or do anything. eric holder is not going to do anything until he has somewhat pressure on him that he has to do something. could you tell me about that? guest: i know i'm repeating

myself here. i think it is important. let us take the were charges and put it aside because i have no basis whatsoever for even imagine a -- imagining batting part of the landscape. your question brings up, i think, an important for best point or aspect of things. there are four times on shares that matter for the purpose of looking at this fact here. the first is when she began her tenure and 2009. the second is the time of her departure in 2013. the third was in 2014 when she responded to a special request from the state department and created those 55,000 pages that we spoke of earlier. the for them -- the fourth is a week ago at her press conference and what she said and didn't say. you logically focused on time juncture number two which is the time of hurt its parts are -- of her departure. you're right. there are obligations above her and the administrative people at

her agency to make sure that she leaves under proper circumstances and in the right way. with respect to records, that means that things that are federal records, that should be maintained and preserved as part of the history of the state department, are maintained and preserved as such. indeed, there is something that party officials sign. one of things i mentioned to some journalist is that we had a very formal process that we developed, coincidently during the clinton administration, to govern that departure process with respect to high-level employees. under that process, which was established in regulation and memorandum required form, east of party official would go through a process with those administered to folks, one who sets things up right at the get-go. they determine together, not unilaterally on the part of the

employee, but determine together what can be taken and what cannot. we even have a committee of the justice department. i was part of that committee and develop the guidelines for that particular purpose and we then disseminated that to other agencies and said, this works great for us. do not make the despain -- the mistake that department of treasury made. do it the right way which makes the most sense. the first person who went through that process in the justice department was former attorney general janet reno. janet wanted to be the one to make a point that she would go through a very careful process. if she wanted to write a book, she would take what she can properly take and not take what she couldn't. to cap this all off with respect to the issue du jour here, i wonder exactly what the process was for secretary clinton when someone presumably paid

attention to the fact that she had all these e-mails, much of which were official government e-mails, created on her private account in a private server, and loot of a federal account in the federal system. you have to wonder what happened and how did i get to carry on the on 2013. i've zero knowledge about that. i would not speculate that more than i've done. except to say that it does raise a serious question. host: just a few more minutes with our guest. monti in new hampshire. go ahead. caller: yes. hi. it seems too bad that president historians or future historians may not have access to her e-mails ever. and other folks that are doing the same thing in the

government. it just seems that historians, orody wanted to write a book, they would be -- it would be very hard for them because they cannot cross check the information with other e-mails the cousin they would not have that information. guest: i went to disagree with you slightly in one respect and more than slightly and another. the first respect has to do with other people. i'm unaware of other officials in the federal government doing this sort of thing. there have been discussions and media reports about people who are not federal government officials, people who were elsewhere, such as an estate who might have done comparable to this. i'm unaware of it ever happening -- and when i say "it," my pronoun means exactly what she did in all of its respect. ok. i'm not aware of it ever happening with respect to

federal officials. secondly i think you did not have to be quite as pessimistic as you are about history. because if you remember the fact pattern here, she created this e-mail corpus of the speak this body of e-mails, whenever number of pages it was on her private system. she is now gone through a process and said that she delineated out personal things and provided that information to the department of state. put aside the fact that it is on paper and not electronic form which is indeed an issue, but as to the content of the e-mails themselves, not the metadata the server logs, the content of the e-mail themselves. she did do it properly, that content is not lost. it is impossible -- it is possible that the content of the

e-mails that nothing has been lost. host: our guest of the morning was daniel metcalf. the former director of the office of information privacy. he also teaches at american university and secrecy law. take you for your time. guest: glad to be here. host: that is it for this morning. another edition of "washington journal" coming at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we take you to the house of representatives about to start a session for today. thank you. we will see tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 17, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable ge