talks about his recent piece for "politico." you can join the conversation on facebook or twitter. host: president obama is getting ready to deploy more military advisers to iraq. he said the strategy is not yet complete. they amount toys to take -- poised to take this next step. we want to get your opinions. republicans, (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002.

we can also lead some e-mails at journal@c-span.org. the headline is on many of the papers this morning. obama is set to expand to an iraq and report that the additional troops are intended to help forces prepare for the looming fight. the story goes on to say this --

we went to get your thoughts on that this morning. take a look at what the president had to say. [video clip] president barack obama: when we have to look to the to improve is training iraqi forces. they operate effectively. where we have no, morale, lack of equipment it etc. it may undermine the effectiveness. we want to get more iraqi security forces train, will what, and focused. we are reviewing a range of

plans or how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped. when a analyzed plan is visited to any by the pentagon i will share with the american people. we do not yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitment on the part of the iraqis as well on how that training takes place. the details are not yet with out. defense authorization bill host: he was asked to explain what the president was saying on monday. this is what he had to say. [video clip]

this is an example of them saying this is the lesson learned. we know troops in the iraqi security forces that have the support of the coalition of performing on the battlefield. let tried to read of the capacity. -- ramp up the capacity. how to limit that is something we are still working through. what we also know that we need for us to maximize that opportunity is for the iraqi government to do a better job of sending recruits to the program. that includes both iraqi security forces units of the military to get enhanced training from our coalition trainers it also means the iraqi central government doing a better job of recruiting more sunni tribal fighters. we do know the only sustainable solution our local security

forces that are willing to take a isis, that they can do so don't they had the support of our military coalition. but you also know that after they had succeeded in driving isis out, working with the iraqi central government, actually working with that region of the country. [end video clip] host: he was asked to explain about what the president was saying on monday. front pages with the headlines. here is the times. we want you to weigh in on this. we will get to your calls in just a minute. keep dialing in. the new york times reports that this. although a final decision has

yet to be announced, a month of behind the scenes debate-- host: what you make of this situation?

caller: i think this president is going to get us all killed with the stand down approach. i think it is awful. he better man up. host: what does "man up" mean? caller: we ought to really get in man and really just clear amp on all the criminalsdown. the police have a bad morale. most of the people in this country have the bad morale. on account of this administration. it is not the cabinet. i am not saying it is the house or the senate. it is him. host: do you agree with senator john mccain and others that tens of thousands more need to be sent there? caller: absolutely.

they really have to do something about the inner cities. in these gangs are taking over. it is ridiculous. host: rob independent. what do you think? caller: i am the green party. you made a big mistake to go in there originally. we had no business trying to do nationbuilding. here are many years later, much blood and money spent. it has been a big ways. we cannot admit we did wrong by going there in the first place. we need to get out. there are other countries there that have armies, saudi arabia turkey, jordan. why are we serving them? we have enough problems back here at home, you know? we have to have some presidents,

but remember, it is a sad day for this country. realm with stretched out very thin and all these futile wars. that is what is happening here in the united states. unless people wake up and take the country back from the politicians and start running the country the way it should be, it will be a sad day in the teacher. -- in the future. host: you mentioned the coalition fighting isis. this is what open the new york times says. he said the country would send up to -- what do you think? caller: what happened to all the billions of dollars we used to train the iraqis?

it is clear that you cannot slaughter people and their expect to train them to do what you cannot do. we should endeavor when in there. they said we would be there in two months and leaders will there. where is that loser at? what are the people of in their being held accountable? you cannot train these. they hate your guts. you slaughter their whole country. think you're going to send some bozos in there to train these people who hate you? americans are completely delusional. host: what you think about the president's strategy? caller: i think he has no strategy. he was handed a pile of poo if you want to use that word. he cannot do anything about it. bush cannot do anything about it. cheney could not do anything about it. our leadership in this country

is completely insane. host: we've got your point admist this debate of what to do about isis in iraq. the senate is debating the defense authorization bill that authorizes the different programs within the pentagon. that taking place on the senate floor this week. using emergency war funding that hot and money to increase funding for the pentagon, keeping the baseline the same. over on the house side, they are going to pick up spending for the pentagon. they are making their way through all of the agency spending bills. this week they will be taking up defense. in the wall street journal what they report --

host: life in ohio, democrat, what do you think of this? caller: i was just wondering if you could rerun the lip of larry

king live within richards during the buildup of the iraq war when larry asked her what she thought was going to happen. she said "the buses love war war." she said it would be a rockiraq around the clock. host: what do you make of what the president has done in iraq? caller: i think he is not really a leader. he is someone who is being strung up with all of these politics and drive money. he is in a corner with this mess. host: do you agree with him

sending in hundreds of more troops? caller: i think that is stupid. host: why? are you there? caller: i don't agree with none of this. it is war crimes from the start. how are you going to straighten it out when it is all based on a lie? host: james, wisconsin, independent. caller: what people do not understand is the reason there are 20 republican candidates is so they could have a deadlock convention and nominate bush. they want bush to start a third iraq war. that money comes out of our social security trust funds. we need the social security will not be there. host: where did you read that? caller: where did i read what?

host: that the funding for the wars coming out of the social security trust fund. caller: there's been $2.7 billion borrowed from the social security trust fund. that is a matter of mathematics. host: florida, republican. tammy, your chance to weigh in. caller: my brother-in-law went to iraq came home and now i hear these people calling our boys s murderers. that is will craft. i they came over here and killed thousands of us. that is why president bush went over there. they were killing us. if we don't do something now they will be over here killing us again.

that's all i have to say. host: is the president doing enough? caller: no, he is not. we should have done something when isis started up. host: milton florida, they say while the proposal would increase the number of american troops in a volatile part of the rock -- host: we will hear from charlie

next, republican. you are on the air. caller: i am a republican too and i currently serve in this force. you listen to the president saying we need to accelerate the training of troops. a lot of that success with with those being there. a bigger part of the strategy is that we need to identify exactly what the end is. there are multiple things we can do. if it is a military approach we need to be very careful. you go back to eight years that we started surging in two different wars. the american people need to know whether they are able to pay that bill. we do not know exactly what

we're going to do in the end. host: what do you think of the white house announcing that they are going to send back an additional 500 advisors to help with this air campaign? caller: we go where we are told to go. we trust that our government has limited leadership -- has the leadership that will get us where we need to be. we will go do that. unfortunately, it is not a big conspiracy theory that they hate us. they have our best interest at heart. we are americans after all. we have to wrap her arms around that and we will get to the bottom of this eventually. host: where did you serve? caller: i have been to iraq twice. baghdad in the northern province.

host: what were you doing? caller: first was part of the surge. the second time was being on the verge of new dawn where we were assisting the security forces. at that time the agreement was in tact. we had great success. letting them take the lead, these are higher strategic ends we're trying to meet. take ownership and we will get the americans off of it. it is going to take time. people were wondering why it took so line to get a constitution. it took our country 11 years to do that. these things do not happen with a snap of a finger. we are very good at what we do. sometimes it takes time. while this is being developed, we need to let it happen before we go into a slippery slope.

host: you are home now. what did you think when you saw the headline about mozilla following a year ago? this marks a year ago when it fell to isis. caller:y e yeah, i never really tell that it was, for me, that it was a slight on us. a lot of fellow soldiers said we have shed blood that was lost. we did what we had to do. we did as honorably and as best as we could. after that, it is not our problem. right? like, we did the best we could for the iraqis to take over. what happened happened. i do not think it is a slight on us or. host: what did you make of the

defense secretary saying there's not a will to fight it? your part of training them. caller: i cannot tell you what that is. there are examples of that. it is a different mentality. they are a nationalistic centered organization. for people in this country to look at it and say we need to go cookie-cutter america, it is not feasible. it is another form of combat. host: how old were you when you search in each of the chores? caller: i was 24 and 27. somewhere in there. i spent a year in each. host: recently military? caller: yes. host: do you think you might

have to go back over again? caller: there or somewhere around the world. the army is deployed in a lot of places around the world doing a lot of great things. that is just what the job calls to do. ever since i was a little boy that is what i have wanted to do. host: barry in texas republican. share your thoughts with us. you make of this? caller: it is sad to hear that this is called an air campaign when there is no other campaign. it is sad when the kurds came and asked us for help ends up toward we offer them a couple million dollars. that was embarrassing as an american to hear our country offer people nothing to help protect their families and to

protect their interests. host: we're going to keep getting your thoughts here on president obama set to expand troops in iraq, sending up to 500 more military advisers in an effort to strengthen training of iraqi forces. initially, the white house had hoped to try to take that mosel this spring. that was put off to the side. how life has changed. they write --

we are getting your thoughts on that. president obama set to expand troops in iraq. what do you make of this? don in new hampshire independent, good morning. caller: i cannot understand why they keep spending money over there. they just lost 2300 humvees not counting tanks. we keep spending money. we cannot take care of our own infrastructure. there are a bunch of manufactures running our government. people have no say anymore. the only time you see a politician is during elections.

all they do is go to these big rich companies looking for money and doing whatever they asked for. host: you disagree with the president trying to go back in there sending more? he was complaining that we are not giving them this. it is ridiculous. they do not even destroy the weapons in the go away. we are fighting our own weapons. it is ridiculous. host: i want to share some other news. the former speaker of the house pleads not guilty. he was released on her and appears in public for the first time since his indictment.

it was he seeking to keep quiet and why what could he have done that was worth 3.5 million. a former teacher of these those positions. front page of the daily herald has this on the story. after it makes it like appearance, will be judge stay on in the end? he offers to recuse himself saying that a decade ago he made campaign donations to the reelection campaign. he has never met a former speaker of the house but he did

work aside the sun. they have until thursday to decide whether or not they want the judge to judge. that was yesterday on the arraignment of the former speaker of the house. upon capitol hill yesterday a couple of evacuations in the nation's capital.

