s mideast policy. later, derek wall bank looks at the future of trade legislation in congress. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: good morning. both the house and senate are in session this week. it is a easy week of hearings including the senate foreign relations committee looking at u.s.-cuba relations. that will take place on wednesday. and there is a senate subcommittee judiciary hearing on body cameras for police officers. tomorrow, the president will travel to new jersey. on thursday, he will deliver the commencement address in new london, connecticut. it is sunday, may 17.

funeral services are scheduled for today and later this week for the victims from the amtrak crash. new questions this morning on what caused the amtrak train to derail. this is also the -- part of the larger debate on america's infrastructure. do you support or oppose more infrastructure spending? if you support more spending (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. you can also join in on the conversation on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. or send us a tweet, @cspanwj. good sunday morning to you. this is the headline from today's "philadelphia inquirer," suddenly there was darkness and chaos.

jumping the tracks just outside the 30 street station in philadelphia. we want to get your comments and calls. first, the president who spoke about infrastructure last thursday. here is what he had to say. [video clip] president obama: we should not be thinking smaller today, we should be thinking bigger in this global economy. my hope is that we have a chance to have a serious discussion and look at all potential revenue sources. what is actually true is that the highway trust fund has consistently gotten smaller smaller, and smaller and inadequate for the needs. what is also true is that patchwork approaches do not make any sense. we need some sort of long-term solution. host: the president as he spoke

about infrastructure spending. this came in the same week in which the vice president and secretary foss, even before the amtrak crash, filed for a new highway spending bill. also, some talking about increasing the gas tax. it has not been raised since 19 i three, during the first year of the clinton administration. inside "the washington post" is this -- the federal railroad administration has ordered immediate rail improvements in the northeast corridor, including the site of last week's deadly derailment. an automatic brake system had been installed, but not for the new york bound trains, such as the one that jumped the track on tuesday. amtrak said it will have the safety system installed in both directions at the sharp curve, by the end of the weekend. the passenger rail line said in

a statement that it will complete installation of the system that will ensure trains from the west approach the curb. although the precise cause of the derailment has not been determined, the new safety requirements stem from initial findings federal officials said. we will get to your calls and comments on infrastructure spending. you support or oppose more spending for america's infrastructure? there is a related story on all of this on the front page of "the new york times" -- a comparison to former governor brown and current governor brown. the piece focuses on

infrastructure spending across california and the problems that that state is now facing with regard to the water shortage. again, pat brown used water to feel a burning state, and his son lost california is much different. withlet's get your calls on more infrastructure spending -- yes or no. do you support a? caller: no, i do not support it. i cannot hear you. i support the spending, but i oppose the way that they are probably going to fund it, which is through a gas tax. i have seen how it works out here in iowa. what they are going to do -- raise the gas tax -- they built more roads to maintain. roads that they cannot really afford in the first place. that is how i feel about it. host: is not a gas tax, how do

you pay for a? caller: i do not know. i would say, for instance, with amtrak in the northeast corridor , they are going to have to figure out another way to pay for that, not through the gas tax. why should i -- as a person living in a rural state -- where cars are absolutely necessary, why should i have to pay for the northeast corridor's mode of transportation? which i think, rationally, that is the one place where it works and they need it, by should not have to pay that through the gas tax in a state where gasoline is already very expensive. and partly, mainly really, the state subsidizes ethanol, which is a dead-end, in terms of the environment. host: let me go back to my earlier question, who pays for a?

how do you determine what you pay for in iowa and what someone may pay in york or philadelphia? caller: i think for the northeast corridor, they will have to pay for it for themselves. host: who is they? caller: the people who live there and the people who use amtrak. host: we want to hear from you whether or not you support or oppose more infrastructure spending. we have divided the phone lines. (202) 748-8000 for those who support more infrastructure spending. those who oppose it, (202) 748-8001. you can also sends a tweet at @cspanwj. we are being joined from aurora, colorado. good morning, caller. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i support the ever structure spending, and i have for probably 10 years. these roads -- we are not

talking about little potholes. we're talking more like sinkholes. and the bridges are falling down. we have not really had a big infrastructure spending that i can recall for half of my life. and i am in my 50's. host: read from colorado. steve has this point. why spend money on infrastructure that could go to another war that we cannot win? joining in on the conversation by sharing his thoughts on our twitter page. also, you can comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. noah says, support! steve says, support, it is our future, plus a creates jobs. mark says, i am in support. nathan says, i support it, it benefits everyone.

next is joining us -- is rick joining us from florida. how are you? caller: good. i very much support infrastructure spending. i think it is about time that we quit giving so much money to the pentagon for defense spending. when we have generals and admirals who tell us that they do not even need the money, they don't need the ships, they don't need the tanks, they don't need the drones. we also spend way too much money supporting countries that hate us. what we should be setting money on our our roads -- are our roads, and an updated rail system. when it comes to how it should be paid for, i think we need to start making the companies, who have moved overseas, pay higher tariffs to sell their products here and just for once, these

large companies need to maybe take a hit on their bottom line. we need to tax them more. it is absolutely ridiculous that they do not pay their fair share , and their companies use our roads, and our railways to move our products along. instead, they keep putting money in the pockets of politicians that stick their head in the sand, like john boehner, that want to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the railways. he was just going twice the speed limit -- that is besides the point when we know that we are far behind the world. host: thank you for the call. you mentioned to be good john mader. this is what he said last week when he was asked a question on rail spending. he said it was a stupid question. we will get to that in just a moment.

bill says, steve starts asking for examples, you know, location and state. from forbes -- what caused the u.s. the fall so rapidly in infrastructure rankings? joan from buffalo, new york, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm confused why the question is even being asked. the fact of the matter is bridges have to be maintained. roads have to be maintained. the longer we wait, the more it will cost. what is alternative? let the bridges fall down? let the roads go unrepaired? i'm not sure why people would

dispute whether or not we need to maintain order for structure. aside from that, we are more vulnerable to terrorism. that is one thing about a democracy. everyone in the world, everybody in the world, with a homemade bomb, there goes the bridge. like i said, i'm not sure why this is even a discussion. that's russian -- the discussion could maybe be how do we pay for it. host: let me go back to an earlier caller who says he opposes any increase in the gasoline tax. it was last raised back in 1993. the obama in administration is calling for an increase in the gas tax. also, cars are more fuel efficient. caller: welcome to america.

welcome to democracy. freedom costs. access costs. where you can travel 3000 miles across this country, you do not need a visa or passport. it is ridiculous. somebody has to pay to maintain it. i do not even get that question. do we require -- if it requires the gas tax, then it requires the gas tax. if there is some other creative way to finance it -- like a said, i'm not a mature why -- i heard the gentleman from the midwest saying why should we pay for the gas tax for people in the northeast. again, welcome to america and democracy. host: joan, thank you for the call. from "inside the washington post" -- a first-hand account of what happened on tuesday evening.

as train 188 jumped the track more than 200 injured. another viewer saying that i will not support infrastructure spending until corrupts public unions are abolished. we will go to john, joining us next from florida. good sunday morning to you. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. i'm glad that you are being nicer to people than you used to be host:. host: what is that supposed to mean? i wasn't nice to people before? caller: i am a long-term listener and you use the flat people around more. -- used to flat people around more. host: i thought i was the nicest present television. go ahead. caller: i actually oppose any more government spending.

i think they should have tax breaks for utilities. like down here florida, if you could get rid of all these powerlines and put them underground, that would be a good use of money. if you would give utilities a tax break and let them manage the money, instead of the government ripping everyone off, i think it would work out a lot better. host: john from florida. thank you for the call. monti has this point on her twitter page saying -- close one or two of the 200 bases around the world and fix our train system and infrastructure. from "new york post" -- reverend al sharpton's daughter once $5 million from the city.

a congressman struggling to explain some campaign money, in part because of a package put together by his family. the house of representatives and federal commission looking into that. from "boston sunday globe" -- we cann choose to remember what made a strong. our next caller joining us from honolulu, hawaii. caller: i support the measure to move forward with every structure spending. i am not so much worried with the spending or where we're going to get the money from. i'm more worried about what we are going to do as the government to spend the money wisely, and make sure that planning and more planning is put into place so that in turn

in the future, we will have more long-term stability, whereas we do not need to come back to of researchers many again and spending a large amount. host: thank you for the call. i mention the story on the front page of "the new york times" about california's water problem. this is a common sight in california as homeowners are literally ripping up the lawns and replacing them with plants and other things that do not require a lot of water. homeowners ripping up lush lawns as the drought threatens to permanently altered the landscape. also on the front page -- u.s. raid into syria kills islamic

state figure. the details of what happened -- no u.s. casualties, and no civilian casualties as well. randy is joining us from south carolina, as we focus on america's infrastructure spending. do you support or oppose more money? caller: oppose more money. i agree, we need the infrastructure rebuilt but doesn't this president -- didn't this president just get trillions of dollars in stimulus that was supposed to take care of this? maybe if the democrats quit paying off their buddies and use the money for what it is and tended for, -- intended for, or maybe we could confiscate congresses salary. host: a similar thought on our

twitter page -- didn't we already spend one trailer dollars -- $1 trillion and remember those not so shovel ready jobs? the chair of common good pointing out that the deadly derailment on tuesday is just another symptom of congresses refusal to address the infrastructure. while the cause of the crash is not yet determined, it is still being investigated, even engineer error may have been avoided if amtrak had implemented the positive train control. mark is joining us from ohio. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. excellent show. best one on tv. every american should watch the show, and you would learn how

your brothers and sisters in the country feel about topics like this. you get a little bit more truth and light shined on. i support the infrastructure spending. all the money to be obtained from the military easily. they spent $500 for screwdriver -- we could certainly afford to get some of that money. here in ohio, they resurfaced state route 306 two years ago and is already falling apart. there was no engineering done whatsoever. you keep raising it up higher and higher, you have to put something on the sides. they waste the money they remove the shoulder, it is more dangerous. they don't put signs of saying, no shoulder. it is ridiculous. you are spending all this money and tax dollars on schools -- which is unconstitutional -- and

you look at the road outside your house, and it is falling apart. host: your final thought? caller: that's it. thank you. host: thank you and thanks for watching c-span. from government executive, this is the headline -- america's every structure crisis is really a maintenance crisis. we build even though our pot of road funding requires increasingly creative solutions to remain anything but empty. next is george from knoxville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i called in on the oppose line, not because i am opposed to maintain the infrastructure, or even building new infrastructure, but the problem i have is twofold. the term "infrastructure" has become a political was word. -- buzz word.

until you to find specifically what you are talking about, you cannot really deal with it. secondly, the country has an $18 trillion debt. we tried spending on infrastructure, and that was wasted recently. the states generally have a great deal of responsibility in maintaining their highways, and to use this accident and philadelphia, the train accident , for emphasizing infrastructure, i think is an aberration. we do not know what caused that. the money was available to play in the controls, amtrak is a government organization, currently being mismanaged.

i generally think we should maintain our infestation but it should not all come down on the federal government, unless we are willing to give up some other sources of expenditure. we can't have everything. host: george from knoxville, tennessee. michael on her twitter page -- how much money that goes to infrastructure spending is spent on administration costs and permitting? next is bought from philadelphia. you are front and center with all of this with the amtrak train crash in your community. caller: excuse me? host: i said you are front and center with the train crash last week. caller: yes, we are. i called in on the opposed line because of the simple reason that the government is incompetent and run by morons.

this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is an everybody issue. listen up. this came out from the social security, the inspector general. they did an audit on everyone on social security. out of all the people, 500,000 of them are at the age of 112 or older. this is why i'm saying that art government is moronic. this is the easiest fix. all you do is stop payment on the checks. the people who come forward there are legitimate, you give it to them. this is a simple fix that would not cause a lot of money but would say was probably millions. this is why i am so opposed to this. people need to get on the phone and demand that they fix this by stuffing the checks -- stopping the checks. we need to come together and fix this one problem before they spend anything else. look at all these things, the

people who did not go to jail for that global thing earlier. this is so out of hand, and out of control. we, the people, can fix this. i'm so frustrated. all we have to do -- the guy was going twice this be. a had nothing to do with infrastructure. plus, the cars, they screw stones at him -- threw stones at him, or something happen. host: that is part of the investigation. according to "the new york times" that is a common problem in philadelphia. if you're just too many and or listening on c-span radio, we are vocus thing on more infrastructure spending. we have divided our lines between those who support and those who oppose more spending. the front page of "the des moines register" -- by e,

dave, as david letterman steps down from the tonight show. also, iowa gop audience the lights and bounty of choices. the full story is available online. the lincoln dinner winner is not the person you would expect -- "the des moines register" pointing out that the person who kept everyone running on time with tim albright, making sure that everyone spoke for 10 minutes or less. [video clip] rand paul: we are having the debate on if the iraq war was a mistake? was a a good idea? would we do it again? it is a valid question. not because we are talking a history, but we are talking of the middle east where history

repeats itself. it seems to repeat itself. we have the question, is iraq more stable or less stable since saddam hussein is gone? is there more chaos or less chaos? is isis more of a threat now? the same question that was asked to republicans needs to be asked of hillary clinton. somebody needs to ask hillary clinton, if she ever takes any questions, was a good idea to topple gadhafi in libya. go i think it is a disaster. libya is a failed state. someone ought to pay. hillary clinton needs to answer questions about it. [applause] host: rand paul, one of the 11 speakers at the lincoln dinner and iweb. by the way, the full bijan all of the speakers are available on our website, at c-span.org as part of our road to the white

house coverage. more is expected later this month. the speakers each had 10 minutes to deliver their remarks. more infrastructure spending -- support or oppose? that is what we are asking. julia from fayetteville, north carolina. good morning. caller: hello there. i want to tell you that amtrak goes north and south through north carolina. i would be glad to pay more of my gas tax for amtrak. i work the budget for a thousand years. i would suggest that we take money from the congressman who do not spend much time in congress, and when they work is when they get paid. put a woman in charge of this thing and you will see it fixed. we need to fix that rail of their, or anyplace else, that a train goes 100 miles per hour. host: julia from north carolina.

wayne has this on her facebook page -- better infrastructure promotes better productivity and efficiency throughout the country. charles says, we should demand it, the nation needs it, also the people needed. dean says, how could you be against updating our early 19th-century antique, which we call infrastructure? from twitter remember the governors who refuse the stimulus money, now roads and bridges are falling apart. now, rocky. caller: i oppose the spending. i think the government does not spend money well. i have an example. i buy a gps. you have amtrak wanting to spend millions on the speed control. i'm sure the private sector

could , with a -- could come up with a cheaper solution. you look at how we manage the colorado river. if the colorado river dries out not much freshwater, if any, gets into the ocean. if california managed its water better, they would have plenty. host: the headline this morning -- brown's area california, thanks partly to father. a look at california, led in part by governor pat brown first elected back in 1958 defeated in 1966 by ronald reagan. marie is joining us for woodstock, georgia. good morning. caller: i do support it. i think that we need better

infrastructure. you can look at the trains in china and other countries. they are streamlined safe. we definitely need it. for those who are so anti-government, there is waste and corporations. we need to support our government and not be so political. if we have morons representing us, that is because we elected the morons. we need to stop looking at republican-democrat, and do what is right for our country. thank you for taking my call. host: from our facebook page, a lot of commas. you can share whether you support or oppose infrastructure spending. including eric who says, not just for maintenance, but for expansion and advancement. barbara says, i supported. raphael says, i support, but it would require tax increases, and republicans have signed those

idiotic pledges to not raise taxes. ron is joining us from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i definitely support infrastructure spending. this corridor is the most populous in the united states. if they had positive train control, this would have never happened. now, the republican conservatives, as your hearing on this show and elsewhere, as usual, are taking no accountability for the situation. we need to invest in every structure, not only here, but across the whole united states for downs, highways -- for da ms, highways. host: from inside "the washington post" -- o'malley's toughest task, getting noticed. the piece points out that party

conditionals may help. another speaker from last night's lincoln dinner in iowa. carly fiorina. [video clip] mistys. fiorina: since i launched my campaign, i have answered over 300 questions on the record. hillary clinton has answered eight. i have gotten some interesting questions like, is a hotdog a sandwich? [laughter] or, am i criticizing hillary clinton because i am a woman? i'm criticizing hillary clinton because i come from a world where a title is just the title and talk is just talk. and actions be clouded than words, and people want to know, what is your track record and what have you actually accomplished at go is killer --

if hillary clinton is going to run for presidency of the united states, she will have to answer some questions, and we will have to have a nominee who will have the courage to ask her those questions. host: carly fiorina last night at the lincoln dinner in iowa where candidates had a chance to speak. all of it on our website. check it out at c-span.org. the cover of "s cq weekly" looking at the 25 most influential women in congress. our next caller joining us from houston, texas. caller: i do not know how anybody could it support -- could not support it. what can you do without infrastructure? you cannot move your products on the road, you cannot travel.

if anyone has taken a road trip lately, they are fully aware that we need infrastructure in this country. i certainly do support it and i thank you. host: a couple of other political notes that we want to share with you quickly. he is heavy, he is my brother -- a look at the relationship between jeb bush and george bush. former senators santorum will officially announce this month. part of the column focuses on who will be invited to the debates. it says, kind of like the masters, he should be automatically included in the debates. fox news will have the first debate in early august in cleveland, which is also the site of the republican convention next summer. scott walker's tax populism -- this is inside "national review."

jack is joining us next from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm certainly not opposed to increasing any kind of tax, if i felt that the government was going to spend the money wisely. regrettably, that is not the case. your entire program this morning has been about government incompetence -- the money that they spent on everything. for people to call in and compare and say that everyone has wasted. we need to get realistic, the government is big, bloated, and corrupt. they cannot do anything well. we have major problems in this country, and raising the gas tax is not going to fix it. host: one of our viewers says that china and japan are small and overpopulated, trains make more sense there. , not true in usa where everyone has a car or take the bus. from the "think progress" -- why

you can't talk about amtrak the relevant without thinking about congress. caller: i supported. as far as the restrictions amtrak -- there is more to that case that i think people are to look into. one was the engineer, the only person running the train. i'm a former train employee, and they eliminated the caboose. my question is where was the rest of the crew members? were they collecting tickets? where was the conductor? if the engineer was of their operating the train by himself that is insane. i was with an engineer going

into pittsburgh, i was on the head in, a young man threw a stone, and it was during the summertime, it hit him in the head, and we slowed the train down and got him off. again, like a said, if the engineer was on that head in by himself, amtrak should be held accountable. host: thank you. that projectile is part of the investigation that rail officials and the national transportation safety board are looking into. peter has this point, i supported, we need a national effort similar to fdr's new deal to repair our country. remember that gyro copter which landed on the capital this morning there is an essay saying

, everyone is entitled to an opinion on my flight over the mall, but i not commit this peaceful protest without thought. the message was delivered. it was a message that americans agree with. a poll indicates that 91% of americans see the corrosive influence of money on our system, and it is a problem that demands attention. in the poll, voters identified frustrations with government as their number one concern ahead of jobs. hughes is now famous when a gyro copter. the picture is reprinted this morning in "the washington post ," just before he landed. mary is joining us from california. good morning. caller: good morning. when i read about billions missing in military expenditures in afghanistan and iraq, and

that the wealthiest people in our country put their money offshore to avoid paying taxes corporations pay probably less of a percentage than i do. i make five figures. not six figures, and yet my tax burden is light 25%. yes, infrastructure is important , and i do agree, we need something like a new deal plan to put people to work. for one thing, we know now that money does not trickle down. the economy will not be health by giving tax breaks to corporations. but by giving taxpayers to those of us in the middle-class and below. we will spend our money, as i do, trying to pay my taxes, and yet, maintain my home and lifestyle, which is not great.

it is just getting by. i do not have a lot left over at the end of the month. then, i read about the republicans wanting to cut social security, medicare. i wonder why i am paying taxes. i would pay taxes to support the infrastructure, education, but i am paying my fair share, and i believe many americans do. when we have endless more, there are whole generations that will grow up without knowing that we could be at peace at some time. i grew up in the time of eisenhower. there was a time in our country before we -- before continuous war. i worry about this generation. i worry that our so-called leaders have no foresight to see

that we need to -- instead of giving tax breaks and allowing oil companies to drill in the arctic, for instance -- there are so many resources available to us -- wind power, solar power. we are so backward as a nation. i'm sorry to say it. we are declining. host: i will stop you there because we only have a few minutes left, and i want to get more comments and calls. another viewer thing, do support what? let the bridges fall, the roads crumble. i get in, we are asking if you support or oppose additional funding for infrastructure. "the new yorker" has a related piece on this. the author has been writing about this for years including one piece saying, there are

considerable numbers of americans -- michael is next from new kensington, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i do think you are taking a more calls for infrastructure spending then you are the other way around. in any case, i do not support more infrastructure spending. i do not think that government spends money wisely. i think there are many more things, as that one caller pointed out, about social security. all the money going to people over 112 years old. one thing they have done, for example, the davis-bacon law. democrats passed the davis-bacon law, which makes all the money go to unions.

i'm not an antiunion person, but when it comes to government money, that money could be better spent by having competitive bidding among all people, not just unions. it also keeps minorities out of the job process, as we can see what has happened to minorities in this country. a lot of them are not getting work and jobs, and could be a lot more productive and improve their living style if they were given jobs. not given jobs, but you know could get jobs. davis-bacon has stopped the process from happening. host: thank you very much for the call from pennsylvania. doug is next from missouri. good morning. doug, are you with the stuccous?