you have the same -- they homeland security hearing. here is the headline. interrupted by a bomb threat. take a look at what happened. [video clip] >> we should be locked down and in place. we're clearing the floor. if you can exit in an orderly fashion. thank you. [end video clip] host: yesterday they were asked to quickly leave the room. the police that they are responding to a bomb threat that was called in about the room next to the one where the tsa hearing was taking place. that was up on capitol hill. later on in the day, even had

this headline. the white house press room being evacuated after a threat. take a look. the press room being evacuated yesterday during the daily briefing. the secret service said they attributed it to a bomb threat concerning the white house briefing room that was called into the metropolitan police department. --

host: they declined to comment, citing an ongoing and that negation. those two instances happening on capitol hill yesterday. that to our conversation with all of you. what are your thoughts on the strategy against isis? here is the "wall street journal." michael, florida, what do you think? caller: how are you doing this morning? excuse me if i have are the past this question. about the isis problem, i find it hard to even believe that we are considering sending in more

troops to try to stop the disaster that george w bush started. our allies are the saudis that behead people themselves and are going to give a person, i do not know his name, a thousand lashes for a crime. that is crazy. host: ok. we will move onto another michael in arizona, republican. michael and arizona, go ahead with your thoughts. [dial tone] i guess you do not have him there. democrat, florida. what do you think about president obama sending 500 military advisers to add to the 3000 that are there? they would advise the iraqis on these airstrikes they are conducting against isis. go ahead. caller: i do not disagree with sending anybody there, not one

more f. it's like pouring water down a rat hole. it is a lose lose situation. you either don't have enough or you have 500 people hurt. there is an observation i solve this morning. there was a democrat that mentions about money from the social security fund being used to support the war. you challenged him on that. right behind him was a lady from milton that called and said these people from iraqi came over here and killed thousands of us. it is a documented fact that those people came out and afghanistan. you did not challenge her on that. host: she was referring to the september 1 terror attacks? caller: yes, that is what she

said. they did not come out of iraq. they came out afghanistan. she was a republican and he did not challenge her. that is something a lot of people have seen with you. host: hold on. whoever sits in his chair cannot be a fact checker at every single point. person who said funding came out of the trust fund was to find out where they had found that so other people could find it. i do not know if it is true. i wanted others to find out where that information came from. bob, democrat. caller: hello. host: go ahead. share your thoughts. caller: there is a reason we need to send troops back there now for the same reason we went there in the first lace. we need to protect our oil keep

oil prices stabilized throughout the middle east. we have got to keep the prices they blazed. keep the prices stabilized. as long as military is willing to keep on going and no other civilians get involved, what is wrong with protecting our oil? host: there you are michael in arizona, republican. you are on the air. caller: there are some comme nts about them taking our oil the night before saddam hussein invaded kuwait, our ambassador to iraq was there at the president' request and he was tolds that his problem was kuwait and the fact that the borders were drawn by some british clerk after world war i

give some truth to saddam's statement. i do not see our troops going anywhere and small numbers around the world. what countries are they said porting and what countries are they not so porting? -- are they not supporting? we do not know. the first reason i called was about cuba. secretary clinton -- host: i am going to stay on this fight against isis for our conversation with all of you. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. the first thing we should do is fire all of the military contractors and mercenaries. we have so many mercenaries that

are not part of the military. they are getting paid at least five times more than the military and fire them all. it they want to be involved let them join the military. they eat up so much of the resources. they failed. let's face it. host: pennsylvania, oakland california, independent. what are your thoughts? the white house announcing they are set to send up to 500 troops into iraq. caller: i really disagree with it altogether. i do not believe in the government. i honestly never have. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i just do not believe in the government of all. they are out there for the resources.

they are destroying africa right now. when he to be out there honestly and saving these people from the corruption. all of a sudden we are a huge corporation. host: we'll take a look at the reaction that senator john mccain. here he is on the senate or. [video clip] senator john mccain: wow. we still do not have the strategy to try to counter the islamic state for ices which took control a year ago and beheaded to americans for all the world to see last summer. mr. obama announced his anti-isis strategy in a september speech promising to degrade and destroy isis.

nine months later, here we are. isis has over run the gateway to act dad. u.s. bombing campaign is hesitant. now mr. obama tells us eternal of iraq is barely underway. [end video clip] host: senator john mccain critical of what the president had to say about what is happening in iraq. a few more minutes here to take your calls. some tweets. if we invade iraq all we will do is unite the shia and sunni against us. there is a force threatening the neighbors now want to fight with the usa. it has been said first casualty of war is the truth. the badness continues on.

we will get back to your calls. other news with the president yesterday also reiterating in a lengthy speech his support for the difficult affordable care act. he is in his final push to retain the key elements of the law as the supreme court weighs whether or not subsidies were meant for all exchanges are only those established by these date. -- the st you have this story as well. ate. obama takes victory lap. the editorial pages, they are weighing in. they say obamacare omen president obama goes after the supreme court.

he must know that it does him no good -- host: they concluded there were no quick, obvious remedies against the administration -- host: those are many of the

headlines. we will get in one last phone call in pennsylvania. republican. what do you think about the strategy in isis? are you with us? caller: hi end here. i am registered a democrat. host: go ahead. caller: first of all, to get off the subject for a minute. i am 59 years old. i've never heard anybody said "mr" for the president. why don't they save president? it trips me out. iraq is isis. i heard someone speaking about africa. you better get in there and take care of whatever the terrorist group is calle barack obamad

terrorist group. i'm sorry, i was. joking. host: i'm going to leave it there for now. many of you know john kerry had a bicycling accident when he was in geneva. he was sent home for surgery in boston. we have not seen him in public since his surgery last week. he did tweets a picture of himself. he said feeling good a week after surgery. good chat with senior team. the work continues. an avid tweeter the secretary of data think of it he is doing. coming up, we'll continue the conversation about the strategy of ices. we will also speak with cory gardner. later we will talk with a democrat callow or new, a member of the armed services committee.

during his speech, here is the president talking about the success of the affordable care act. [video clip] president barack obama: it is serving so many more people so much better. we are not going to go backwards. i have to say it is deeply cynical about the inlet partisan attempts to roll back progress. i understood folks being skeptical were worried before the law passed and there was not a reality there to examine. once you see millions of people having health care and that all the bad things that were predicted did not happen, you think it would be time to move on.

but figure out how to make it better. it seems so simple to want to take coverage only from billions of will -- of people who need it the most. punish millions of higher cost of care and unravel what has now been woven into the fabric of america. that kind of cynicism flies in the face of our history. our history is one of generation striving to be editor than the last. just as we will never go back to the time were seniors were left to languish in poverty without health insurance in their golden years. there is a generation that did not have a guarantee of health care. we are not going to go back to a time when our citizens can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. when tens of millions of people cannot afford here, that was not a better america.

that is not freedom. the freedom to languish. the freedom to languish in illness or be bankrupt. that is not we are. [end video clip] host: to hear all about what president obama had to say to our website to span.org. joining us is a republican of colorado. he sits on the foreign relations committee. i want to begin with the headline "u.s. embracing a new approach of filing isis." the president planning to send 500 additional troops to iraq. guest: he says we do not have a complete strategy. the american people deserves an idea of what the strategy is. it was september or october when the president had said that we

do not have a strategy. it has taken nine-month to not even have a complete strategy. what is happening? men and women in uniform are going to iraq and we do not have a strategy. that is a very alarming situation. host: c [indiscernible] guest: there is the discussion of anaumf that came up quite frequently. he talked about his desire to continue the conversation. we do not have a strategy. that is simply shocking. i am also concerned the way the aumf carried out, the president is limiting the ability of men and women to defend themselves. we do not have it exactly. host: from your hurt on the

foreign -- perch on the foreign relations committee, what you think the strategy could be? caller: the commander-in-chief should have the strategy. we do not have a complete strategy to do that. i'm concerned about the number of airstrikes we are doing. it is 10 a day. is that enough? you talk about what is happening. we had the opportunity to be in iraq a couple of months ago. we met in baghdad, a meeting with the leaders of the kurds talking about what is happening. these are all issues that need to be answered from our commander-in-chief. those conversations need to happen. we cannot continue to send five hundred now and thousands already bare of troops in harm's

to train and defies the iraqi soldiers without a complete strategy. host: congress does get to weigh in. that is your role. what we do not support? would you support troops on the ground? guest: i have made it clear i do not support troops on the ground in combat. we can have a coalition of countries who are willing to make sure they are standing up against this terrorist threat. they understand this is a threat to their country's leadership. that is why it is important for nations in the middle east to come together and put together a coalition. host: does this become part of the debate this week in the senate over the national defense authorization bill that authorizes the pentagon to do their work? guest: in many ways it are he has. we heard senator mccain speak on the senate floor about this. it is part of the defense authorization bill debate that

is taking place right now. more important than ever, it shows the need to pass it. the president has threatened that he would is measured . host: yesterday there was an amendment by senator jack reed. he takes issue with the republicans are into the emergency war fund. do you agree with that strategy of republicans who get away from sequestration by moving it over to this emergency war fund? guest: i voted against the measure yesterday afternoon. we have to make sure we have the resources that are necessary to continue to carry out the mission of men and women around the world who are defending our nation. while everything is not perfect in terms of what everybody would like to do, it is important we provide the resources to

complete the job. host: when you're talking about the national defense authorization bill, you had an amendment that deals with the department of veterans affairs. what are you trying to find out? guest: if you are a veteran in colorado you have watched for over a decade as you have received the promise from this government that you would have a new veterans hospital, a facility to replace world war ii era facility. for 10 years they have made this promise. we have a hospital that is 50% complete. it is $1.2 billion over budget. that is the amount that could have taken care of 200,000 veterans in this country. they are so over budget it could have provided health care for 20,000 veterans. we do not know when it will be

done. this is a response is not only what happened to denver but around the country with these failed bureaucratic nightmares that are trying to go work with hospitals. our amendment is intended to do a couple of rings. what kind of safeguards to we had in place to oversee these contract? find out what kind of investigations they have undertaken. this is an investigation taking place. at one point they did not even have a construction of expert. it is an example of everything that could and did go wrong with government. we have an obligation to fulfill the promise to veterans. we will complete a bill this hospital. in the meantime, we have to do everything we can from preventing this nightmare from ever happening again. host: is a happening in other places? guest: not to the level of

denver but it is happening. should we transferred the construction portion to the army corps of engineers? that is another bill i have. why don't you build these facilities for the va? we are just now beginning to understand what went wrong. host: should the va be in the question of health care? guest: that is a big question. we have to provide health care. host: could it be privatized? guest: if your veteran and within 40 miles -- outside 40 miles of the hospital and another hospital can provide the kind of services, you can go there. that is heading down the right direction. should we make sure we are providing better care for our veterans? you bet. host: let's get our viewers involved. connecticut, independent.

you are on the air with the senator. guest: thank you. it is a pleasure to speak with you. i finally get to hear my voice. i made 34-year-old latino voter. i started voting during the clinton years. those were good years. if someone does not have the will to fight for themselves at some point, you have got to move on. the iraqis are showing they do not have the will to fight for themselves. we have to get out. a country is imploding all around us. if you look at our infrastructure roads, bridges, tunnels, a lot and thenm -- week if it a lot of america back to work if all the money we invested in the middle east we put it back into our country. i were in the print -- i work in

the prison system. i see what of guys when they get out. we do not provide employment opportunities for them but we fled millions of dollars into a country where people are not willing to stand up for themselves. guest: there is a lot of questions loaded into that. thank you very much for your question and your work. when it comes to the ability of us to carry out this mission that is why we have to have this complete strategy. we need to know is eckley how we're going to defeat and destroy isis. it is important we do this not just for the nation of iraq before the safety of our homeland and our allies around the globe who isis is threatening on a daily basis. we have seen them carry out vicious acts, torture burning. it cannot be tolerated by a

world local community. we need to make sure we have the tools in iraq to defeat and destroy these terrorists. to yield the ground to the terrorists would lead to more attacks on our allies and the united states. we cannot neglect the economy and what we are doing at home to make sure we are providing the kind of necessary for not only people who may be 42 but evil who are coming out of high school and college or maybe in their 60's and 70's. not only the java what kind of health care after they retirement. we need a good domestic policy to go along. host: the money being spent to train iraqis the u.s. has invested more than 20 billion since the 2003 invasion.

tony, democrat. you are up next. caller: i know president obama's strategy. he is not going to put boots on the ground. that is a given. tell me this. tell the american people are you in support of putting troops on the ground? yes or no? don't waver on that. thank you. guest: i do not think we should have u.s. combat troops on the ground. that is what i said earlier. the president has our descent several thousand u.s. troops into iraq. the question is whether or not they are able to fulfill their mission. it is difficult to fulfill the mission when the commander-in-chief is not divided a complete strategy on how to do it isis and complete the training mission and a sure we get our allies the tools they need to defeat and destroy. host: on the chick numbers, the last u.s. troop increase came in

november when president obama ordered 200 troops. the number is about 500. that is what they are poised to send over. independent. caller: who's there? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i am a combat veteran of both korea and vietnam. my question to you is has the president requested that the senate have him authorization to wage war against isis but the senate has failed to support him. why is that? guest: thank you for your service in both the and him and korea. one of the things the senate

continues to discuss is the aumf . we marked up the state's operations. the aumf came up again. it sounds like chairman worker has agreed to another meeting. there are significant disagreements on whether or not you put time limits. there is disagreement over there -- over whether you had geographical limitations. senator boxer said if there were it could restrain our ability to go after these terrorists. that debate continues. there is rightful concern about how the aumf being restricted. and how it is being used against terrorists in various countries.

those are discussions we will continue to have. host: new york, joe, democrat. go ahead. caller: what i want to really discuss with you is what i'm hearing from the people on main street. number one the people are saying when you use the word that isis is " terrorist" isis is not a terrorist the people who are tired [indiscernible] and put your own people. they are tired of that. they are just like the tea party. the tea party is what it is.

the people are saying either killed too many of our brothers and sisters. we are tired of it. the people are just freedom fighters. guest: joe, i don't know what main street you have been on but the main street i am on, isis are terrorists and they want them gone and i agree with them. host: what do you make of this 60-nation coalition? who is doing what, and is it enough? guest: in terms of the coalition and what is happening, that is a big question. we know that there is a significant interest in the coalition surviving and succeeding, and we have to make sure that they continue to have the will to fight and the will to engage to a degree that perhaps they weren't before this defeat in iraq. we had a chance -- a couple months ago to go to jordan

talk to king abdullah, and we met with him on the same day that they let that deter being a fighter pilot who had been -- the jordanian fighter pilot who had been ordered but -- murdered by terrorists, and he talked about the threat these terrorists opposed to the nation and what they believe. i think that kind of attitude that kind of understand, is what we have to make sure is part of the coalition. recognizing this isn't just a threat to terrorists -- to the united states through terrorists. this is a threat to every nation and leader in the middle east by an element, a radical group that wishes to bring down existing structures. host: another topic for you to talk about is the trade promotion authority debate fast-track authority. that passed in the senate last week. you voted for it. tell your view -- tell our viewers why you voted for it and to you see it as a diplomatic means to an end? guest: it is interesting that we have this discussion about what

is happening in the middle east and talk about trade promotion authority, because our day-to-day attention has been drawn to the middle east, and rightfully so, but our long-term interests lie in areas like asia, where the trade promotion authority has focused because of the transpacific partnership agreement that will come forward after tpa is entered into. i think this is one of most significant generational opportunities we have. we are talking about an area of the will to represents not only half the population, have to trade, but we are seeing an increasing middle-class. if you look at china, they had 500 million people out of poverty. they are not part of the tpp right now, but if we enter into a tpp with the nations and work more with our allies in the asia region, the asia-pacific region, we can start helping provide an example of what the norms of international responsibility we expect. the changes in the legal systems of china that is leading to right now assistant effective

and -- a system of theft of an electoral property and state owned enterprises in china. if we can provide an example through these agreements, perhaps china will realize what they need to do to be part of a global economy. a very good, transparent transpacific partnership agreement, and then maybe china will start saying that we want to be part of a global community that lives up to the norms that everybody expects. and that is a good thing for all of us. host: the senate voted it out last week. it is in the house this week -- a couple weeks ago that the senate worked on it. in the house this week. he was politico's -- here is whatpolitico's headline. they are trying to resolve a last-minute hangup over aid to workers who lost their jobs from free-trade. charlie, you are on the air with sen. gardner. caller: hi, greta.

hi, senator gardner. i realized when i was sitting here that my question actually was answered so -- and i had 2 facts mixed up, so i won't ask you that question. guest: charlie, sometimes that doesn't stop embers of congress. [laughter] host: caller: yeah, i see that happening all the time. i don't know what main street the individual was on -- freedom fighters don't necessarily capture 80 to 100 people and behead them are set them on fire to be freedom fighters coming to they? guest: look, i think joe is exposing the viewpoint that the vast majority of people in this country disagree with. that is something that most people would agree to come that isis certainly is a terrorist

group, and not only is it treating people they are trying to lead in a very poor way but treating women around the countries that they are trying to invade, destroy, extremely poorly. this is something we have to stop, the spread of isis, the threat of terrorism, the actual acts of terrorism, and charlie you are right and we have to stop this from happening. host: pennsylvania, republican . caller: good morning. and thank you, and good morning, senator gardner. guest: good morning. caller: i am almost belief -- almost the unbelief at some of these telephone calls. i am as concerned as anyone else -- i had family over there and we have blood in the game and a marine who will probably go back . but people don't seem to understand that it is not only the death, the destruction, but this group of people is destroying the entire

infrastructure of that country. the humanitarian crisis is going to affect all of our western neighbors. i just don't know that they are listening. these are serious times, and i don't think that the people in iraq come those we have spent blood on entering, i'm not willing to fight to they are fighting against our equipment and with a few of our brave on the ground that directed the flights, we have the best equipment in the world. and our state department needs to get in there, to come and talk to the head of their government. may god bless you, may he keep you. thank you. guest: well, thank you. just to follow-up come, when we were in baghdad, we were meeting with one of their top officials in iraq when his aides came in and whispered in his you that the iraqi flight had been raised over the government building in tikrit. obviously a very significant moment, and to have it in

historical context, what it meant to the army at that point to be able to recapture tikrit, that was a big moment. we have to find out what happened in mozilla, we have to find out what happened in other nations, cities like ramadi, but the strategy in place and prevent it from happening. host: justin, maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning. sen. gardner the whole -- [indiscernible] if you, the congress, is the one that has the authority to declare war, you didn't want to answer that question. you kept going back to the president. so let me ask you again. we were here when the united states lied us into going into war.

you don't know about the u.s. constitution -- the president is the one who has the right to declare war, and you call yourself a senator. i will take your comments off the air. guest: well, thank you. i think it is clear in the constitution that congress declares war. we have been talking about an aumf, but the question is whether or not the president will use that authority and is going to complete the job of destroying isis. that is the debate that is taking place right now. host: five minutes left with senator cory gardner freshman republican of colorado, serves on the foreign relations committee, also the chairman of the foreign affairs committee on east asia, pacific international cyber security policy. i want to get your thoughts on the headline last week about the data breach of federal personnel. guest: this is something we are going to be facing more and more, and these issues of cyber threats, cybersecurity risks and something we have to

understand how and strategies at the defense department, however strategies at the state department are working to prevent them, and how we respond . i'm glad we held our first hearing just last month on the east asia subcommittee dedicated to the issue of cybersecurity and cyber strategy as it relates to our diplomatic efforts and responses. in the don't we marked up yesterday for the state of having, i was able to include a cyber strategy that would require the department of state to develop a cyber strategy. i'm going to continue those efforts because if you look at what north korea is responsible for with the sony pictures attack, that was described as an act of cyber vandalism. when does an active cyber vandalism become an active cyber terror? what is the united states' response? what are the international norms in place? what happened in this region is acceptable and we have to make sure we are looking at all of our options on the table,

whether it is the executive order that the president issued, whether it is the sanctioning of nations responsible, or whether it is indicting people like we did when we did exercise our ability to indict the officers in china. host: so do you think of this latest breach of the federal personnel, do you think that china is behind it? do you know who was behind it? guest: look, i don't know personally. we had a number of briefings. the evidence will point to who did it and we will make sure that we find out how we can prevent it from happening again. but more importantly, we find out how we are going to respond and i don't know that we have a coordinated strategy on how to respond to an attack like that. host: we will hear from chris next in pennsylvania, an independent. hi, chris. good morning to you. caller: good morning, and i want to thank c-span for all that you do get i just basically have one question for the senator. exactly what threat does isis posted the homeland of the united states? do they have a threat to come

here and attack us? i really don't see that them unless they come on a carnival cruise line or something of that nature. what exactly is the threat to us in the home and here--homeland here? guest: if you look at the fact that their recruiting people from the united states to join their effort -- we have had teenagers from colorado leave colorado and tried to join them. i think they are recruiting people online. you can see what they are trying to do to radicalize people in the united states. that is a significant threat to us. this is something that right now is overseas. i do not think we can have it here in our own backyard and that is what i want to do to prevent it from happening and make sure we're preventing it from happening. host: regina in pennsylvania on our line for republicans. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i first want to know how you can take these emergency war funds for police action and you have

never as a congress declared war for any of this. why don't you use that money for shutting down and continuing the border fence so that these people can stop coming year and bringing in these people who overstate their visas? also this lie about china -- i heard this from ricky santorum when he and george bush brought the most favored nations for china from which it said the same lies and we as taxpayers had to pay for lawyers out of temple university to train them to understand our laws in china. but what they have done to us. they have stolen our intellectual property on the backs of the taxpayers. they have a guy out of temple university now, chinese professor who still intellectual property, and you will tell me another lie that this is all about helping to make better relations with other countries and making china face up to the facts?

you guys keep selling us out on these trade deals. we already know we're going to lose jobs. and then you turn around and tell people they don't pay their fair share. i don't think so. guest: well, actually can we know that this will increase jobs in colorado. in my state it is with increase jobs and increase jobs around the country, and it is important that we enter into agreements with nations like the transpacific partnership represents that will, i believe, represent a structure that china is not a part of right now. we can actually bring back those kinds of standards and norms and rules of the road to show what is responsible behavior to prevent the kinds of cyber thefts that china has undertaken, to prevent intellectual property theft that china is undertaking, to make sure that we are putting in place policies that show the norms of responsible behavior. he put that pressure on because we have made economic and security arrangements with other nations around them, and i believe they will start behaving

in a matter that is befitting a great nation. that is what we have to do. your point on cyber security is significant. i think it was admiral blair and former investor to china jon huntsman, former governor of utah who recently issued a report showing $300 billion worth of cyber theft which china is responsible for 50-80% of that. that kind of behavior is acceptable. by entering into agreements with other nations that surrounded them, we can start changing their behavior through the pressure that they face from other nations that are doing business with us. i believe the united states will benefit from this. i believe we will grow jobs from this. we cannot be afraid as a country to compete with anyone around the globe because i believe the way to put "made in usa" on more shelves is to say that we are not afraid to compete with china or anyone else. host: before we let you go, you have been here in washington over six months. what has the learning curve than likely -- been like for you? guest: going to the senate, the

number of meetings, representing the entire state of colorado, and the issues we have as a nation are so serious, from the economy, jobs, to security risks around the globe, threats of terrorism. it is a lot to get your hands around, but i think over the last six month we have seen what can happen. when congress begins to work again. we have voted on more amendments that entire 113 congress. with past significant bipartisan legislation from whether it is the iran nuclear negotiations the legislation we put for to address those concerns legislation dealing with the way that doctors are reimbursed for medicare. the fact that we passed a balanced budget out of the house and senate for the first time since 2001, we've been able to push significant policies in place and pass them with bipartisan support i think people around the country are starting to notice that that is what happens when you allow votes we made an immense to be offered. senator host: senator cory gardner, we

appreciate your time this morning to guest:. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are going to continue for the next 15 minutes or so in open phones and continued the conversation, if you would like, on the president's strategy against isis in iraq, or you can weigh in on anything else you have heard in the news this morning. we will begin with "the wall street journal," their front page. "obama said to expenditures in iraq. -- u.s. set to expand of troops in iraq." "the new plan is a modest expansion, unmarked but modest expansion of the u.s. military role in iraq. it would expose american forces to greater risk of being drawn into direct combat with islamic state forces that control territory around likely sites

for a planned u.s. training base." you can't weigh in on that story this morning as we have done so far on "washington journal," or you are welcome to call in about trade as well. you heard the senator talk about trade promotion authority. a vote could come up as early as friday or it might slip next week. "the lost regional" says unions reflects -- "the wall street journal" says unions are flexing their muscles to stop the trade bill. "they presented as a potent weapon against the trade legislation and congress, the so-called fast-track bill. union members are volunteering and phone banks and organizing town halls to pressure lawmakers to vote no. it is one reason many lawmakers say they are undecided about the trade legislation. mr. obama contends that the deal would be good for u.s. businesses and workers and would protect labor standards."