one other story that we want to share with you, this is from the associated press. a lot of attention on george stephanopoulos. by the way, we carry all five sunday programs on c-span radio. ap writes that abc faces credibility crisis over stephanopoulos donations. abc saying that stephanopoulos voluntarily removed himself from coverage of a gop debate next february. abc news rules permits charitable donations, but reporters are required to inform management before covering a story. stephanopoulos did not tell his bosses. of course, that now famous interview where stephanopoulos questioned the author of "clinton cash," without

disclosing that he donated to the foundation. that story is from associated press, and also has been posted on a number of websites. coming up, we turn to the house select committee on benghazi. our sunday roundtable will focus on exactly what this committee is looking for. sarah westwood and michael mcauliff will be here to take your calls and comments. later, former ambassador marc ginsberg. first, this weekend on c-span two's booktv we focus on fort lauderdale, florida. you can watch coverage today. we focus on the everglades. here is a preview. [video clip] >> the everglades is the largest container port. the number two cruise port in the world. it's supplies all of the

petroleum for southern florida. if you look at the economic impact of the port to the region, it is over $20 billion over 13,000 direct jobs, over 224,000 jobs statewide. it goes back into the late 1800s -- the first ideas of having a port here in south florida to move some of the goods and mostly the fruits and vegetables that were being grown in south florida, to move them to market and other areas of the night states, as well as into the caribbean. back in 1893, basically the fort lauderdale trading post, on the river, just north of port everglades, was the vein of congres commerce, and that led to

make lake mabel. in about 1913, a cut was put into the beach to allow small boats to go in and out of the lake and into the ocean. that was really the prelude to the major project which started with authorization by the state legislator in 1927 to proceed with a port here. what is now port everglades. host: this weekend, we look at fort lauderdale and port everglade, which is the gateway to florida trade and also cruise ships. ♪

>> ♪ planet earth is blue ♪ ♪ there's nothing left to do ♪ >> tonight on c-span's "q&a," veteran astronaut chris created many videos during his space expiration. , the only time that i had a shiver of fear was on the dark side of the earth, looking at one side of australia, eastern australia, in the darkness, and watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at first i had the standard reaction of wishing on the star, but then i had the sobering realization that was in fact just a huge rock going -- who knows, 20 miles per second --

that missed us and made it down to the atmosphere. if it hit us, it was a big enough wonder you could see it. if it hit us, we would have been dead in an instant. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: on our sunday roundtable, we want to welcome michael mcauliff senior reporter for having to post, and sarah westwood of "washington examiner ." the select committee on benghazi continues to get a lot of attention. let's step back and look at why this committee was formed and its initiative. guest: this was formed after congressman wolf proposes in 2013, and speaker of the house john boehner pushed back because they were already for committees

-- four committees looking into this already. then, after judicial watch obtained e-mails from the white house that showed that the security adviser there was advising that they cast this response to a youtube clip rather than an overarching policy failure, was the straw that broke the camel's back for john boehner. last year, they formed the select committee. we were seeing tension between the committee that were forming to undertake these investigations. there was some competition there. this committee to get out of the hands of different congressman and put it in one place. host: the question that people seem to be asking is what will be former secretary of state and now presidential candidate hillary clinton, testified before the committee? i want to share what trey gowdy told politico -- the committee

will call secretary clinton testify, once it is satisfied that all the relevant information has been provided by both the state department and her. some say that this is a way for the committee, headed by republican to dry up the process into 2016. guest: there is a dispute right now on what the state department has to provide. the committee has asked for e-mails from secretary clinton and 10 of her talk advisers. the state department says, you are asking for two years of material from 11 people and not providing any guidance on how to narrow the search down. they are stuck there were the committee is saying, we're being very clear, and the state department is saying, you are being way too broad, and it will take us forever to produce that material. host: there is this from elijah cummings, a member of the

committee, a democrat from maryland. he says, every time, the committee comes up with a new excuse to further delay its work and then blames its glacial pace on someone else. republicans are desperately trying to validate the $3 million in taxpayer funds they have spent in the last year, but they have nothing to show for it other than a partisan attack against secretary clinton. guest: she has come back and said i will come before the committee and testify once and only once. trey gowdy and other republicans on the committee wanted hillary clinton, and once about the use of the private e-mail server, which we know came out of document discoveries from the benghazi committee, and once on her role in the terrorist attacks and the subsequent handling of it at the state department. she is coming back saying that she will only testify once. trey gowdy and other members of the committee are saying they

want to make sure that there record is complete so that they can basic questions on the most substantial evidence. host: what she does is, will it be on the record and before cameras or behind closed doors? guest: that is something that we have not worked out completely. her people wanted to be public. that they got the committee has pushed for transcript it interviews, to give her more of a cover of privacy to perhaps provide more detail than she otherwise would. the public hearing would possibly prevent her being as forthcoming as she could because she is running for president and of course, people will be watching the committee, and looking at it through the prism of her candidacy. a private interview would give her more freedom. host: michael mcauliff, has the state department been forthcoming? guest: they say they have. they have given up something

along the lines of 40,000 different documents. it is not just the state department, that some of the other people. they have come up with 300 of clinton's e-mails, and the have this accountability review board report -- about 4000 pages of that. i don't believe one has ever been invited to a congressional committee before. they feel like they have been forthcoming. yet, on the other hand, gallery and his committee can point to thousands of things that they do not have yet. it comes again back to the dispute over whether or not they can physically narrow down what they are searching for. they have to go through each of these things individually, see if it is classified, and then decide how to turn it over. host: i want to go back to what she told senator ron johnson that famous exchange that took place back in 2013. she was stepping down from the state department, and basically saying, what difference does it make?

before we hear that, has that resonated among committee members? is that something that they continue to go back to? guest: certainly that dismissive attitude has colored the way the committee handles hillary clinton at this point. it highlights what they say they have been dealing with for years which is that the agency has been secretive, it is not forthcoming about documents, we do not know everything, and hillary is avoiding the question. the private e-mails, her reluctance to pass that over has highlighted the frustration that the committee has faced. host: again, the attack took place on september 11, 2012, just a few weeks before the presidential election, and in january 2 thousand 13, this was secretary of state hillary clinton. [video clip] secretary clinton: we have for

dead americans. whether because of a protest or because people were out for a walk and decided to kill americans? it is our job to make sure this does not happen again. honestly i will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. host: michael mcauliff, could we see a repeat performance if she testifies before cameras? guest: i think we could see a repeat performance of that. you have the members of the select committee, who are well-versed, and can ask probing questions. i think it could easily get a little defensive and heated. that is not necessarily a bad thing for hillary clinton. she tends to be more well liked oddly, when she is under fire. when this revelation about her e-mail account -- her personal

e-mail account -- being the only way that she did her business, her approval ratings on they went out. it is not necessarily a bad thing for her. however, if they come up with something new where she job the ball on something, that would be a tough issue to handle. host: that e-mail account resurrected a lot of questions about hillary clinton, and also bill clinton like from "time magazine" saying that she implement a different roles. guest: exactly. you see everything going on with her family foundation. people questioning the sort of -- source of revenues, the way that she handles communications, whether her staff was working for this consulting firm and the foundation, at the same time they were working at the state department -- like you said, resurrecting old questions.

her outburst, so to speak, in the previous hearing, about what difference does it make -- she cannot really do that again now that she is running for president and there are all these questions about whether she plays by the same set of rules. she would need to focus on facts and details. host: are sunday roundtable focusing on the house benghazi committee and hillary clinton. i guesss -- our guests are sarah westwood and michael mcauliff. the phone lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. you can also send us a tweet at @cspanwj. bruce from florida. good morning to you. democrats line. caller: good morning, everyone. what i would like for all my republican friends to know is the house select committee on benghazi has released their report. they found nothing wrong, but

the republicans do not know this because fox news would not even reported. as far as e-mail servers go colin powelljeff bush in the state of florida did the same thing. this is all about 2016. keyword. host: michael? guest: the select committee has not released its report here. they had a little of eight into the process, about a year ago. they have this accountability review board. there have been seven other reports released, including from the house intelligence committee and the house armed services committee. fast found that there were no long-term -- wrongdoing.

they felt that the things could have been done better, but no wrongdoing. host: he found an inadvertent name change? guest: yes. one of the headlines was watch chairman gaudi on select e-mails. that is where the heat of the light will be focused the next few months. host: a tweet -- i have never seen fox news show hillary's full what difference does it make statement. full content was masked to stir discontent. you can watch the full statement on our website, c-span.org.

guest: it is interesting, she says what difference at this point does it make. she later goes on to say we need to find all of the facts. it is contradictory that she is looking today into this further, but she is dismissing the fact that we need to look at this because what difference does it make? it is a contradictory statement. there is no real answer to that question. host: pat, south carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the political statement was just made that the benghazi committee has wasted millions of dollars in this investigation. they are getting paid whether they go to the bathroom, they sent an office, or the go to the floor. where have they spent just millions of dollarss?

-- dollars? guest: they hired a lot of investigators. they are for five of them that happens. intelligence and law enforcement and diplomatic as fairest, and they are doing interviews. they are preparing transcripts they had to build an entire secure system to handle the information that is secret or classified that is being given to them. it is a large staff. you have seven republican members, five democratic members, at each side has people working on it. the number 3.3 million dollars, and it is not supposed to have lasted this long. mayville they will need more money -- maybe they will need more money. host: bill, from buzzards bay massachusetts. caller: good morning.

if benghazi was not already bad enough, right after benghazi i was left with two issues. one issue was mrs. clinton's decision-making with respect to security of the people in benghazi. i was also, and i feel equally important, very concerned with her use of the cover-up of this crazy video. because president obama had declared just weeks earlier that al qaeda was on the run. she said that they will get to the bottom of this, using the red ha hearing of that video.

-- read d herring of that video. your previous caller said this is about 2016, and it is. do we want a precedent who has the credentials that benghazi has presented at her cover-up? host: thank you. let's go back to march of this year. this is what hillary clinton have to say after she spoke to reporters at the united nations in new york. >> first, when i got to work at secretary of state, i opted for convenience use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department, because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal

e-mails, instant of two. looking back, it would have been better if i simply used a second e-mail account and second phone, but it did not seem like an issue. the vast majority of my work e-mails with two government employees at their government addresses, which meant that they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. host: these e-mails and what is available and what is not is going to be part of the question. he says he cannot trust hillary clinton. guest: it is impossible for the committee to know now that they have a complete record. going back to the question of hillary's credentials, this continued attention on benghazi

highlights a major event during her tenure at secretary of state. this intervention in libya. it's really focuses a harsh light on the fact that there is still a lot of unrest in libya when people would argue that our intervention was not successful, and she was an architect of a policy there. guest: i think that the relevance of it is not so much the specific response to this event which now there are seven reports on there that look at that and light it could been better -- have been better, it is the perception of people of her that she is not entirely candid. when she said she landed under sniper fire, and there was actually schoolchildren greeting her. when you had her personal

e-mail, it raises that trust question. like i said before, people who like hillary clinton to respond favorably when shoes under attack. it is a double-edged lord. the waning days of the campaign, at what point what does it matter, it will be one great big that will be trying to make people suspicions over once again. it will be a tough line for her to walk. host: you wrote about the espionage act, and how hillary clinton could be charged under the act. guest: it was originally passed in 1970. it was designed to focus on spies. however, it has been used by the

obama administration more than any wone to go after leakers and those who have documents. there are those who were accused of the espionage act because they held on to document. s. he wasn't spying, he was not trying to do any harm, but he had to plead guilty to a violation of that act in order to avoid jail time. if someone could go back and look at hillary to the -- at hillary's e-mails, and find anything, he would be able to say she is in the violation of

the espionage act. i cannot see a democratic administration doing that. even for a republican, general betray us had -- petraeus had a problem with that, it would be extremely unlikely that this would ever happen. but it is a technical violation of the law. host: the select committee on the events around the attack in benghazi in 2012 is what we are focusing on. independent line. caller: it seems that this benghazi things keeps going on and on. it was what the military would consider a hazardous zone. if i was back in the army right now, i would be getting hazardous duty pay, because it is a war zone.