that in "the wall street journal" this money could "the washington post" editorial "down to the wire again." "now we have much more ideologically lowest congress, forces led by organized labor are using the current battle to polarize it further by enforcing a strict democratic party line against trade agreement. vote counters tell us that they think the actual tally democratic yeses will need to politically necessary minimum for trade promotions passage and then some. we certainly hope so, because any other result would represent a setback for the u.s. economy and the country's standing in the world." open phones. st. petersburg, florida, republican. hi, jim, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to respond to something the congressman said. the first thing is the trade agreement with china. he implied that once we get this

trade agreement through, china's going to behave and not steal our secrets. i think that position is absolutely delusional. host: why jim? caller: why would they? it implies that there are no laws against them stealing it now. host: well, i think what the senator was saying is that they would see these trade agreements that we would have with these other asia-pacific countries and they would see what it means to go and get along, i guess, with the united states, and china would then have greater access to the consumers here in the united states, if they were to cooperate and enter into a similar trade deal. caller: well, i think they are winning in the trade right now. they don't need a trade deal. host: because? caller: because they are winning in the trade deal now. they have all their jobs over there. all the pharmaceutical companies

are over there. they've got cheaper labor, no environmental laws. it is a win for them. although comedies go there and we are losing jobs, and every time they pass -- all the companies go there and we are losing jobs, and every time they pass a trade deal, like nafta the giant sucking sound you hear is our jobs leaving the country. host: all right, jim. steve in new york, independent . caller: good morning, greta. i have just four points to make. i'm mad at c-span -- like i watched the hud debates, the transportation bill -- host: the spending bill last night on the floor? caller: yeah, i saw years ago when this war started, top brass , stars -- they had three charts. one was 2025 and the whole north

africa was covered green with the utopian seven century caliphate. the other was 2050, and it is indonesia, europe, southern parts. finally, at the end of the century, the world is green. another thing, when this war started, i called back in spoke to the joint chiefs of staff under clinton, and that at night, the 40 cruise missiles were launched. is iran going to give up the bomb if they're sunni or shia, opposite of the sunni? and those people who said there's no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. there is in iran. the surface air missiles -- russia gave them, and now some talk on c-span, on your show,

that these can be launched with nuclear bombs. host: all right, steve cued all right, keith, evansville indiana, democrat. caller: hello, good morning. i just want to make a comment about -- it seems like when we percent over into iraq, mccain had to persuade everybody to do the surge, and they never sent enough people to take care of the job. you need overwhelming force. but they just wanted to send a few people and they get their asses shot off and they bring a few more to replace them. we need to get it over with and get it done and overwhelmingly take them over. host: all right, teague. gary in indiana, a democrat as well. open phones. what is on your mind? caller: i just want to say, down through history, we entered into trade agreements, and while

there were certain aspects of the agreements that would make it look good, over the long haul it favored the other countries and we were always on the short end of the stick. i just think we need to look at other options to make things better for our land. and i see something else real quick -- can i say something else real quick? greta, i think you do a feckless job as a host. i don't care what other people say. you are a fabulous lady. be proud of yourself. host: thanks. front page of "the near times. -- "the new york times." "court upholds texas limits on abortions." about half of the states remaining abortion clinics are at risk of permanently shutting

their doors and leaving the nation's second most populous state with fewer than a dozen clinics across its more than 267,000 square miles. there were 41 when the law was passed. abortion providers and women's rights groups about a quick appeal to the united states supreme court, setting the stage for what could be the most far-reaching rule in years on when legislative restrictions pose an undue burden on the constitutional right to an abortion." -in tennessee, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we do, sir. go ahead. caller: yes, i'm opposed to sending any troops over there. to any wars, because our infrastructure is messed up you've got a bunch of homeless people that we can spend that

money on, especially veterans, the ones that came back from the wars maimed and, you know, just not getting any help. here in tennessee, we have a mayor and he right now got all the homeless -- she's got a team that is going to the homeless places, where the veterans are around the railroad tracks under the bridges, cap bring them up and trying to get them -- gathering them up and trying to get them housing and jobs and stuff. this is the best mayor we've ever had here in chattanooga tennessee. host: all right ivan.

"the washington times" -- "federal court tosses challenges to epa's clean power plan." "the court dealt serious blow to lawmakers critical. the fossil fuels industry and others are trying desperately to halt the administration's climate change agenda. the u.s. court of appeals in the district of columbia dismissed lawsuits brought by a coalition of states an energy company's, saying it was too soon to rule on the epa's so-called clean power plan, expected to be finalized this summer." "the wall street journal" -- " the obama administration is planning a series of actions to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from a wide swath of the economy, including trucks, airplanes, and power plants, kicking into high gear and ambitious climate agenda that the president sees as key to his

legacy." in politics, the headline that the nevada governor will not seek the seat being left open by minority leader harry reid when he retires. nevada governor, republican brian sandoval says on tuesday that he will not run for that seat. "usa today" with this headline about robert gates, former obama aide has joined the mcdonald's team. "he will communicate the comedies or as the company executes a difficult turnaround plan operatives, president obama's first term spokesman, has been named executive vice president of global medications. mcdonald's also named the former chief marketing officer for spirits company bacardi limited as the comedies executive vice president -- the company's executive vice president."

and finally, "military expands rights to gays." "chief says dissemination has no place in the military." republican. what is on your mind? caller: i would like to make a comment with all due respect to our good sen. gardner and i am a republican, but they are selling american workers down the road if they sign this tpp. we have a trade deficit year after year after year. until this is in force from we should not have any trading with any country. if we have a deficit, it means that we are importing more than we are exporting, which means the workers are in other countries and are selling the workers down the road and we have millions of people out of work, and we first should take care of us.

the workers here in the united states. these trade deals have to be enforced. if they have to let the goods sit at the ports for months, if they have to fine hundreds of dollars a day, whenever. whatever to make discoveries not import more than we can export -- to make these companies not import more than we can export. host: the house could bring it up as early as friday. caller: well, i haven't heard anything about them with the trade deficit in there and this is one thing that is so, so important. it really gets me -- i am passed my working years, but for families you need a job and need to support their family, it breaks my heart. host: all right, well, take a look at the "hill" headline on this.

"fast-track holdouts in-house plate let's make a deal." "ahead of a possible thursday vote in the house, the votes could be in play for the right deal. last-second bargains have a long history in tight trade votes and longtime antagonists in the trade wars say that they would be surprised if some deals aren't made on the floor maybe even while the final votes are being cast. politico reporting that republicans are eyeing friday, "the hill" saying thursday. larry in mobile, alabama republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: doing well, sir. caller: good, good. i want to make a comment. listen to me could i think you are one-sided on some of these issues you've got going on this morning, especially about

today's and stuff like that, but i just want to say that this tpp that is going on, he does not need to be passed. that is just another illegal way for barack obama to have immigration, illegal immigration come into this country. that is too much power for barack obama, way to much. we do not need that junk here. ok, he is not even concerned about this country, about the jobs in this country. he thinks he is building this country up. he ain't doing nothing but dropping it and making it fall backwards. we have lost 25 years in this country since this man has been in office. we do not need any more of his junk in here. host: illinois, independent. caller: yeah, i am calling. my son will be a chicago police officer in about two months. he was in afghanistan, so i don't have a whole lot of fear but i see this problem where these people are going to chew police officers, stabbed them, whatever. i think -- i contact my conga's

men and i will have to the bill if i have to -- what we need now is a bill that if you shoot a police officer or use any deadly force against one, you automatically get the death penalty if you're convicted. period, it's the end of the conversation could these people out here would be done. host: some of you might be interested in this headline in "the wall street journal" that the tech's office has resigned after the video service of him restraining a 14-year-old -- alexis officer has risen -- the texas officer has resigned after the video service of him restraining a 14-year-old at a pool party. "our practices and training do not support his actions." that in the papers this morning. when we come back from we will talk to congressman john kerry meant he -- john garamendi about this strategy against isis. we will ask him about other key

debates happening in congress. later, our "spotlight on magazines" series continues with a middle east expert who wrote in politico a piece entitled "the middle east is falling apart and america isn't to blame." we will be right back. >> like many of us, first family take vacation time, and like presidents and first ladies, a good read can be the perfect

companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in history? "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of iconic american women." the great summertime read, available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> this summer, booktv will cover book festivals from around the country and top nonfiction authors and books. near the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d roosevelt library. in the middle of july, live at the harlem book fair, the flagship african-american literary event, with author interviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year.

and events this summer on booktv. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman john garamendi democrat from california, sits on the armed services. we want to begin with what we have been talking to our viewers about all morning, the white house announces that they are set to expand the iraqi military advisers in the united states add another 500 to the 300 thousand or so already there. guest: this has always been our concern. one step forward, another step, and producing soon we are deeply into another war in iraq. we are already heading down that path. host: you think it is a slippery slope? guest: oh, it is most definitely a slippery slope. start off with a few airstrikes and now we have advisers, 3000, 4500. just going to go on. and yet the congress has not taken a definitive action on

what is the policy of the united states. are we actually going to have an authorization to use force declaration of war? we are clearly in a war and we have the constitutional responsibility of stating here is the limits or no limits at all, all in or just partially in, how are we going to go forward. we haven't done that. we have appropriated some money, but we have got much, much more to do, the fundamental constitutional is once ability -- constitutional responsibility that falls on 535 of us. host: republicans say the commander-in-chief needs to set the strategy and car congress ways in. guest: well, i think it was misunderstood and misinterpreted. it spoke directly to the training issue and how the training would take place. it was not about the overall strategy. the president did lay out a strategy and he did submit to congress's version of the authorization to use force.