things have been war zones. i witnessed occasions where the whole platoon was wiped out by a stray show, -- shell, and at hamburger hill where we were told to advanced when we could have used support. nobody called the state department to task over these issues, and hundreds of soldiers were killed. host: thank you for the call. guest: most of the criticisms that have threaded the handling of the ungodly attack, have dealt with what led up to and what followed the attack, but not how people on the ground and build it. by all accounts, the personnel who tried to save those four victims did everything they could. there was no specific tactical

warning about this attack, but they knew that the security system was deteriorating and did not allocate some of those resources from tripoli to benghazi like they should have or after the attack, there was some spin that was put on it by people who do not agree with it. but by all accounts, the men on the ground to do what they -- did what they could. guest: we will never know precisely what she held onto and what she deleted. she to learn over some 33,000 e-mails to the state department. she and her lawyers and her advisers are the only be all who decided what was relevant and

what was not, and they erased everything. we will never know completely, for sure, what was on that server. host: providence, rhode island, independent line. caller: i have a couple of things. i would like to know how many times this woman is able to live before the justice department is going to do something about it. she lied about the number of phones she has had she lives in that she did not know she had to use a government server. she lives about -- lied about not giving protection to benghazi. enough is enough. the gentleman asked if it is a trust issue. it is not a trust issue, it is a legal issue. the justice department of the obama administration has covered

every employee, and for every person connected to benghazi. they have not prosecuted anyone. guest: i do not know that you can go so far as to say the words lying. she understands the rules and regulations very well. it looks to me like she did the best that she could to have it the way that was most favorable to her. however, i think in terms of the laws, i think you would have to prove she caps on sort of classified material on her servers after she left. she said she did not. that is the debate over whether or not it did violate the federal regulations regarding how she had to keep records. that is up for debate. guest: i would just add to that the frustration your expressing about the e-mail servers and the potential dishonesty that surrounded her communications

and her handling of the benghazi incident are two separate issues, and that is why the committee asked her to. two separate times, and why they are pushing back on the fact that she is only offered to testify wants. this is a potential violation of the law, she kept classified information on her servers. that could potentially be something that the justice department may look into. her handling of the benghazi situation is not likely criminal, and that is a totally separate issue. host: our sunday roundtable looking into the benghazi hearings. jack, democrats line providence, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, the lady in my home state a spot on.

i will give you an example of her direct live. she lied about being under fire in bosnia. secondly concerning our intelligence services, the cia the nsa, they had that information already, and those records can be subpoenaed by house oversight or the senate. in a way, this is a lot of baloney. they can prosecute, i'm not sure they can go far with it. but it is a question of if they want to do this. furthermore, the democratic party is no longer the party of the working man. i worked on wall street for over 30 years at the mid-level. it is controlled by an international elite.

also, in london, and europe. that is all i have to say. but all of the intelligence services have this. guest: i am not sure that the intelligence services have all this. i think that may be giving them more credit than they deserve. again, you would need to have something, a smoking gun if you will that she actually violated the law. there is no sign of any of that in many of these investigations. maybe the benghazi committee which did turn up the fact that she has this private e-mail will turn up something new, but there is nothing there so far. host: what makes these four benghazi deaths more important than the 4500 iraq gold star soldiers?

guest: people are pointing to this as a specific intelligence and tactical failure that we ignored warnings that the state department was getting, that we then spun it after words to make it seem that it was in response to a video clip, and not mrs. rarely a policy failure in the country. the iraq war, before it began by all accounts we thought that we had we intelligence to go after that, at the was a concerted effort by hillary clinton included to go to war in iraq. when we look at benghazi this is not a combat mission, this was an unfortunate incident that happened to those that were there for diplomatic reasons. host: rick, oxford, florida republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments

about benghazi. the first one is you hear all of the time that there have been seven or eight investigations or hearings on it, and nothing has been turned of wrongdoing. unfortunately, the administration is very slow in living information out, if they do let information out. when they do, they just do it in drips and drafts, so i cannot say that they are done with the investigation when all the information is not out. guest: you had investigations by a lot of classified briefings. you have a lot of stuff that we are never going to hear about. they talked about, in those closed-door hearings and investigations when three republican reports come out that to not find this sort of smoking

gun, this wrongdoing, you have to take that pretty seriously. buck mckeon was heading the armed services committee the last time this came out. he is not a democrat friend. he looked very hard and very seriously, and the same goes to the intelligence committee. he will not do a shoddy job. i will be surprised if the conclusion changes radically. people will differ on the conclusions based on the fact that he produces. host: virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. what i would like to see giving hillary before the committee again will be -- she is a show pony. but i do not understand why they

need to subpoena some of her lower as someone -- echelon people on the ground at the time that everything was going down. i think the american people should hear from the people who were there. i do not understand why they have not subpoenaed some of these people and put them under questioning to find out what went down. i do not need to watch hillary saying what difference does it make again. it does not make sense. if they could subpoena some of the people that were there, i would like to hear them speak. thank you. host: did we not hear from others during the earlier investigations of benghazi? guest: set of investigations split between different committees, some got some parts

of documents that is why the select committee was created to stop questions of whether the investigations were adequate. something we have seen none of the select committee are additional witnesses that have never before been interviewed. and like mike said earlier, we did see records being subpoenaed there. we did see more of an effort to prevent lower rates of the state department in terms of an investigation. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: even without a smoking gun, it shows the confidence of the secretary of state, who has a responsibility to have a contingency layout, or make sure there is a contingency plan in place is just night -- and just

like the movies, they have a failsafe in place and the point is, hillary did not have a contingency plan for the rest of his people. they could not respond in time. if this is libya. it is on the anniversary, and we do not have a plan in place for all embassies around the world especially those that are in danger that we cannot rescue them in time? guest: that is one of the problems that was identified in all of the reports. it is not just the state department problem, it is a multi-department problem. the facilities in libya needed to be protected by the army, by the military. they did not have a dedicated unit that to respond to these sorts of emergencies. they needed to depend on the unit that was on's or europe.

that unit was training in croatia to be better at their job. and they had to respond with what was available. the determined what the situation was. they worry that there would be more tr attacks and tripoli. the credit that hostages, because they did not know where everyone was at that time, and sending in armed forces might've made the situation worse. all of the reports of concluded that the people that were there at the time, the question is should the state department and the military have had a better plan? it is a difficult question to answer because there have been many attempts. should probably do better at

that sort of landing, but there again it is much more of a systemic bureaucratic type of thing, and intentional or even incompetent. it is a very tough question. host: walk us through the timeline in terms of this committee, what we can expect this summer, will they wrap up business before the end of the year, and what we can look for in 2016. guest: chairman gaudi thinks they can finish by the end of 2015, but there were some reports that came outt recently that save this video it is way 16, prompt democrats to say it is political, because they wanted to round while she is running for office. however, they say new they can get it done by the end of 2015. they have to work out that dispute of whether or not the

state department can handle wer more documents so that the committee can be prepared to interview her. caller: good morning. you have a program on about the top marine in the white house during bill clinton's rain. -- reign. you need to bring the out who really know them. like the person who wrote the book who was her friend for many years and the one thing that stood out is that she said she is ruthless. in benghazi, there was this deal with ill. these things are treason. when would anyone else get away with this. get the marines by crown that was with bill clinton at all times.

everybody knew that they hate the military, he said he came out the french doors quickly and he looks them in the eyes and said i hate you guys. if you look at the bible, russia say it says that russia, persia, and the middle east will come under the rest of the world. we have people like that. we need general petraeus. i think he was set up racing's like every time we needed general, our military has n been downsized by the hundred thousand maybe more. everyone in the world is against them. we are not being treated right. we have needed a that card forever. i would like to ask these top leaders why do you care more

about the illegals, and still hillary wants the illegals, they will take the country over. it is a plot to make all americans disappear. she sold us out in benghazi. she sold us out, letting bill get all of these millions, not billions. people are considering -- we need a law that the networks cannot lie during political seasons and bring people in. host: we do not want to have any misperceptions on the table. i want to follow up on two things you said. first of all your quote about bill clinton saying he hates these guys. what is your source? caller: you have the clip. i saw it on c-span. host: you say that general

entrance was set up -- petraeus was set up? this was classified information that he gave to his mistress. caller: it was a note and has journal in a drawer that was not locked. he is a very honorable man. the thing with the mistress, what about bill clinton's mistress? in general petraeus made a mistake. so to david in the bible. in general petraeus, we need somebody who knows the military. what does hollinger that hillary know about the military other than she does not like them? guest: i would not say that hillary does not like the military. i perceive her as a very hawkish member of the democratic side. she is liberal in a lot of ways, but militarily she is very

hawkish. she was very strong in talking about going into iraq. from what i have read about her presence in the situation room and in the capsules of the obama administration, she has been more consistently on the side of use military force. i did not think that goes to her own personal feelings about the military, but she seems to believe that they are strong and effective since she's going to use them. host: columbus, ohio. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. this is my problem with this whole discussion we are having today. why we cannot afford to do anything about it. here we are discussing a crisis that we all know is not a crisis.

you have these crises that. to be crises, and it just comes out of thin air. we know that there are a lot of linden haters out there. we had a lady on the phone quoting the bible, and i don't recall seeing the word russia in the bible. you have to give these people credibility even discussing these things. they impeach her husband. do not act like these people are not biased. they impeach to because they did not like him. they do not like mrs. clinton. whether it is because she is a liberal, or she is just the person who they do not like, they do not like her. host: we will get a response.

guest: the benghazi attack was several years ago, but this committee is relatively new. it was formed because the investigations that preceded it were not considered adequate by people in congress and members of the public. and when you're taking a look at what has come out of this committee in just the small amount of time that it has been convened which mask a whole host of things including heard the handling of the benghazi situation. that came out of this committee, and tools knows come out of the committee when you remove it of the normal duties of a standing committee and make it a special select committee like we have now. that creates the freedom to dig a little the for, to hire new investigators specifically dedicated to this. host:

follow sarah westwood on twitter, and michael mccaul oauliff as well. caller: so many questions q&a session with hillary unfortunately was all questions and no answer. that is why we need this investigative committee. but my questions are relative to benghazi, not other issues because that is what the subject is today. michael, a little while ago you dismissed security concerns questions because they were complicated. the before picture living with the chaos after obama piggybacked on the british and french to oppose gaddafi. they will because they were

attacked by refugees in may 2012. in june the british embassy was closed because of the tax. why did and present obama and secretary hillary sent ambassadors stevens into benghazi with all his curiosity going on? the ambassador's events asked for more security, as hillary is the state. they took away, in august, the little security they had. why? host: with both of these questions, your point is what? your point is what? caller: i have one final question. at 345 p.m., in washington times, that is when the attack occurred in benghazi. host: your point is what?