congress has not yet taken it up to the senate held a hearing good for them. they've put off any definitive action, too bad. the house hasn't taken it up at all. some of us in the armed services to many have attended to deal with this issue, and we may have another opportunity on the floor when the appropriations for department of defense come up. host: do you think the democrats will offer amendments during the debate this week and house? guest: yes, think we will. host: what will they say? guest: in part we will work on ideas we have already put forward, limiting the time limiting the nature of the operation -- in other words, for me, we're not going to send in combat brigades. obviously, we only have advisers there. that's ok. special forces. that's ok. we want to be careful about where we deploy those troops. that is a question for the

president could if he thinks it is necessary and his military advisers think it is necessary to deploy observers, american observers, in the forward operating areas, that is a military decision. but it is our decision of whether we send in combat brigades armoered, those kinds of heavy soldiers into that area. host: do you view isis as a threat to the united states, and if you do, what is the solution? guest: well, certainly isis is a threat not only to the united states, but more directly and immediately to the neighborhood. iraq, saudi arabia, jordan, obviously syria, as well as turkey. that neighborhood is seriously threatened by isis and that neighborhood needs to coalesce around a strategy. they need to put their boots on the ground to defend themselves although the united states in my

view should support that effort. host: what are the generals and military officials telling you a member of the armed services committee, about what they need and what needs to be done? guest: first of all, they are operating under the current directives of the president which is limited. airstrikes obviously. training equipment. those kinds of things are what the president has authorized and what congress has allowed to be done thus far. i've not heard from any general that we need to put new brigades, that we need to renew the iraq 2 war or the iraq 1 war. host: let's get to calls. corpus christi, texas, republican. you are on with congressman garamendi. caller: hi, how are you doing? guest: i'm doing well, thank you . caller: i'm a veteran myself but has anyone taken a poll, a

survey of what iraqi where veterans think about going back? essentially, their opinion matters the most because they lost the most. another thing i was wondering -- i believe you are correct, we need to get in or get out whichever way we need to go. but has anyone taken a poll of anyone who actually go? guest: well, you have a very good question, and you are certainly correct. those men and women who have served in iraq have a lot of experience here and certainly a lot more than those of us in congress -- and there are members of congress have served in iraq. i would say that my own -- typically to your question, i am unaware of any poll that has been taken of iraq veterans. however, many iraq veterans are more than willing to talk to us in my own district, where i have two military bases.

i hear from veterans all of the time, and friendly, it is split. there are some who think we have got to go all in and wipe them out, and others who say that we have been there, done that, and it is not anything they want to see happen again. it is a split view. in congress, the views vary from left to right, among the veterans who have served in iraq . specifically, i am unaware of any specific poll that has been taken. host: kevin in west virginia, independent caller. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the congressman, sir what point does the united states decide we have spent enough money over in the middle east? i don't understand when i see commercials on tv americans contribute to our veterans wounded in iraq and afghanistan when i know our country gives other countries billions of

dollars -- jordan, egypt israel , all of these countries. nobody not one single person in congress has stood up and said we want to take care of our veterans. let's not give money to other countries. guest: actually, congress and my democratic colleagues have been very aggressive on taking care of our veterans. as you know, there were serious questions raised about the quality of care at the veterans hospitals. there has been a major effort in congress, both democrats and republicans, to address those issues. the president brought in a new secretary for the veterans affairs. that's all good. we continue to work on that. but one of the things we need to recognize is that when we go to war, there are two sets of costs. first, the operation of the war itself, well over $1 trillion in both iraq and afghanistan. and then there is the second set of costs, taking care

of veterans for the next 50 years. that is probably going to be another trillion dollars over that period of time to we need to calculate this not just in terms of dollars but in terms of the human lives at risk both in the war itself as well as after the war. it is a major issue, one we must confront, and when we debate this issue of what we should do in iraq going forward, we need to always keep in mind that there are continuing costs long after the war is over. host: you mentioned that the house will be debating the defense spending bill, money for the pentagon. the house is making its way through the appropriations bill. last night was the transportation and housing and urban development spending bill for those 2 agencies. talk about the overall top number and what are we talking about for infrastructure spending in this country? our viewers make that connection. why are we spending money

overseas when the infrastructure here is failing? guest: well, the biggest element, that was part of his question. where are we going to spend the money, in iraq on another war, or spend it at home? the decision was made last night by the republicans with few if any democrats voting for it, to spend money elsewhere. not on infrastructure. the money for transportation is reduced, serious cuts to amtrak, even in the face of the accident in philadelphia, and efforts made to terminate the long haul amtech systems, and bills passed to prevent funding for the southern line for the central up-and-down the states outside the east coast c orridor, money will not be available for capital improvement. for amtrak, significant reductions, and on the housing site, it is the lowest appropriation for public housing

support since 1989. this goes on and on. what we are seeing is a shift from domestic programs to the military. can the military budget, the appropriation is increased by almost $40 billion, and it is not accounted for. it is in what is called the overseas contingency account which is not scored. it is, in the view of, apparently, the republicans three money. it doesn't have to be accounted for. the reality is that money is coming out of investments in our domestic infrastructure and support for education, housing and things that we desperately need here at home. host: on the transportation issue, what does this mean then for the highway trust fund and that debate? congress passed another two-month extension of the highway trust fund bill. that debate is going to

resurface this summer. guest: it certainly is. it is going to resurface over the next two months. august 1, once again we have a bridge to nowhere. we fall off the end of the bridge here. another cliff, if you will. it seems as though as children, congress learned to kick the can down the road, and that is what we are doing here. i think it is terrible. it is a real serious problem for the economy and this nation when we do not have a long-term service transportation program. it is impossible. but the states and counties that actually do the construction to plan and make the contracts and lay out the work schedule ahead. we have to do this. how long will this continue? you should ask our friends on the republican side. they control the house, they control the senate, they control the agenda. we frankly need a very robust

completely paid for, surface transportation plan that includes highways, bridges, rail systems, freight systems ports and modern infrastructure, modern communications infrastructure. this nation will not prosper, we will not see the economy grow, and we will not be able to compete worldwide with a third rate infrastructure. that is exactly where we are headed. host: what are you hearing from you very large home state of california about the short-term extensions of the highway trust fund? this fund used to pay for roads and bridges and construction in states. guest: a very simple message -- can't you guys get your act together? don't you understand what it means to the state of california and the other 49 states if we don't have a long-term bill? well, we don't have a long-term bill. we were unable -- and once again, i want to make it clear the democrats supported the president's grow america act

which is a very robust, fully funded service transportation program that would significantly increase the spending on all of our infrastructure and provide at least a major step forward in rebuilding america's infrastructure -- the bridges, the roads, the transportation systems, all those things that are absolutely essential. however, it got nowhere. there has been very, very little action in the house transportation committee to move this forward. republicans control the agenda. they have been unable to get together on their site and therefore, we go back to our childhood game of kicking the can. host: on the spending side of it, the house did approve the hud spending bill for those two agencies. the president said he would veto it on the spending levels. bill in connecticut, independent full so you are next for the congressman. caller: thank you for c-span.

i want to say, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. the u.s. is in 150 bases in different countries. we should mind our own business. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again for 15 years we've been fighting these wars in the middle east, and all it did was send refugees running around all over the place and made a big mess. the news media, the major news media, they want wars. westinghouse, general electric they sell military equipment. we should not have -- we have all these armed services committees and all these people who are chickenhawks, never fought in a war in their life and we can't even win one. i tell you, george washington sam houston, property the would turn over in their grave if they sell what is happening here -- robert e lee would turn over in their grave if they saw what was happening here.

people in the military-industrial conflict are making a lot of money off of actual war forever. -- perpetual war forever. i don't get anyone should be on the armed services committee or whatever in congress or run for president unless they have military experience. eventually this country is going to go broke because of all these mores. -- all of these wars. we should make politicians pay for it -- host: understand your point bill. guest: well, he made about half a dozen points there. [laughter] some of them very, very good. clearly the iraq 2 war initiated by george w. bush was a mistake. it was based on let's just say inaccurate intelligence. weapons of mass destruction did not exist could what it did succeed in doing was upset the entire structure in iraq. the prosecution of the war turned out to be even worse than even entering. we wound up with the shiites in

power, the sunnis not, and the civil war directed and we got in the middle of that civil war in the 2006-2007-2008 period, and things got worse as it spiraled out of control. now we are headed back in one more time to it is time for a major debate in america about how we're going to do this but are we going to go back and do it for a third time? we are already in the first quarter of doing that. wait a minute, let's think this thing through clearly. we have to have a different strategy in that area. our old strategy did not work. host: you are saying that the president who campaigned on getting out of iraq is sending the united states back into iraq. guest: that is exactly what is happening. all of our soldiers left three years ago. almost four years ago now. and now we're back. 3800 another 400 500.

the president is going to send that number in. it will be over 4000. our air force and navy are consistently every day bombing in iraq and syria and by the way, as far as i know, it is a very, very difficult stretch to find the legal authority to be waging war in syria. you have to use the afghanistan authorization to use force. and somehow connected syria to afghanistan, which apparently the lawyers and the white house have figured out how to do. congress has not. we have to deal with this. we need a debate. in other words, we need a new strategy. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers. " should we just formally declare war with isis?" guest: that is what an authorization to use force is it different words meaning the same thing. and yes, if we are going to conduct war in iraq and syria

then congress, which has the constitutional responsibility only the only responsibility -- it is not the presidents responsibly, it is congress' responsibility. the senate did debate is the last couple of days. they put it off but nonetheless the debated in the house and the meaningful debate has not taken place. host: are you disappointed in this president when it comes to iraq? guest: he has been faced with a very difficult situation. the situation of isis unanticipated. we knew that isis was involved in syria. that is not new. we have known that for the last four or five years. however, when the breakout and the effort -- the successful effort of occupying most of northern and western iraq, that came as to my think, surprised all. if you look back on it hindsight always useful, look

back and say that the elements were there, we knew the iraqi government under maliki had alienated the sunnis, basically sidelined the sunnis, a major population, and created the political situation in the sunni area that was ripe for isis to move in. host: mike in fort lee, new jersey, republican. hi, mike. caller: good morning could listen, i don't think it is aging infrastructure or foreign wars. i think it is all about career politicians using the american credit card either to pay union guys $100,000 per job, to build projects they go for millions to billions to multiple billions, or build tanks to send to iraq. it is all about money being used, our money, taxpayer money while literally the working people in this country, they are suffering.

the working people are not making money, they are not getting jobs that last for very long they are not getting jobs that promise them any future. i hear career politicians prattling on like this gentleman here. he is really envious that the republicans have money to spend in iraq. wants to take that money and put it here. let me tell you something, sir i live in the northeast corridor and i can tell you come billions and billions and billions of dollars get wasted on so-called projects that are supposed to improve things they don't improve anything. we have got a fraction of the value for our money, and it is primarily because of union lobbies have fixed wages, have fixed costs so that whether i'm talking building tanks for somebody that doesn't need them for building infrastructure here it has all been padded by lobbyists. the people in america need to wake up. it is not about this or that right or wrong. it is about lobbyists driving all of these policies -- host: all right, mark in fort lee, new jersey. guest: well, mark some

interesting comments all the way around. however, i think you and i would agree that we need to build our infrastructure, we do need to educate our population, and we have major challenges here at home. i certainly agree with you about the waste of war, about the extraordinary expense that exists there, and one of the things that i've been interested in, spending a lot of time on is that we are now in the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race. it involves russia and china france, united kingdom, and the united states are all rebuilding and significantly upgrading their nuclear arsenals. you know what the cost of it is going to be over the next 25 years? it will be over $1 trillion. somebody ought to step back and say, wait a minute, what are we doing this for? why are we having new stealth bombers, new rockets, new cruise missiles new nuclear bombs? what is this all about?