your questions to michael, what is your point? caller: why was stephen sent there in the first place with all of the chaos? host: do you think it was intentional? caller: what you mean what was intentional? host: you say it was an intentional effort to give him what he was asking for? caller: obviously, he was rejected. guest: all of these reports have found that they could have done a better job with the prep work. that is really not in dispute. whatever mentioning all of those other agencies and all of the other unit of motions that have to happen is that you cannot get into a conspiracy place when you have that many moving parts. the question is, should they

have had a more focused rational response in libya ahead of time? the answer in hindsight is yes they should have. what would you are in the situation and you are making those decisions, it is possible to make them wrong. that does not prescribe ill will to anybody. guest: no one in congress is suggesting that this is a malicious act at this point. it is really a question of whether there was negligence and whether there was a systemic failure on both of intelligence and logistics. allocating security resources where they were needed. it is clear that did not happen. the question is now how do we fix that, and could this happen again? some people have questioned whether or not we have policies in place that allow security gaps that could threaten our conflicts and and thi embassies around

the world. guest:caller: i want to choose my words and have a little bit of a give-and-take. i believe in the bible, and more people should too. but what i wanted to do, the big question over this is -- what does it really matter, there is nothing we could do about it, that seems to be the attitude and no one seems to be able to put the whole story and what's what together. you have either those who think it is a conspiracy, or those who do not understndand the

bureaucracy of systemic issues. the moral outrage of this whole things come down to that these administration was doubling down on its failures. they wanted to pretend the arab spring was working. they were taking chances with security. our government would keep them on top of the situation. six weeks before the election, they said let's let it play out let's see what happens. they took a chance with the security situation for political advantage. when it will work in their faces, and i think there was a disagreement in the situation room because they would not do her part and take her time on stage to defend the administration's actions. she sent for miss rice out to

give the statement about the cake ofe video. host: want to give our guests a chance to respond. guest: i do not think she feigned a headache, she had a blood clot and she had to take londoners. i am not sure where the idea of feigning that came from. host: right after the attack she did not appear on the sunday programs. the blood clot to place -- took place later in the fall. guest: but yes, she was supposedly tired and exhausted and did not show up. regardless, all of those reports that have come out looking at the spin i feel there was in as a human being in the world, but all of the reports and found that there no malicious, willful intent to hide or alter the facts. there was conflicting

intelligence, extreme reports from people in the press on the ground who thought there was some kind of protest. there was legitimate confusing and the cia is the one who changed most of those talking points. they were being cautious, and that is how the reports of some did. host: who else is committee wants to question, who would you add to that list? caller:guest: we look at her top aides who would've been by her side the night and who can give a full account of what was going on in the state department at that time. host: what is good? -- going to happen next? guest: we are going to see how adequate her testimony is because the committee may not let up on his desire to have her testify twice about the different issues that are surrounding her time at the state department. host: the washington examiner

investigate reporter, to work for joining us. and michael, we appreciate your insights on this sunday morning. when we come back, we will turn our attention to the mideast and the presidents meeting with leaders of gulf coast nations. what it means relations, as we continue to negotiate of -- first, c-span's newsmakers program, our guest this week is senator mike lee of utah. will there be enough votes to pass the freedom act when it is brought to the floor? >> i cannot tell you that we have 60 votes right now. i cannot count to 60 right now. i think we brought it to the

floor, we have opened amendment process, we could quickly get to the point where we could get the 60 points -- phones on something. i think some variation of it could pass by 60 votes. not a certainty, but very few things are, so this is why we need to bring it forward. this is what could pass the house. if it could pass the house, we need to give it a shot in the senate. >> what might that entail to get those 60 votes? >> i'm not the best one to ask because i could support it as is. i am the study sponsor of the bill. i prefer to pass it as it is now. but those might want to see a different transition for example. instead of seeing a six-month transition time when, they might want to extend that further.

to address those who have concerns with development concerns i do not share. >> rand paul would like to repeal the patriot altogether. if he has not committed, do you think you could count on him to give your 60th vote? >> i'm going to try, with rain. we share the view that the bulk data collection program is wrong. i'm going to continue to lobby him every time i get the chance. the big reason why he and so many others are concerned about the real the rising atria act, i think for the biggest reason has to do with data collection. that is what we are ending here. i think we will be better off as a result if we pass this bill. host: discussion on the usa freedom act and those in front of the senate.

you can listen to newsmakers on c-span radio commanded his listed on our website at c-span.org. we want to welcome mark ginsburg andd we begin with the news from the new york times and we begin with this photograph of president morsi, his hands in the air behind bars, sentenced to death. why? >>guest: when i was watching the trial, and watching the charges that were leveled against him in effect under this new government of lcc, this crackdown on the muslim brotherhood and the fact that the war he was president, he was involved in helping to bring prisoners and evade house

arrest, it shows you at this point in time, the manipulation of the egyptian judiciary in order to crack down so severely on the muslim brotherhood that either they are going to sentence him to death, and then there will be an appeal and this process will go on forever, or the judge in the case will eventually drop one of the charges, and then he will be sentenced to a term of life in prison. it is clear that as long as the current government is in power the last may what does mr. morsi released. host: he is also being charged with leaking documents and d insulting the judiciary. if he is killed, does he not

become a martyr? guest: to the muslim brotherhood that has always been underground indigent, he clearly becomes a more -- a martyr. domestically there have been less bombings, less attacks. the crackdown by the military has been significant. that has come at a price, and clearly the muslim brotherhood feels that they should -- the only route that they have no is to engage in terrorism. the other problem is that the egyptians face and islamic uprising in the peninsula, which is rising --resulting in the terrorist attacks. host: when you woke up to this photo, what was your reaction? >> shock. it shows you in effect, how much

whoever is in charge can use the judiciary in a way to bring these charges and become death penalty charges which is shocking. host: we are in rome for the canonization of two nins. -- nuns, . the vatican now recognizing the palestinians date. what impact does this have on the two state solution between israel and palestine? guest: the pope has been very quite a run on the issue of palestine committee and the immunization of the known -- nuns is quite different.

there is a small christian community in the west bank, and isan enormous amount of challenges you and a lot of time there the last couple of years, working as former ceo and have a great deal of empathy for the christians. not only in palestine, but there are significant numbers of christian palestinians in israel. it obviously is an honorable and more importantly, the pope is providing a certain amount of legitimacy for a letter european union nations should begin providing unilateral recognition of the palestinians date. we have seen moves by the french parliament, by the british parliament, we have seen --

why? you cannot have a two state solution that is negotiated. the palestinian leadership is going to have to reach the compromises as well as the israeli government are going to have to reach the compromises. president is not done enough to prepare his own people for the compromises that are necessary in order to reach a two state solution. host: those nuns who were canonized today, he was given relics and called them an angel of peace. guest: when your angelic you have a duty and responsibility to your people.

i know president abbas. personally. she ishe is a very decent and honorable man. yes, you put the entire blame for the failure of the negotiations squarely on the israelis even though there's plenty of blame to go around there. i would like more of the necessary compromises to give israel some more assurances that the palestinians are ready for peace. host: let's talk about presidents meeting with the gulf cooperation council. here is a look at those nations that participated in a daylong summit that took lace not far from camp david. united arab emirates bahrain saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait.

coming home to roost. the united states said that we can happen ago it was going to come only 48 hours later. it was not a snob says the white house, was it? guest: of course it was a snob. no matter how you look at it. i've been involved in three administrations and summit negotiations. when you prepare the president for some it may make sure everything is going according to plan. he allegedly received the kings assurances that the summit would be participated in, and what happened over the intervening weekend was following, as is designed and constructed from the article i wrote the object is last week.

they are clearly interested in having security assurances over what the united states is negotiating with iran. they are much concerned that the united states is riveting away from the arab sunni states that have been more or less, we have to be careful about using the word allies. but i would say that the united emirates is a far stronger ally then for example, saudi arabia. at the same time you have a situation where the gcc are very much concerned that the lifting of sanctions is going to provide more funds to an iranian regime to allow mr. for the region. there is now a sore team military campaign against that development. the saudi's are truly to

delegitimize their role as the custodian of the holy places. they are four main shiite rebellions in bahrain. they are very much a role in iraq and syria. the states are very concerned that the united states security blanket is more or less owing to event rate they decided to vote with their feet. host: the essay by marketing -- martinsbuc ginsburg. let's bring our callers into the conversation. john, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to know why there is not a bigger discussion about islam, sunni versus shia?

i think that there needs to the a little bit more explanation about why these two religions are fighting the way they are. guest: that is a great question, and i applaud you for bringing it up, because it is such a hard issue to explain in a few minutes. fact of the matter is that i never thought in all my years of working in the middle east and living there, that i was the outbreak of an actual sunni shiite war. and what is the genesis of this hatred that drives sunnis and shiites to kill each other the way they are, even though he belonged to the state religion? -- same religion? christian protestants versus catholic. we see this around the world. there is a norm of underlying

theological and local efforts the dominant shiite country in the region is not arab, it is iran. the sunni area states of the region are sunni, and the export of the revolution against them. we see this fault line emerged between syria and iraq imagine the all states, and in syria and the yemen. it is extraordinarily complex, and it is important for the united states to not necessarily get involved anymore than it already has an in the theological warfare. host: harrison, tennessee, good morning. caller: i have a question for your guest about the christians in the middle east. why is it that the government in

washington does not have [no audio] there were 80% christians out there, now not even 2%. iraq is mass executing christians. also syria. why is there not an interest in washington so ordered the christians? -- in supporting the christians? guest: one of the most important concerns that people should have in the christian community in iraq, you go back 1000 years and have the small communities that have been massacred by isis and we have not seen, and frankly it is disconcerting to see the reports i have seen about the terrible atrocities that have been committed by isis against the christian immunities. with respect to jerusalem and israel's lordship over the city of jerusalem, they are able to

purchase their religion going to -- the pope has been playing an important role in this. he welcomes the palestinian president, and the greatest threat that they focus is from the intolerance of islamic fundamentalism that has them as adversaries and enemies to be destroyed. host: let's go to robert from our democrat line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. [video clip] caller: could you tell me if you believe the israeli intelligence agency, the massage new that 9/11 was going to happen?

guest: absolutely not. i have absolutely no reason, and i have studied this issue backwards and forwards, so far as the 9/11 commission, and i listened. had any of the intelligence communities have any idea, including allied intelligence communities, the israelis would have every confidence, that they would have wanted to share the with united days and protect americans. host: let's go back to this meeting at camp david. they were outside for part of the session. as we continue to negotiate with the rock, a lot of discussed with these persian nations. >> and reaffirming or ironclad commitment to the security of our golf partners. we are tired to work -- prepared to work with the g7 states to

determine the state concerned with those who are inconsistent with the u.n. charter. the threat of such aggression, we stand to work with our target. host: your question that any wrote in "abington post," wasn't iran deal is in place, it will be up to these nations to fend for themselves. guest: indeed, the president is making a new want statement and it's important to dissect this in a way that people understand. the gcc once in an actual written type of treaty to guarantee their security and frankly, i would have had my own strong reservations about that.

what they are concerned about is that the president will do a victory lap with an iran agreement that will emerge on june 30. and after his term in office comes to an and, whoever is the next president, is going to have to deal with the consequences of a more emboldened iran. and iran that is essentially more determined to engage in mischief in the region and is unbridled from having to worry about the consequences of the u.s. military effort against it. the president's assurances to the gulf states and to israel stand quite hollow in their own years -- and their own ears about what the president is going to do. there is a clear perception in the middle east whether you are sunni arab that in this dash to get a nuclear agreement and despite assurances that the nuclear agreement will curb iran's ambitions, that is the gamble the administration is putting in israel and the gulf

states to the test on. frankly, neither the israelis or the gulf states feel they can afford to gamble on the administration's legacy of an iran deal and that is what is going on. host: the acronym gcc is the gulf cooperation council and here is a list of the nations. from louisiana on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment about earlier about the benghazi. i was over there in 2003 with iraq and i was working with a pr -- k pr. they can have a demonstration so quick. i mean, we was -- i was delivering fuel to the ambassador over there and in one second, everything was so nice and pretty and then the next second, we were surrounded by about 2000 people sitting there couldn't move, couldn't do nothing.

the other thing is that i don't think there will ever be peace over there because the people don't want it. guest: i have spent a lot of time looking at benghazi. chris stevens was a friend of mine, someone i had an enormous admiration and respect for. i think the real issue that has bothered me about benghazi has nothing to do with mrs. clinton per se and i agree with your observation. look at the consequences. libya has become a failed state and a new base for an isis in the middle east. it is the fact that the state department bureaucrats, the undersecretary for management and the people in that building refuse to provide the security that ambassador and regional security officer had asked for because of the increased security threat. that to me is the real consequence of poor decision-making by the state department. and the consequences of that were indeed what we saw happen.

frankly, everybody has been focused on what happened that day. i am more focused on the failure of the state department to provide the security that the ambassador and his staff asked repeatedly and was turned down not by hillary clinton but by the undersecretary of management and his staff. host: let me ask you about this isis rate and the killing that the pentagon says it is a significant blow to isis inside syria, killing one individual and taking his wife. most of values were killed, and operation by u.s. special or says. thoughts? guest: i think the delta force's success of this is incredible. it shows that in effect, the united states is prepared to go behind the lines into the heartland of isis. this man who was not well known by many of us, a tunisian who happened to have been not on the u.s. government's bounty list. the u.s. government had issued a

bounty of 20 million dollars to capture some of the key leaders of isis and he was not on the list, but he was the man with the green eyeshade in charge of the oil sector. isis has been able to confront iraq a military far more diligently in the city of ramadi. we have to understand while the president and delta force deserve an enormous credit for the success of this operation and there may be an enormous intelligence that is named as a result on how isis funds in itself and the leadership and where they may be. at the same time isis forces are battling iraqi forces to a point where we now have to respond to an emergency request from the president of iraq for more military equipment. that shows you that while we may be able to snag or decapitate some of the isis leadership, which by the way, we have and frankly, the administration deserves a lot of reddit. we have been taking out a lot of

commanders at isis, but they still have military forces on the ground to make it extraordinarily ethical to pull it back and push them back away from the territory they must be forced back from. host: they point out there was a fierce fight that took lace, including hand-to-hand combat. you can read the full details at l.a. times.com. this joins us from illinois. republican line, with former ambassador marc ginsberg. good morning, chris. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me speak. i had a quick question about one thing somebody said earlier. they asked about the difference between shiite and shia in islam, but my specific question really relate to what is isil doing compared to what the other part of the groups are doing?

host: chris, thank you. is it isis or isil? guest: i prefer isis. it's the same acronym. the arabs use an acronym which is an arabic acronym for the islamic state. let me be quick in trying to answer this question which is very complicated. the iranian regime is engaged as a negotiating with the united states with the worst types of human rights abuses against its own citizens. the amount of executions that have gone up within iran are astronomical under this new so-called more reformist president for honey. it is important for us not to lose sight of the fact that iranian mullahs has no intention of reforming themselves there. they crackdown against their own population and it continues. at the same time, isis, which is a sunni fundamentalist

organization dedicated to the resurrection of the caliphate under the koran it interpretation of what the first colleagues -- the first jalifs brought about when prophet mohammed was the, shall we say viewed as the first jalif and profit. the fact of the matter is that isis is trying to call -- trying to change -- turn the clock of history back hundreds of years and you can find this sunni theological foundation for what they are engaged in, in koran -- in scripture and interpretations of the koran and you may ask me and i am sure i could point you to a lot of books on this but the fact of the matter is is that isis is determined to try and read the territory it is trying to seize of anyone who they assumed to be pagan or

anyone not prepared to abide by their strict interpretation of sunni islam. host: how is john. viewed in the arab world? -- how is john kerry viewed in the arab world? guest: i think he is viewed as a decent man and he has personal rapport with every leader. i think there is an increasing doubts about his ability to carry forward on his representation on behalf of the administration. he had committed within weeks of becoming secretary of state that he would produce an israeli and palestinian agreement within nine months. all the way up to madeleine albright and as well as carries predecessor, -- kerry's predecessor portland able to reach the plateau. he made a commitment and was unable to facilitate i think it shows a, shall we say, a quick

willingness on his part to believe what he wants to believe in the region. the fact is, if many people have written about his performance in leading up to this gcc summit i have a strong doubts about his ability to truly understand what is going on in the region if he can't even a short administration that the king of saudi arabia is coming after he spoke to him. it shows in some respect, a lack of understanding of the true intent of the leaders that he is dealing with. host: you call that a diplomatic snap on the 10.0 richter scale. guest: it is. listen, i think it is really terrible for any president to have been declared that he was going to bring these leaders together at a summit in the summit is ready to go and all of a sudden, four out of the six don't show up and one of them decides to go and attend a horse race with the queen.

the king -- the new king of saudi arabia decides to be a no-show. look, in the and the issue really is it is their assurances that the president is providing our allies in a region that we are prepared to defend their interests without involving united states further militarily? it's a tough road to hope. frankly, i would never have called the summit in the first place a mess i was certain it would emerge and make the president, whether it is republican or democrat president, emerge in front of arabs as well as israelis, as well as the american people as a stronger leader in the region. frankly, what this summit did was show the president weaker as a result. host: our guest is former adviser to president carter and representative to morocco, senator -- he now writes that "huffington post derrico's piece on camp david summit and some favors by the obama

administration, "guess who is not coming to camp david for dinner?" that's the title. good morning. caller: good morning. your guest made a comment about israel and intelligence on 9/11. they did not have to come up with any intelligence. the clinton administration gave the bush administration the intelligence they had telling them that something was going to happen and they even had a special prosecutor or special investigator that investigated that and concluded that the bush administration dropped the ball looking at the intelligence. guest: i understand the question and frankly, i am not really -- i don't think i can provide or shed anymore light to anybody who is listening on this issue. it has been dissected by the 9/11 commission in some many different directions that i think in the end that report by

the 9/11 commission, bipartisan commission, is a definitive assessment of what took place. there is no doubt that all of us, including me who had been the subject of a shall we say an assassination plot right al qaeda when i was ambassador in morocco, was well aware that there had been an enormous terrorism threat that was growing out of the middle east. we all, who had been involved in the middle east, had heard of the genesis of al qaeda in afghanistan. we had heard of bin laden. i had written extensively about the genesis and the foundation on which al qaeda was founded including the number two who is still alive and who i wish was knocked off by now. the fact of the matter is, i don't think i can add any more than what has already been written about this issue. host: our guest is a senior advisor to the peace corps's foundation, one force movement which is what? guest: the piece works and one

voice movement was formed 10 years ago by daniel lebowski who is the founder of the kind of food bar company to promote palestinian and israeli peace. to help train the next generation of young israelis and palestinians in social entrepreneurial civil activism in moderation. in order to prepare the countries of israel and palestine for a two state solution, we have offices in all of palestine and israel dedicated to helping palestinians and israelis find a way the way to peace. 10 years of hard work on the ground will continue because it is a great organization with young people dedicated to helping forge that two state solution that is elusive. host: one joins us from detroit michigan. good morning on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me be on c-span. mr. jens berg, -- mr. marc ginsberg, i had to ask you a follow-up question on something

you had said regarding the state department not supplying the need of protection for benghazi. i know i have heard and read a lot of different articles and i have heard people say on the news that the state department has requested additional funds from congress. his that a fact? -- is that the fact? regarding secretary of state john kerry, i don't agree with your assessment of him. i think he has done a lot. he has gotten further with his agreement than anyone has ever gotten. all of the different things that we are getting out of that is part -- is for the better. i would like to hear what you have to say about the state department requesting additional funds. from congress and republican congress refused to do that, to give it to us. guest: let me just say -- let me

just be somewhat diplomatic about secretary kerry. he has been an incredibly diligent job on iran agreement and leaders, to the extent that you can view this agreement and whatever may emerge as a very important and valuable agreement, the secretary clearly has committed himself and deserves a great deal of credit for his efforts. then we will see what am ultimately emerges but he has devoted an effort to it. i will stand by my criticism of his other work in the middle east. now with respect to benghazi, ambassadors defense and has regional security officer had asked repeatedly over the many months, if not a year leading up to the attack and benghazi, for additional support. additional security assistance from the state department. it was turned down. there was no financial reason, whatsoever. having that the to do it congressional appropriation why the state department turned that

request down except for the fact that the bureaucrats within the state department deemed, in their own assessment, that the libyan situation did not warrant additional security support for the ambassador. it was a miscalculation. i can say that if my regional security officer had been turned down for additional requests when i was ambassador in morocco, i would've hit holy hell. unfortunately, chris stevens was a foreign service officer. the difference between me as ambassador in morocco and chris stevens as a foreign service officer is that the state department bureaucrats would probably have never turn my request down because they know i would've probably gone bright to the white house and essentially demanded more support and gotten the white house to pay attention. chris stevens, unfortunately did not have that right as a foreign service officer. he had been taught to obey the decisions of his superiors in the state department and as a result, those superiors actually failed him in my judgment and

failed to provide the support necessary, although congress really was asked to provide additional appropriations for security over the years and had not done so. this was not in anyway shape or form impaired the ability of the state department to provide that security assistance that ambassador and his regional security officer had asked for. host: quick follow up on something we spent a lot of time talking about which are negotiations with iran and the p5+1, will there be an agreement? guest: i think it is likely that there will be some sort of agreement that emerges. my concern is that the framework agreement, which i called a memorandum of misunderstanding, is already so negotiated by the iranians since it was announced in june 30, for example, the iranians have declared they will never permit inspections of the military facilities which of the most dangerous facilities where they had nuclear bomb technology

being fabricated. they have declared, for example, they asked the sanctions to be lifted immediately despite what was in the framework agreement. the list goes on and on about with iranians have said they would never agree to. in the end, will the iranians buckle under and reach an agreement with the p5+1? i think it is more likely than not, but one thing i am quite concerned about is that the iranians are convincing the united states launched this agreement more than we should want the agreement. we have lost leverage. in the arab market of negotiations, you never want the seller to believe that the buyer has lost leverage with the seller. the seller is the iranians and they think they have the leverage to force an agreement because the obama administration want it more than iranians want it. those are the perceptions going on. host: let's get these people and quickly. kerry from salt lake city.