'is it worth spending $1 trillion on that, or is there some place better to spend it like education, infrastructure health care, like making sure that we have the foundation for economic growth here in the united states? all of us, whether you are a career politician or not, should be looking at where the money is going and what is the purpose of it, and finally, what is the utility of the expenditure. thank you for your question. host: congress in garamendi represents the fourth district -- guest: third. host: third district of california serving your fourth term. guest: there you go. host: the caller mentioned unions and i want to bump this headline off of you, "wall street journal," "unions flex muscle in did it to stop trade bill." the vote could happen this week. guest: trade promotion authority is an abdication of the congressional responsibility to enact trade legislation. it is up to us.

the constitution is clear, it is up to the congress to enact trade legislation. trade promotion authority hands that negotiation over to the president and brings back to the congress an up or down vote, in which we have to either accept or reject it. i think it is dead wrong, and frankly, the trespass of a partnership is a very, very bad idea. -- transpacific partnership is a very, very bad idea. since the free-trade movement began with nafta, we have lost over 8 million manufacturing jobs in the united states. we have basically seen as a result of these trade deals the flight of american capital to the lowest wage countries of the world, leaving american workers behind. i think it is time to stop that. i think it is time for us to have fair trade deal, not a free-trade deal, a deal in which -- i think this is where the tpp

is going -- in which american workers are going to have to compete against the vietnamese worker who gets paid $.50 -- $.55 an hour. what is going to happen? we are going to see american wages once again being held down as the american worker is forced to compete with the lowest wage workers in the world. host: "washington post" editorial board disagrees. guest: i disagree with the that editorial portrait i think they are dead wrong on this. they need to look at the economic statistics of this nation and what has happened to the middle class in america. why is it that the middle class has stalled out? what is it that we have seen a situation in which the american workers forced to compete against low-wage workers around the world? i know economists say it will eventually even out. it does, by pulling down the american worker. but we have not seen the wages in those other countries rise significantly. host: california is a big

agriculture state. you don't see this as a benefit to agriculture exports? guest: in which there are ponds in the table. the rice industry. the wine industry. in the game of chess, the first thing taken up the board are the ponds. we are beginning -- pawn. they're going to take care of california ricin of the project and it -- japanese market. no, it is not going to happen. at the end of the day that is very important specialty crops in california are going to be left behind. take a look at the beef industry. take a look at what really happened in the korean trade agreement. that agreement allows beat to be imported to korea and then brought into the united states from korea without a tariff or any limitations at all. the american beef industry is

left to compete with that. you have to look at the details. how is it that the american automobile worker in the factories of the united states is now faced with a two-tiered wage system? those that are worked there for years are able to maintain the previous middle income wages. new people coming in are forced -- are paid what is about to just over the minimum wage. hardly able to make it into the middle class. maybe the lowest level of the middle class. give a two-tiered wage system. how did that happen? take a look at the korea trade deal. korea is allowed to import well over a quarter of a million cars into the united states and we are allowed to export into korea 25,000. there is a fear deal, i think not. host: let's hear from frank in largo, florida.

caller: good morning. i have two brief questions for the congressman and one for you, greta. congressman, i agree with you on the team gp -- tpp. i guess this is a question for congress in general. if it is such a great deal, put it online and let us read it. and we did know about isis. a recently declassified document from the defense intelligence agency shows that not only did we know about isis and what they were doing in iraq, but we helped to for a minute by letting it happen. in greta thursday the believer conference starts in austria and germany. is c-span going to cover that at all? thank you very much . host: we have gotten this call before. guest: with regard to the first

set of questions having to do with the rock -- iraq and isis we knew in iraq in syria they were elements that were fighting the syrian civil war. it is one of the reasons we were unable to intervene. we did not know were the good guys were but we did know there were a lot of bad guys and is back guys where the -- bad guys were the precursor to isis. the other questions we talked about earlier, i think i answered that earlier question . host: desmond? caller: my question is very short. [indiscernible] host: desmond, i apologize. it is very difficult to hear you. sharon in long creek oregon. a republican. caller: i'm referring back to the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

i would tell you -- i would tell you that i attended a meeting in portland, oregon several years back. a young man who was an iraqi was there and he spoke to us. he said do not believe that. i am from kurdistan and iraqis use the weapons of mass destruction on my people and there were met -- weapons of mass destruction. it is time for congress republicans, democrats, and all alike to stop warring back and forth. finally we have a budget. we are working on the budget. i very strongly support tpp and tpa. i am middle-class. i do not make $175,000 a year as do our congressman. i want them to come together and start thinking about everyone, not just as the one gentleman

talked about, their careers here it was get back to the point where we work for everyone and let's put united -- our yet it states back on a good foot. i need trade agreements for my business. i'm a middle-class, low income person. host: what is your business? caller: my business is beef. and i do know because i stay up to date on everything that happens. i understand some of the things you are saying, but it is time for a fair trade agreement and time for tpp andand tpa to move forward. host: youguest: you are correct. it is time for a fair trade agreement and not one that gives away credible elements of the american economy. for example, your taxpayer money now must be used to buy

american-made equipment on public works projects. if we are going to build a new bridge and oregon using that all tax dollars, it must be spent on american-made equipment and steel and pipe in concrete or whatever. however, the tpp guts that provision and would allow japan companies in japan or vietnam or any of the other 10 states -- 10 nations to supply the steel concrete, and other equip and for that bridge even though it is not made in america. the buy american provisions are guided by the current language. if you would like your tax money to be used to buy chinese -- japanese steel, fine. i do not think that is a good idea and i will give you an example in california. the san francisco bay bridge,

the single most extensive public works project in california, used chinese steel. at about twice the cost. 6000 jobs in china. the steel plant in china. lost jobs and opportunity in america because the buy american provisions were skirted and not used. you tell me where you want your tax dollars spent. the want them spent on over -- overseas? or un-american and american workers. i choose the latter. host: dr. conrad in philadelphia. the republican. caller: we have homegrown terrorists. we have a middle-class that doesn't have anything. i want to ask the congressman the same company that is buying that concrete for japan. they had a lobbyist come to washington to get that bill done.

do the american people have their lobbyist speak to them? guest: yes, it is you on c-span today and thank you. thank you chris being out for the american worker -- thank you for speaking out about the american worker. i can sleep that a lot of them do you watch this program. host: good, we are glad. a couple of domestic issues. one of them is the drug situation in california. what is happening there and what does it mean for the state? guest: the drought in california is very serious. there are very significant restrictions on water use. the governor has set up a 25% reduction for urban and commercial use. also agriculture in my district, a major rice growing district. we have over 500,000 acres of rice. 250,000 or 300,000 of that will not be planted this year.

we do know that many of the permanent crops will not receive water and they are dying. the orange-citrus industries in the fresno region. whether it is a city or industrial area or agriculture it is a very serious problem here. host: does the federal government have a role? guest: they enacted a 700 billion contact. -- $700 billion bond act. my water plant for california. conservation, recycling, storage treatments underground aquifers and surface storage. all of these are part of that bond act. the federal government ought to immediately focus all the federal water programs, and exist in different programs, the environment of protection agency , army corps of engineers, all of them have water programs.

they all to focus those water programs on the drought in california offering immediate assistance to communities that are out of water. and also to focus the program so that they coordinate, supplement, and advance the projects that are available in the california water bond. it will be another year before the money and the bond will be available to be used, but the federal -- can be used immediately and shorten the time friend of the construction for those projects that are authorized in the bond act. host: "washington times" says a year later that the funds are still unspent. the governors of ministration sent home -- set aside money to help farmworkers in drought-devastating counties. host: that means that more than

$250 billion has unspent. it takes time to do a project. you do not just put the shovel in the ground and get it done. you have to do engineering work in many communities do not have the infrastructure, wells, or pipelines. it takes time to do that. do we need to advance these programs? yes. the federal government that already has the money -- these programs are funded by the federal government. these federal agencies should turn their attention to these programs that the "washington times" is talking about and augment, supplement, and advance them. if the early engineering work done -- get the early engineering work done. there is a long-term issue. we need to repair california for the next drought. this one will and and when it does we cannot forget that it happened. we need to build those storage

systems, the aquifers, and the austrian storage. when i'm working on with my -- off-stream storage. a very large reservoir off-stream. it would provide not only storage, but increase the flexibility of all the water projects on the sacramento system. host: another issue is alzheimer's funding and research to increase funding for research to why is that important to you? what is your personal expense with this? guest: my mother-in-law spent the last two and a years of her life in our home dying of alzheimer's. it was an opportunity for us to really focus on this illness understand it. it turned out it was not a great burden. my wife and i took the evening and morning and that responsibilities. we had a daycare person commit to help with care. we were fortunate to be able to do that but most people cannot.

this is a very devastating illness. and it is increasingly in our population. as the baby boomers move into that. -- time of their life where alzheimer's is present, this is going to be a $1 trillion expenditure by america. most of it federal dollars to deal with alzheimer's. the latest research is very clear that by spending money on research we can address this illness. we can at least slow down the illness affecting people. if we spent a couple of hundred million dollars more, we might be able to save a couple of billion dollars by delaying the onset of the illness. and there is significant breakthroughs that are about to happen on understanding and treating or delaying the onset of alzheimer's. we can do this.

$580 million currently. we are trying to increase that appropriation. at the same time understand we are spending over $6 billion in cancer, $4 billion on heart disease and a similar number on hiv-aids. those are billions. alzheimer's will outstrip those on cost and the number of people affected, in fact it already does with hiv-aids. 1/10 of what we are spending on cancer. host: this will cost the health care system $1 trillion with the baby boomers retiring. where will we see that? house the federal government going to be paying? guest: medicare will be the biggest six miniature. medicaid will be picking up a big piece of it because that is where the expenditures are in the nursing homes and private -- your money. money of individuals caring for

their parents. host: congressman we appreciate your time this morning. thank you for talking with our viewers. guest: i would like to do that. thank you. host: when we come back we will continue with our spotlight and magazine series on "washington journal." this week we are focusing on it article written by philip gordon. the middle east is falling apart and america is not to blame. we will be right back. ♪ >> we are leaving our plan schedule and will return -- >> on the advancement of heart

surgery and the progress being made in the understanding of heart health. >> this actually is a valve that has been crimped onto this catheter that is being now positioned into the diseased valve and it will be deployed here in just a second with the balloon being inflated. and a new valve will be inserted inside the old calcified stenotic valve. the delivery system is being withdrawn and then the wire will be withdrawn and what we have just seen in this display is replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open-heart surgery. we are trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease. we are trying to become smarter as to identifying the most effective means to prevent or attenuate the disease.