questions? you are on there, go ahead. caller: yes, i am calling because i think that the big problem that we had here is that we have a president that no one trusts at all. they don't trust his word. even we the people, don't trust his word. and foreign countries, don't trust his word either. if we can't and they can't, then everything of the party doesn't matter what kind of deal because nobody trust him. guest: listen, i am a democrat and obviously i came up through the ranks. i am not part of this administration and i have been quite critical of its policies in the middle east. i know that the president has done something i think most of us have to keep in mind. he has been absolutely terrific in his counterterrorism policies against al qaeda and isis.

he has gained the support of many colors -- many countries and the region in order to engage in the attack that are kept the american homeland more or less secure. you can't stop the lone wolf but the president and his counterterrorism team, in my judgment, deserve and a for the trust and confidence they have earned around the region, particularly the middle east. i may be a critic of his foreign policies, but i certainly am a big champion of what he has done to protect the united states from terrorism from the middle east and his use of drone strikes, the use of special forces, and the support that he has given to our arab and israeli highlights and military intelligence and on security has been terrific. host: i last caller is from florida. actually, independent line. caller: good morning. the comment and one question. i am wondering whether or not john kerry hands are tied behind

his back in that foreign policy is basically the president's call and the secretary of state is out there as his emissary doing his bidding. that can somewhat tied his hands behind his back if obama does not want certain things discussed or put forward. my question i have is about benghazi. i have recently read that the benghazi station only had 40 or so american officials there of which only seven were state department. the rest were cia and that the consulate's primary purpose was to provide cover for those americans who worked for the cia who were performing a climbed in state operation -- the kind and stein operation out of eastern libya into turkey into the hands of rebel groups fighting assad and syria. and that actually, under -- the

understanding was that petreaus who was head of cia, was the one person primarily tasked with the reinforcement of security. host: thank you, julie. guest: let me just say, benghazi before the rebellion began against qaddafi was always a very strong hotbed of islamist fundamentalism in the region. what had happened was it became in effect the base of operations against the could opt the -- by the qaddafi rebellion and chris stevens, before he became ambassador to libya from the united states, was the united states emissary in benghazi to deal with the rebel forces that were aligned against qaddafi. as a consequence, under the consulate cover, there were

certainly an enormous number of other u.s. government officials i'm sure including representatives of the cia. i must say that that is one of the reasons why chris stevens was so comfortable and so well known in benghazi because before he went to tripoli as ambassador he spent an enormous amount of time in benghazi dealing with many of the leadership of that city that was in effect, the base of operations against the third -- over their efforts against gadhafi. host: our guest is a former senior adviser on policy to the white house, marc ginsberg thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me as always. host: we will turn our attention to the debate in the house this week on trade. an unlikely alliance putting congressional republicans and the president. we have bloomberg's derek wallbank to talk about all of that. you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal." it is sunday morning, may 17.

we are back in a moment. ♪ ♪

>> tonight on c-span's "q&a," veteran canadian astronaut chris produced many videos on his activities on the international waystation with scientific and personal aspects of life in space. chris: the only time i felt a shiver of fear go up my back was on the dark side of the earth, looking at one side of australia, eastern australia in the darkness and watching the shooting star come in between me and the earth. at first, i had the standard reaction of wishing upon a star. then i had the sobering realization that that was in

fact a huge rock from the universe going, who knows, 20 miles a second? that missed us and made it down to the atmosphere. if it had hit us, it was a big enough one that you could see it . if it had hit us, we would have been dead in an instant. >> tonight at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: derek wallbank is with bloomberg's "first word" he covers congress and the guest: white house. two are for being with us. guest:thank you for having me. host: there was a vote on tuesday that would allow the trade bill to move ahead in the senate. that was blocked only to come back wednesday and now we are hearing in the house, where the trade rules were likely go to lawmakers after memorial day that the white house doesn't even have the votes a month -- doesn't have enough votes to get it through the house at this

moment. you have this unlikely alliance between republicans and the white house and a lot of conservatives republicans who don't trust the president and liberal democrats who don't like the deal. guest: yeah, and that's really the situation where we find ourselves. the vote counts are a little bit fluid here steve and it depends on who you talk to as to where we are. the general consensus seems to have some in the neighborhood from 15 to 20 democrats that are probably in favor of this deal. host: in the senate? guest: in the house. in the house, you have somewhere around 180 or so republicans on board and that leaves you about 20 short. that is on the height side. there have been people say we are further off than that. in the senate, i think it was more optimism they would be able to get the votes for the fast track bill, but again, it is nothing certain until it is done and said.

this is really creating an interesting dynamic as you mentioned because you have mitch mcconnell complementing barack obama openly on the senate floor. he even noted while he was doing it that it deemed a little bit unusual, but that is the real alliance. you have obama and elizabeth warren in a bit of a war of words this week. the president noted on that when he jokingly said that he and elizabeth, using her person because there was a little bit of fear on whether or not he should or should not use her first name, said there are differences on this and they were mainly policy related and they were still the best of friends. host: this is the headline "the washington post," -- this focuses more on senate democrats who may still try to block the bill. what is their argument? guest: a lot of their argument

goes all the way back to the 1990's when it nafta came in originally and cast a following that. basically, they said they's were made with a lot of promises about increasing u.s. exports increasing u.s. imports. some of those promises felt a little bit short. if you look at exports coming out in say about the 18 to 20 years after nafta, you can see exports going up to mexico by about almost four times. if you look at imports, they are going up about six times as much. the trade deficit has really widened in the years after nafta. it widened a lot with canada and has come back now but with mexico it is really, really high. and it wasn't that high before nafta came in. you are seeing these democrats say the promises of the somewhat balanced did not happen. and then you are saying that

they feel their work job impacts that happened and they are worried about having it this time. if you have democrats that are really concerned about the job side of this bill, they are looking back 20 years and obama is countering this by saying look, this is me. this is not whoever else, this is me now. you know me and i am not that we have learned lessons, but democrats are not sure. host: fast track is part of the debate you will be seen in the senate this week and in the house next month. it really does give the president the authority to in -- to negotiate these international trade agreements that congress can't approve or disapprove but here's the key point, congress cannot amend or filibuster or approve or disapprove in the totality which is one of the arguments being put forward by independent senator bernie sanders from vermont, who is running for president as a democrat, a position to the trade bill and is number one of -- and is one of the number

democrats trying to block the bills. bernie sanders: supporters of these types of trade agreements have told us about how many jobs they would create. how beneficial they would be for the middle class and working class of this country. but over and over again virtually everything they told us turned out to be wrong and they are wrong again in terms of the gpb. in 1993, president bill clinton promised that nafta would carry one million american jobs in five years. instead, nafta has led to the loss of almost 700,000 jobs. in 1999, we were promised that permanent normal trade relations with china would open up the chinese economy to american made goods and services. instead, as everybody goes

shopping knows, when you buy product after product made in china, that trade agreement has cost us some 2.7 million american jobs and i remember hearing all of the accolades of free trade with china. they all turned out to be wrong. host: derek wallbank, let me pick up on one point from senator sanders as part of the debate really is china's currency. how are they doing that? guest: this is one of the things, steve -- i think this is one of the critical things in this debate. democrats are insisting on currency provisions and this happens in a number of different ways. essentially, it is a measure of another country trying to keep their currency at a certain level when it might flow differently on the free market. this is the thing, china is one of the examples they mention but japan is another one that has been coming up a lot in the tpp discussions because the transpacific partnership that

the current bill would give that fast-track authority to. china is not a part of that. host: china is not part of this current trade deal, 11 nations but china is not one. guest: exactly, but japan is. there have been people who have said, look, we can compete with japan and we can compete with japan and japan's automakers but we can't compete with the bank of japan. there is a worry about this aggressive currency price targeting, saying i want my currency to be at this level specifically -- as opposed to letting it flow, there is a worry that that is going to continue without currency provision. senator chuck schumer and has tried to put very aggressive currency provisions into a custom bill and this is a

slightly different bill but one that democrats had wanted to move in a package. that is going over to the house now where there is really no indication that house republicans want to take it up at all. democrats in the house, you heard nancy pelosi this week basically saying, we want someone on this currency provision and you have heard has democrats and, if you want our votes, you have to do more on currency. there is no real indication that this will happen. further complicating it is that president obama does not want it to happen. the president of the united states has warned on the currency and at the level that the schumer language would do it it would be a real problem for tpp negotiations, and so there is this, again presidential-republican alliance to stop this thing that could be critical to winning democratic votes that would be needed in the end. it is a real sort of bold client and difficult to untangle it. host: our guest is derek

wallbank and he began his career writing and covered nafta issues and moved over to bloomberg covering congress. he is white house editor. our phone lines are open and we went to hear from you in the next half hour as a focus on trade issues. 202 is the area code. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. host: you are on the line. caller: i really like that bernie sanders. i have not supported most of these trade deals. they have been disastrous to our economy, but on most issues, i do trust obama. i might have trusted him on this trade deal, but when i hear most of the republicans who are a lot more conservative than the republicans in the 1990's are supporting it, i would say obama

that these republicans are in the pocket of take business. forget about it. what does he like about this deal? host: thank you, donna. going back to your point of tangled web. guest: donna you are the exact mirror of the problem of what is going on in terms of finding the votes. i trust obama but i don't trust the republicans. you sort of -- on something like this is really difficult, i think, for the average voter. you don't know what's in these eventual agreements and what it will pave the way for. excuse me, members of congress get the opportunity to read some of the details on this and really go into it. a lot of people who are really lobbying on this a working hard on this and have a good idea of what is in their section. the average voter really doesn't. they have been urging democrats to try and read this thing openly and share it publicly.

no one is going anywhere with that. a lot of people who are calling into the lawmaker's offices and trying to get around on this are saying, who do are generally aligned with and what are they saying? cash and what are they saying? it's a problem because they don't know. host: the document is 800 pages and we sat down and had a phone conversation with the chair of the house committee, paul ryan, and he said it is open to those who want to read it but there is no final trading deal in place that so there was nothing to present to the public. guest: i would love to read it. host: jd joins us from arkansas. good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to know who wrote the bill, who put it together? as far as trade agreements are concerned, such as nafta, the large corporations once this, so they can move the jobs offshore. and they can bring products back in free. host: -- guest: jd, this is one of those

bills that is not necessarily one person but this is one where they are written and the committee's jurisdiction and they oversee tray, so you are talking about the house committee. these come up and they are written a little bit in consultation with the white house because they want to get something that will be signed and republicans don't really want to hide -- two tie the president's hands in a way he could not complete the negotiations on this deal because they are in favor of these happening. it's kind of a group effort here. host: a comment from monica online, you can show your tweet at c-spanwj, she says, we are in a global economy so it makes sense to improve trade. news where senator mitch mcconnell appeared with george stephanopoulos saying he expects we will pass tpa later this week. this is a tweet from neil who

was following the story what do you think of that? guest: i think senator mcconnell is fairly optimistic on this and he counts the votes very, very closely. he has said a long time that he wants to get this done. this is the thing that he is really pushed in spite of a really hard in and fast deadline on other legislation that is more time sensitive. he has taken a little bit of fire for that but this has been a big priority for senator mcconnell. i know he wants to get this off the table and thrown over to the house. host: another comment from a viewer, what really has obama done for the poor and middle class? he has done everything for wall street. they want this fast track. guest: business is no question they do want the fast track trade bill, but the fast track is a means to an end.

the whole point of this is to be able to create a bypass for this future transpacific partnership and possibly another deal with europe. host: from detroit, michigan. john is next. good morning. we will go to marion from virginia, good morning to you. democrat line from virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call, good morning. i want to know just what trade deal of the korea trade deal, china trade deal, what trade deal has ever generated that we have a surplus in exports and not the deficit? it seems to me that none of them have worked and we will go down the same road again and it is going to benefit the very top 1% . if you took a poll in this country, 99% of the country would say, no more. no more because this is -- this is rigged trade, this is not fair trade and i would like you to respond to that because i really, truly believe that

everybody all across this country is going, oh, my god not again. host: thank you, marion. we will get a response. guest: marion, let me provide the counter argument some people have used on this. the counterargument is basically going in gdp. the overall production of the economy. if you look at after nafta, the gdp of the united states and canada and mexico, about 20 years after that, the gdp's have increased faster than the average of the oecd which is a group of 20 and 40 really developed countries, the u.k. japan, australia, and such like that. the people we would sort of benchmark our competition against. mexico has grown better than that, canada has grown better than that, the u.s. has grown better than that. against our peers after nafta, there has been -- north america sort of lead the way. the people who would support this would say on a macro level, that sure, we promised more

jobs, we promise more trade there is a lot more trade, jobs are breaded than everywhere else -- jobs are better than everywhere else, boom, success. steve, this is one of those difficult issues because you could pull up a policy paper from think tank that doesn't agree and find all of these job cuts, find all of these factors -- factories in mexico that may have existed in the u.s. before and threats about that. on the other side, you can see all these jobs -- all these economic numbers. you see u.s. markets on the up against its peers. there is a lot of information on both sides. host: this program is carried live every morning on c-span radio which is heard on xm channel 120, the focus of future trade legislation in the senate this week and the house early next month. betty from new jersey, democrat'

as line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i think what you are saying are the american people have figured out in the last 20 years to 30 years, that while some of these economic indicators may have prison, one thing that has not risen is there a paycheck -- their paycheck, their security and retirement, their ability to finance their children's education. really as americans, we do not lead low-paying jobs without benefits. they do nothing for our economy here on main street. we cannot keep servicing wall street at the expense of main street. host: betty, thank you for the call. and to her point and what we hear from labor that says to democrats, stiffen your back because, as the caller pointed out, this is not helping working americans. guest: there is a huge gap

steve, between the economic recovery we have had in the stock market and economic republic that american wages have had. when you are talking about -- we used to say in michigan, we are in the middle of a one state recession that it was all fine and good the stock market was going on, but if i don't have a job and if my mom does not have a job and my brother does not have a job, who appears what the stock market is doing? -- who cares what the stock market is doing? you see that a lot of places. you have people who have not saved enough retirement over the time and it is not where it needs to be and no dispute that. to the caller's point, you do see a gap in wages that has not kept pace with, with corporate

gains. specifically has not kept pace when you put it into an inflation invested contest. all of that is to say you get opinions fairly widely shared that a lot of people don't feel better off than they were 20 years ago when it nafta was put in place. again, i keep ringing up nafta because this is the thing people go back to. this is why -- you know, with the caller demonstrating very clearly is a thing we see is that you don't have a really big squishy middle here. you don't have a huge number of people saying, i don't have an opinion about trade or i'm not sure how this might work. they are saying i'm not sure exactly who to believe on this, but you have people who love it, people who hated. there are not too many people in between. host: again, more from sender mitch mcconnell. you can follow us on twitter at he spentwj -- you can follow us

on twitter at c-spanwj. senator mcconnell praising obama on trade. next is ray from memphis tennessee. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. in reality what this is, it is a direct -- it is a bill that places limits on the people's ability to their legislators to affect what our government is doing. therefore, it is a direct attack on the freedom of every living american. it's a direct attack on our constitution and should not be supported by any freedom loving american. guest: ray brings up an interesting point. what we are debating is, it's not the basic trade deals that are to come that are not publicly available. we are debating the process that if you give any control of the

blue book, they will get anything past. that is one of the things coming up here. if this goes through, you will not be able to amend it. it is going to be able to go through on an up or down vote and you like the whole thing or you don't like the whole thing and there is varied interest in it. host: scott is next from illinois. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to know what we are doing with trade with communist mindset in china? they want an advantage somewhere and what advantage are we getting, you know, with trade with them and china? i just don't understand this kind of trade. isn't nafta -- wouldn't that be a better trade? i will take your answer after that. thank you. guest: sure, well, nafta was the agreement between the u.s., canada, and mexico.

we have had such good deals with china but not part of this transpacific partnership here. the general -- i will take your question more broadly. the argument that you have about what the u.s. gets is you have increased ability to place american it's. -- american goods. we do really well and heavy manufacturing things, caterpillar, john deere or something like that and would make it easier to put tractors somewhere else. at the same point, it will be a little bit easier to bring things and from other countries on the imports side. there is an argument on the left -- i don't think this is sticking as much as the white house hopes it would, but an argument they would address would say this is a way you could put conditions on things that come in, maybe have

universal standards that everybody has to live up to. that is not really an argument that sucks so far and that is part of the difficulty. host: let me follow-up on an earlier discussion on what to look for this week and next month. if congress fails to them -- to approve the trade agreements then what? guest: well, i would hesitate to say anything is dead cut there was a real loss of affect in the house of congress, but i think of -- there is a real lazarus effect in the house of congress, but i think you would have to bring it up because you have other deadlines and pressing business. it is not within the realm of and feasibility that this does not happen and gets kicked to june. i think if they don't have it by the end of june, and of july you really have a problem because you are starting to get into target dates for when these deals are supposed to be done. if you don't have fast track, it will be next to impossible to get these trade deals through because the simple problem

steve, is you want that's some really easy amendment, right? it will be oversimplification to say it would be like a guest killing kittens, but it is like in that where nobody of good colleges could vote against except it would wind up altering and any alteration the cars everybody to go back again. realistically, the white house just wants an up or down vote and the whole point is to try to make sure the can't be changes to it. that is what they get out of this. that is why you have to have this process. host: bill is next from florida. democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple questions. one involves what will be the role, if any, of the export and import thing? especially with the introduction of, i believe it's the aiib? host: let's take that point and

we will follow up. export and import. guest: that is one of the bigger fights going on, the export and import charter. it lapses in the summer and that would prevent them from having any new loan authority. there is a real worried that that might not get done on time. it is a little bit distant from the aiib that you referenced but that is a new player on the same and a competitor to the world bank. the u.s. had tried to keep some of our really key allies like the united kingdom off of it and we were not successful. they will be signing on. host: let's go to bill for a follow-up. caller: my other question is, i am concerned -- the concerns senator warren express which if i understand correctly, she is saying that after -- if this is passed, in the future, future presidents have the ability to

make future legislation without having to go back to congress because of this fast-track. i'm not sure if i understand or. is a way to clarify, i would appreciate it. host: thank you, bill. guest: this is one of those things that is within the round dispute. -- within the realm of dispute. the idea is you would set sort of a framework agreement and the framework would cover a whole line of things. the worry that senator warren and other democrats have, as i understand it, is that you would sort of the downed by the framework that you adopt here. and that it would make u.s. legislation in the future subject to future challenge. let me give you an example of somewhere this has come up.

we have, in agriculture standards that -- on country of origin labeling that we have been going to for a while. the basic idea is that you sort of label where your meat has come from, when it was born, raised, slotted, etc. -- raised, slaughtered, etc. that has changed under rules that that is limiting trade. there are existing external frameworks that this is being challenged by and it's a real possibility that next week, the house could take up legislation that would go out our country of origin labeling rules entirely. house agriculture chairman has said his committee will be ready to take that up. that is an example of u.s. law being impacted by some external factor and that is basically

what senator warren is talking about. host: let me put a couple of numbers on the table, courtesy of the census bureau. what we take in and what we shipped out, our import and export figures from 2014. we imported just about $3 trillion in private products, 2.9 trillion. and exported $2.3 trillion worth of products. according to the white house the trade deal with the transpacific, tpa, what impact will countries with the market size of about 793 million consumers and that would mean exports of about $305 billion by 2025 and additional exports and also creating additional jobs and about $77 billion a year in real income benefits over the next 10 years for the american people. let's go to charlie cincinnati, ohio. republican line, good morning. caller: i think it would down 700 billion -- i think we are down 700 billion in trade. i testified against china

joining when clinton was president. the person who testified before me was president of bicycle and made so, ohio, and had 1400 employees in the president said he did not want to move his plan to china -- his plant to china, but with the changes happening it would have -- he would have no choice. host: when was this? caller: when bill clinton was president. it was when tanner was secretary of commerce, bob rubin was treasury secretary. guest: you know, this brings up a very very good point which is that labor has argued for a long

time that one of the big effects of these trade deals is that domestic production that would happen in the united states would otherwise have been somewhere else, whether that would be taking a factory directly over or building a new factory somewhere else or threatening to do increased said -- concessions and that is a worry on the labor side. host: a lot to follow this week in the senate next month in the house. derek wallbank with bloomberg "first word." thank you very much. guest: i appreciate it. host: before we let you go, last that was the season finale for "saturday night live." one more look at a political skit, the opening skit that took aim at bill and hillary clinton. it's about 5.5 minutes, here is a portion. >> the sun is bright today girls. letter motion up. can someone help me reach my back? >> i can do that. >> thank you, mr. president.

>> got to love summer. ♪ >> no, no, no. >> health -- what are you doing? >> it's my mom, sorry. >> we are supposed to be campaigning, though. >> come on hillary. don't you ever want to have one peaceful and chill day? >> of course i do, i have the perfect peace they planned, on the final day of my presidency my soul will leave my body. it will become an eternal ball of right, like white. >> holy, mother of chelsea. -- holy mother of chelsea. ♪

[laughter] [applause] host: the opening skit in the season finale before the summer hiatus and one more look at politics in this country. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on "washington journal." tossing your will be the politics editor of usa today and looking at 10 members of congress accused of accepting improper travel from the state oil company. also, we will have a roundtable looking at income and it -- and inequality in the u.s. from of is and is from the roosevelt -- the roosevelt institute and manhattan institute. that's tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time 4:00 on the east coast. thank you for joining us for this sunday edition of "washington journal." "newsmakers" is coming up next. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪

>> next, "newsmakers as go with utah senator mike lee. then, president obama discusses poverty, and the economy. after that, a discussion with carly fiorina. host: our guest on newsmakers this week is likely. senator lee is the author of a new book called "-- we are talking about armed services and right now on the city there is a big debate over the reauthorization of the patriot act, and the debate on the

reauthorization of nsa surveillance. senator lee is in the middle of that with the cosponsor of his own legislation. thank you for being here. let me introduce the two reporters who will be questioning. the national post security reporter and the editor in chief of "the hill." thank you for returning. >> it has been a big couple of weeks in the world of surveillance reform with last week and several appeals court in new york were saying the nsa collection program that collects records of millions of americans , phone records, is a legal and does not authorize by section 215, the patriot act. just a few days ago, the house voted by an overwhelming margin 38-80 two and that nsa collection and replace it with a more modest reform of collection