and then smarter about following up over a longer amount of time. we are currently in an era where we are trying to harness the promise of the human genome research project that is now been in existence for more than a decade. with all the informatics that can be driven by the giants of the industry like google. and information about sociology geography, demographics, where you live and where the railroad tracks are in your city. what is your likelihood to get diabetes on the basis of your educational background? and what is your likelihood of developing some thing like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part of the city where you have less access to the right kind of food or instructions about sodium consumption? enormous impacts on population health. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific on c-span's "q and a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are continuing with our spotlight on magazine series here at philip gordon is here to speak about his piece in "political magazine." -- "politico magazine." host:what you talking about here? guest: if you want to take a step back and understand it more deeply, i would say what is happening is that the state system that is been in place in the middle east from us 100 years, since the end of the ottoman empire, was put in place in the western powers created these new states, iraq, syria, and lebanon -- that system is falling apart. the notion that you have

organized states that correspond to the states described on the map really no longer exists. the state of syria that you might see on your map really does not describe what is on the ground, which is a complete fragmentation of different groups. the state of iraq that you might see on your map does not reflect the reality that shia are largely in control of baghdad in the places around it sunni are in control of anbar province. the kurds are in charge of the north and so one. libya, yemen. this order that you had for many decades, which i don't want to overstate the order. there are a lot of internal and external tensions. but more or less a system in place was the same for many decades. many of the leaders were the same ones who lesson for decades. that is what is falling apart. what it has led to is a sort of

chaos you see a daily basis where once that structure is gone, without the leaders in the army's, -- armies is every person or group for themselves. plus the violence we are seeing across the region. host: who put this state system in place? when did it start falling apart? guest: the basic state structure put in place started -- was put in place at the fall of the ottoman empire. first centuries, through world war i and just after, the ottomans were more or less in charge with a lot of local autonomy and different groups in charge a different countries. that was the overall structure that was in place. then it collapses with world war i. the western powers commend and decide on the creation of some new states that did not exist until then. it did not necessarily correspond to the borders you

withdraw if you were starting from scratch and did not have historical rivalries in different countries. obviously there would be no perfect way of doing borders and that was one of the challenges in the middle east. you have somebody different ethnic groups and religious intermingled with each other. nonetheless, the western powers through these borders and did their very best over years and decades to keep them in place. it more or less worked. notwithstanding internal tensions and notwithstanding some conflicts between the states, you had the notion -- the map more or less look the same. in many cases, especially after world war ii, not only to the map with the same but the leadership look the same because you had the same regimes. and in many cases military leaders in place for decades. this started to come apart over the past 10 or 15 years or so. you had a major shift with the

iran-iraq war and the replacement of saddam hussein. and most recently is the effect of what is caused "the arab spring." when populations rose up against the stable regimes and said get rid of these structures. then it turned out there was nothing in place. there was no institutions. the notion of the state, they did not believe in it. instead of rallying to the state or the nation or institution they are clinging to their group. in states where q do not have a dominant sect, when you get is conflict to see who is in charge. that is what we are seeing in syria, iraq, and yemen. host: "the harsh reality is that the middle east today is going to rate time of tectonic and's -- change. if i took anything for my two

years as the white house escorted her of policy, is that u.s. policy is not the main source of change in the u.s. has no good options for dealing with it." guest: it is a blunt sentence but i think it is true. in many ways i wrote the piece in reaction to the notion out there, the mounting notion as we head into political season and everyone has their idea of the quick fix for the middle east, i wanted to underscore that these are historic tectonic, long-term factors in place. we just discussed a few of them. they are being driven by the region and not primarily by the united states. the u.s. is the most important outside actor and we can ensure -- consummate act we can do as we have some important interest in the region. these trends that i described are driven more from the region then by us. therefore we should not look to u.s. policy as the main factor

or even the main solution. in some cases, and that is the point of the piece, it is dangerous to do so. as we head into this political year, be careful that if only this or if only that we can take care of these problems. host: why is it dangerous to do so? guest: sometimes it is a consequence of action and set of inaction. we should always be asked skiing what we could we do -- could be doing differently or better. only a decade ago when united states decided it was not satisfied with the state of affairs in the middle east decided to change the regime in iraq. you had a hugely powerful country in the military and we were coming up the wake of great economic growth. we did not have a because the soviet union had disappeared. we put all this power to use to fix the middle east and make it better and not just deal with

weapons of mass destruction in iraq give it the idea was we were then to demonstrate american power and that with the two democratic change instability in the middle east. instead it ended up putting iran in charge of iraq in creating huge sunni anxiety, which is become this extremist group isis . and it cost 5000 american lives and hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives. and $1 trillion and we have as great a problem as we had as before. it's a caution against thinking we are the main actor and american policy or power can fix it. if you listen to these debates about what we should do today in iraq and syria, we have the same questions. we can take care of one problem, but will be the unintended consequence in cost and we have to be careful not to make the same mistakes we've made before. host: phil gordon is our guest.

he wrote this piece for "politico." the middle east expert served as the president special assistant for the middle east from 2013 to just a couple of month's ago and served as assistant secretary of state under hillary clinton. let's talk about this part of the story. you say "excepting that the united states is not to blame for and cannot resolve every problem in the middle east is not a prescription for inaction or resignation." what are you describing the united states do -- prescribing the united states to? guest: -- costly interventions. i want to be clear i am not saying we should therefore wash our hands of the whole region go home and over the best. there is a view at their that

americans should charge in their entrance from the region. there is another view, and prevalent view -- a prevalent view that they save -- it is too compensated. we have tried it before. let's just wash her hands of the entire region go home. i do not think that is right. in the end, as complicated as it is, we have significant interest in the region. we have friends and allies. we have interest in preventing nuclear proliferation. we obviously care about human life and want to avoid these terrible tragedies that are going on. energy oil. we have a lot of interest in the middle east. that's why i say let's not go too far and walk away completely . there are things that we can and must do. they include are our allies from external aggression. only the united states condenser and outright invasion of another country like we saw with saddam hussein invading kuwait.

u.s. military power reversed that and said there is a limit. we take that for granted that there is not interstate war. the major region -- reason for that is the 35,000 troops we have in the region. as bad as it is now, they know there is a line the cannot cross. we have an interest in preventing-- nuclear proliferation. if he started seeing states get a hold of nuclear weapons, it could be multiple times worse than that. that is why i support the iran deal that the united states and other world powers have proposed. we can talk about that. i think we do have an interest in keeping sea lanes open and commerce. oil prices are going down especially in the united states were we are producing more oil which is great. but oil is a fungible good in it is determined by global markets and 30% of oil that is traded passes through the straits of hormuz. we have an interest in

protecting that. it could interfere with that and be a real cost to the united states. there are interest we have an there are things we can do and we should keep doing them but we also have to be realistic about what we can do. host: how can you do everything that you just said we should do without first fixing the situation in iraq with isis and without putting boots on the ground to do that? guest: preventing isis from having a safe--- safe haven is one of our core interest where we need to ensure. i think we are right to be using our air pirate to strike them, which we are doing in significant ways and taking away their assets and keeping them on the run. by putting together a coalition to help us do a we can do which is cut off their finances, discredit their ideology, prevent them from illicit oil

exports, and contain and ultimately degrade this group so they cannot threaten us. i will be the first to admit that falls short of going in with boots on the ground and uprooting them and preventing some of the atrocities we are seeing. we ask ourselves every day, and we should, how we can prevent atrocities because they are horrible. that does not mean the answer is sending american forces to fight them in the streets of ramadi or falluja or muzzle. -- mozul. the market people did not support that and it had huge unintended consequences. we have to try to balance what we can do with what we can do and that is what we are doing. host: let's get our viewers involved. james in chattanooga tennessee. caller: yes hi.

thank you for taking my call. i wanted to know from the gentleman what could be done about -- is iran going to be stable to or is there good to be other consequences in that region? guest: thanks, james. we have not talked about iran yet. unclear if iran will be stable. it is stable in the sense where other states in the region we described at the beginning are collapsing and their state shelters are collapsing. the iranian regime is still in charge in a run and you do not see the civil unrest and violence on a mass scale that you do elsewhere. but iran is also the part of the problem in the since it is promoting a sectarian agenda that is leading the vicious circle i am describing at the beginning. when it went back to the iranian revolution in the way that simulated some sinnia-shia

tensions and his work exacerbated further with the u.s. invasion of iraq which put iran largely in charge of baghdad and took this tensions further. now you have iran playing a role as far away as yemen and clearly in syria by supporting the regime. and in iraq by supporting militias and others. iran has a major role to play in this. it is a vicious circle and what ultimately will be needed is some sort of entante between iran and saudi arabia, a leading country on the sunni side where they decide it is in their interest to find some sort of regional understanding. it is not crazy or unprecedented to imagine they could more -- find a way to more or less get a room -- get along. with iran pushing a sectarian --

in the region, you see competitions we are witnessing in syria and iraq in yemen. as long as that continues, we are going to see the violence that we see now. host: tommy is next, an independent. caller: it is good talking to you today. since we have practiced diplomacy, and that is a failure, and we practiced war which was a failure i think the only alternative is to practice annihilation because annihilation will prevent other governments from getting into this need to find isis. i think we should let isis take over baghdad and damascus and then flatten them are carpet bombing or whatever. turn them into the world's largest parking lot and we will see what happens then. guest: it is not a particularly serious proposal. you are talking about hundreds of millions of people.

i am not sure who it is we're supposed to annihilate. we do have an interest in protecting all of the innocence throughout the region who were not really responsible for this. i do not think that is the right way to go. host: on twitter, lynn asks this. "hiking you -- how can the u.s.-when a war against a ideology when there's no nation to win?" guest: isis is now playing on this notion that all of the other approaches to satisfying muslim or city-muslim aspirations of -- sunni muslim aspirations of failed. what they need to do is return to this glorious seventh century. islam that will -- pure islam

that will leave them satisfied in whole. that is the myth they are peddling. that a lot of young sunni's are susceptible to. they feel, we were talking about 70 historical tensions going on in the region, they feel like the last 20 years of not serve them well. that iran and the shia have expanded their influence in lebanon, iraq, syria, and in yemen and elsewhere. and somebody needs to send it for them. so long as that is the case -- and that is why there are 74 and fighters listening to this message and believing that -- there are so many foreign fighters listening to this message and believing that they need to return to this form of islam. the united states is not in the best place to combat that notion . it has to be done in the region

by other muslims and sunnis. as long as that is the case, i think you will see the foreign fighters and dissatisfied sunni' s. satisfied illegitimate political grievances of the sunnis to live in iraq and syria and elsewhere so they are not susceptible to turning to this file and hatred. host: erin in indiana. a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call and i want to thank you for c-span. i enjoy watching it every morning. i'm happy to be love this opportunity to speak. -- to have this opportunity to speak. i hope i will be able to get to all of them. my first one is i understand that the solution, if you can call it the solution, is going to be very collocated. i was hoping he would be able to

outline all the different factors. i was curious is to what israel's role would be in this solution. especially when talking about the history of the region, with consideration to israel's formation in the area. and taking off of that is what is an ideal realistic i -- outcome for stability in the middle east considering all the different clinical, social religious, geographic factors? think you very much. guest: thank you for your questions. i will try and start by saying there is not a solution to these problems. you started by asking what is the ideal outcome for stability. there is not one and we do need to be realistic. there will probably be instability, serious instability

and even wore this region for some time. we should do everything we can to prevent it and mitigate and do what we can for the innocence in the region. we cannot pretend there is a solution. that is one of the things i am warning against is the notion that there is a solution and we just have not found it yet. that is the interesting thing about our political debate. we try one approach under the bush and ministration of transforming the region and promoting democracy and using american military power and american military force to invade. and americans are not satisfied with that. and president obama try to different approach that does not rely on the same tools or promise the same things and people a ride back to proposing that we tried only recently. i would caution against the notion we're looking for some ideal solution. instead, as i argued in the article, it does not mean there is nothing we can do.

or that we do not have important interest to protect. that is why i outlined some of those interests and underscore will be do need to do to it achieve those -- to achieve those interests. you mention israel. it is not as central to the main trends as some of the other factors. and it is certainly not the cause of all the problems. sometimes you get a notion that if only we could fix the israeli-arab conflict, everything else would go away. if you start to think about the sunni-shia divide and the collapse of state authority and most of what we were talking about has little to do with israel. that does not mean there is not a huge and serious challenge in israel. as i talked about in the article, the challenge their is that it feels like -- there is that it feels like a solution, if we can use that word to his -- to the arab-israeli conflict,

the two state solution where you have an independent and secure israeli state and eight secure an independent palestinian state next door. that is what the world is in working towards for a couple of decades now. you could almost say it feels further away than ever. we saw that in this last round. the united states under secretary kerry made yet another very significant run it trying to bring the parties together last year and the gaps remain significant. which is had an israeli election where a coalition was put in place that, to a certain extent, does not even believe in the two state solution anymore and is supportive of vigorous expansion of settlements. that makes it harder to draw a map between the two sides. on the palestinian side you have a regime that is increasingly losing its legitimacy.

it has not been elected for a long time. it is divided between hamas terrorist group in gaza and the palestinian authority on the west bank. and palestinians losing interest that there can be a two state solution. that is another challenge of top of everything else because, as we've seen in the past, when hope for palestinian future goes away, you can see violence there. that is the last thing we need is an israeli-palestinian conflict. host: our guest served as the president's special assistant on the middle east. before that, assistant secretary of state under hillary clinton during the first term of the obama administration. here to talk about his piece in "politico." we will go to robert's in brooklyn. a republican. caller: good morning.

i have two quick questions. number one when hillary clinton -- the german was working with her was in an organization -- to russia. and russia organized with iran. will she be charged for -- fraud in treason? host: our connection is not great. i think he was talking about the sale of iranian trade between russia and iran. where you following it? guest: i am not sure i understood the question either give russia is a key partner for the united states and others and try to prevent the iranian nuclear weapon.

what i would say is that notwithstanding all of the differences we have had on russia on other issues, on the issue of iranian nuclear weapons russia has been united with the united states in preventing it from enriching uranium and developing nuclear capabilities. host: martin in kentucky. caller: yes, i want to say it seems like the problem is we have got to have oil from saudi arabia. we cannot do without it. so when george bush 41 was president, a texas oilman, and the iraqi army invaded kuwait he had to drive them out. if someone to take over saudi arabia they can take over the united states. they are thinking of lifting a ban on exporting oil when carter was president because he warned us of the middle east was becoming an uncool place. and the ban on exporting oil was a move towards getting us oil independent. should congress lift this band, has it ever -- with this ban

has it ever done anything to get his ended -- dependent from foreign oil? the problem is we have to oil from saudi arabia? guest: i mentioned oil is the key american interest. i think it overstates to suggest that that is the reason for our involvement in the middle east or protecting saudi arabia. it actually is a legitimate interest of the united states. energy is what keeps the world economy going and without that all of the other problems we are trying to deal with than the world cannot be handled. we do have an interest which i think is legitimate and make each of the middle east can continue to expert oil. everyone is right to talk about growing american energy independence am a which is a good thing. but it does not mean we are free from a need for energy out of the middle east. in the end oil is sold and

traded on the international markets. it does not matter how energy independent united states is. if there is a crisis in the middle east that prevents her from he exported and the global price goes up, that could have consequences for the chinese economy, asia, america, and therefore the united states in jobs and other american interests. we have a legitimate interest in making sure that oil continues to flow freely out of the middle east. on your specific reference to american energy exports, you are right. that provision was put in place at a different time when there was concerned about needing oil and energy in keeping it in this country. now with developments in the shale industry and others, we have the capacity to sell energy oil, on the international markets. and that is something we should take advantage of. host: in your piece for

"politico," criticism -- what most of the critiques have in common is an assumption that the u.s. policy is the most relevant variable and explain what is going on. in an utter failure to present an approach that would work." what is the president's middle east policy? guest: it is important underscore that line. america is not the main variable. his story trends mostly driven from the region. we should get away from the notion that whatever the u.s. is doing. that is the main factor here. there is stuff going here that we have very little to do with. the second part of that -- the notion that it is something that the united states can do. -- it is action quite striking when you look at the critics of

what the united states is doing in the middle east. they blame america, or the administration for the outcomes. but when it comes to say what to do different way, there is not a lot there. sometimes they imply we should use military force or american power to stand up to iran or put boots on the ground and stop isis but they usually do not finish the sentence and specifically what they have in mind. it sometimes comes down to maybe fly a few more sorties in iraq and get the iraqi military further out. we can talk about these proposals specifically. but they are not hugely different from what we are already doing and there are reasons we are not doing them that the critics don't seem to understand. host: when you spoke with the president, you are special advisor to him in the middle east, described his thinking and

thought process on the middle east. what sort of questions would he have for you during your briefings? host:guest: i think the president always wanted to know not with the first pacific reaction would be, but the one after that in the one after that. when you're writing or going on c-span, you have the luxury of saying i think we should do this to solve that problem. assad is using air power and that is a bad thing because he killing civilians and we want to stop it. how do we stop it? the short answer is we can put up a no-fly zone or strike is airplanes or take it as their defense. but the president was always interested in knowing, ok, if we do that, what happens after that and after that? that is sometimes the sort of question that does not get asked or answered. it is that sort of logic train that when you think it through you sometimes realize that maybe that quick fix is not the

smartest thing in the world. i mentioned unintended consequences of iraq. saddam hussein was a horrible dictator killing office people and we had legitimate concerns about weapons of mass can -- destruction. but if you ask if we then go went and occupy the country will happen? and will that not and heavily put iran -- inevitably put iran in charge of baghdad and make sunni's feel -- i think the president had a real understanding that you cannot just decide what to do to get you through tomorrow or next week. you need to think longer-term about the consequences. i point out something in the piece in terms of solution and american fixes and all of that. i bring this up because i mentioned the bush of ministration. i am not -- bush administration. i am reminding that these fixes

-- the alternative does not necessarily work either. if you think about what we did in iraq, we invaded and we occupied and that turned out to be a costly disaster. in libya, we invaded or use military force to get rid of the regime and we do not occupied and that turned out to be a costly disaster. in syria we have neither intervened with military scores -- force nor occupied, which is a costly disaster. let's just say that whatever the i guys did -- the other guys did, we should do the opposite is not a solution. host: john. a republican. caller: it seems that the shia, the people who fight for them, they are motivated and are populist-based. it seems that the sunni have some smaller group that is really dedicated and come from another world.

they do not fight for a particularly strong idea. are the palestinians lean shia are sinning because it seems like all of the military stuff going on for the sunni depend on having imported soldiers from third world islamic countries to be their foot soldiers. they do not seem to have a strong army or a populist army. you do not see a saudi -- very many real saudi's enough saudi army fighting at the front lines. guest: thanks. we have to be careful about generalizing with sunni and shia. there are billions of people with different nationalities. i would not want to make a blanket statement. it probably is fair to say that on the sunni side, especially given the majority -- the shia

side, the majority in iran and iran is the leader of shia in the region. more unity of effort. iran with its allies and hezbollah and militias in iraq. it gives the appearance of more unity and central control here at on the city side, you have more diversity. -- to the sunni regimes that are the enemies of extremists in isis. and the muslim brotherhood. where that pertains to the palestinian point you made, i think it is a separate issue. the palestinian issue is less a sunni one or sunni-shia one, but a question of national aspirations of the palestinian people.

there you have to talk about palestinians and israelis in the difficulty of sorting out land so they can both have national homelands. it is really not much of a factor in this broader regional sectarian question. host: lubbock texas. bill. a republican. caller: good morning. i have a few questions for you mr. gordon. what military background you have? you have military expansion your background? if we treated the situation in the middle east and north africa as we did with the notazi situation back in world war ii and we treated it the same, did you think -- do you think them i really the problem over there? guest: thank you for your questions. i have never served in the military.

i have spent many years working very closely with our military colleagues in the positions i surgeon recently as the assistant secretary of state and then in the white house. the military was a key voice and all of these issues. the defense department and joint chief of staff's are represented at every meeting and believe me when these things are -- the president and everybody there takes very seriously the input from the military experts you know better than anyone else what they are capable of and are not capable of. it is a key component as we think through what are the military options for any of these issues. as for the world war ii analogy it is a legitimate point to the extent that you are recommending biilll, at least it is consistent. i think the problem with a lot

of the recommendations you get for these issues is people saying "i'm not saying we needed at a war or to play american troops, but why don't we do a few airstrikes and see if that does the trick? or put in some advisers." at least into the extent you are recommending that course of action. you could come to the conclusion that these problems are so great and our interests are so great that we have an interest in using massive amounts of military force to win this war and occupied and do whatever it takes to stop these problems, whether it is terrorism or nuclear for -- proliferation. the only response i get to that is to think about the cost of that. in world war ii, we were talking about years. one million americans being mobilized, deployed fighting for years across europe.

and then occupying for many years after that and being present for many years after that. i am not sure that is commensurate with our interests. i am pretty certain that is now with the american public would support. and i'm not even certain it would work. when you think i to colonialism think about the french in algeria. they took that you of mobilizing one million people in defending their interest in military force and they ended up in a costly multi-year war that ended in failure in retreat. you can make a case that these problems are so great that we should do something like world war ii. but you have to understand that if we do that, we are talking about many, many casualties. multi-trillions of dollars and even the absence of guarantee that it would succeed. host: where were you before the state department?

guest: at eight years before that i was at the brookings institute. i have served at the bill clinton nsc and i went to the brookings institute. host: grant in washington dc. caller: i want to ask if you think it is time for the u.s. to stop officially pretending that it doesn't know whether israel has nuclear weapons. the conference at the human collapsed last month because the u.s.-u.k. --, u.k., and candidate did not want any -- it is well documented that charitable donations has flowed from the u.s. to israel for its nuclear program, get there is never any prosecutions. according to a poll released this week, 55% of americans want the program to be officially a knowledge. why can't the federal government finally admit what everybody

knows and stop pretending it does not exist? host: what paul was that? -- poll was that? caller: guest: i do not think there is a lot of doubt throughout the region or the united states about the existence of a nuclear weapons capability and israel. i also do not think that the question of official u.s. technology meant -- acknowledgment on that issue would make a significant difference to the problems we are talking about. and the long run, i think we would all agree that it would be best if there were no nuclear weapons at all in the middle east. again, i do not know that on the issues we're talking about or frankly on the nuclear issues

like the iranian nuclear issue. i think their nuclear issue is driven by their insecurity and concerned about u.s. military power being used against east and west get -- west. but whether israel itself existed. so i have not sure that is an essential variable in this debate. host: we will hear from betty next and ridge, new york. independent. caller: good morning. i agree with a lot of what you are saying and first of all we dropped bombs on japan. not us, they dropped bombs on us. then they had the second attack in the united states on 9/11. i know what happened with japan

but i still do not know what happened with 9/11. host: i apologize for jumping in bit i have to go because they house is about to open up their doors and gavel in for the morning session. i want to ask you real quick about -- the president is set to expand military advisers in iraq. what do you think is the motivation there? what does that mean for this whole discussion about the middle east? guest: we've been talking about isis and defeating this horrible terrorist group in the best way to do that is to have partners on the ground we can work with and iraqi military forces of the best ones that we can partner with. guest: therehost: there is more discussion there. philip gordon. his pieces and "politico." as we said, the houses gaveling in for morning session. live coverage on c-span here it -- c-span.