house and other issues on the legislative agenda in at 8:30 a.m. representative on a u.s. strategy against isis, and the moving of heavy military weaponry -- weaponry to eastern europe to send a message to russia. host: good morning and welcome to the washington journal. congress is in session this week and we will talk with a couple of lawmakers about key debates and trade and the fight against isis. we are on open phones. here are a couple of issues. the president and his republican allies are seeking more time for redo. in politics, the 11th gop candidate jumped into the race yesterday. former florida governor jeb bush in a speech in miami.

just his experience, not his name. the pope intends to back the science of climate change on thursday, urging action by global leaders saying the death -- you can go to twitter and facebook. send us an e-mail. journal@c-span.org. phone lines are open. "the washington post" with the headline, more time slot for trade legislation. president obama and house speaker john boehner spoke by phone as they tried to find a path success. according to senior aides, the first call was to abandon a second vote tuesday on a piece

of legislation that must also pass for the entire package to advance to obama's desk. given the grim outcome, they stood no chance for turning nearly 100 votes in four days. instead, john boehner decided to impose a temporary ruled that if approved today will allow him until july 30 to bring us to trade debate at anytime for a do over. here is what the white house spokesperson had to say about this debate in congress. [video clip] >> the longer this process plays out, the harder it is to build bipartisan support. we believe that we have some momentum. in the last several weeks we have seen both tpa and taa passed with bipartisan support in the senate. we saw them do something we thought was not possible, which is to build a legitimate bipartisan authority.

we try to build on that momentum to complete what the president believes is necessary, to negotiate an agreement in the best interest of the economy. host: josh earnest talking about the process on capitol hill. how they get enough votes to support the trade agenda. "the washington times" says house minority leader nancy pelosi said that more democrats would vote for the trade package if republicans committed to passing a long-term highway spending bill. that is what the leader has put out there. hillary clinton, running for president in 2016, also weighed in on sunday and yesterday. clinton widens trade gap with obama. she twice of what it answering

whether she still supports the fast-track authority or would want the same power issue becomes president. the washington post noting in their -- "the washington times" noting that nancy pelosi voted against the trade agenda, as well as hillary clinton's comments, leaves the president without a strong democratic ally. here is "reuters" coverage of hillary clinton yesterday. [video clip] >> now there is an opportunity for the president and his team to reach out and meet with the people who have said on the floor, like nancy pelosi, that we need a better deal. not, i am against it no matter what is in it or, i am for it to matter what is in it. i think there is a chance to use this leverage so that the deal does become one that more

americans and members of congress can vote for. in this case, one of the ways the president could get fast-track authority is to deal with the legitimate concerns of those democrats who are potential yes voters. to see what, within the negotiation or the existing framework agreement, could be modified or changed. these are complicated negotiations. you have so many different players with different needs and wants. i think, if he wants to get fast track authority, he will have to try to figure out how to use the vote on friday and the leverage to get changes. you don't need fast-track authority, technically. what other countries will say is, we are a parliamentary system. ira member what happened on the -- i remember the korea trade

agreement. we inherited it from the bush administration and we opened it up. we got the changes made and we got it through our congress and there were a lot of political challenges to getting it through korea. there is always room to maneuver, and i think this is one of those times. host: hillary clinton speaking out in new hampshire yesterday. not answering the question of whether or not she supports the president's transpacific partnership deal that he is negotiating. on the senate side, the fight against isis, senators look to limit u.s. troops in the militant fight. senator chris murphy introduced the act that would prohibit the use of large-scale run troops

with a few exceptions, including special operations missions to nab high-value targets and former ground controllers to call in close air support. that debate in the senate. what is on your mind this morning? robert in birmingham, alabama. a republican. you're up first. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that if the presidential primaries were held today, my vote would be for marco rubio. i believe that america needs a return to traditional christian values. from what i have heard from the republican field i think that rubio has been most supportive of this. especially he said that the christians are being persecuted by the left wing, just for

believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. that is starting to become -- he cannot even express your faith if you're christian, jewish or muslim and not be called hateful. host: did you listen to what the form of -- former florida governor had to say? what do you think of him? caller: i did not hear what he said yesterday. if rubio were bounced out earliery it would not be tough to support jeb bush. host: why? caller: he comes from a long line of politicians. being a governor he has the executive experience needed to run the country. host: what do you think about donald trump?

caller: no way. i cannot vote for trump. i don't think that being a business mogul would give you a little hole -- political leadership experience that you would need to run the most powerful nation on earth. host: donald trump is announcing today at 11:00 a.m. et. we will have coverage on c-span3. part of that announcement will be him disclosing his finances. double trump will release a summary of assets that total $9 billion. trump's declared assets more than double the estimated net worth by forbes. the figure would make him the wealthiest republican contender. that is 11:00 a.m. et.

on jeb bush's announcement yesterday, here is the headline of "usa today." time may have cost bush luster. look at when everyone announced so far. april, late march late may and now jeb bush gets in. for a candidate who spent so much time deciding when to start his presidential run, the time ing was far from ideal. not only does it trust him into a crowded field but the long delay has left him scrambling to maintain control. his last year and the governor's mansion was 2006. he has been out of elected office for nearly a decade. during that time florida has passed new york as the third most populist state. about one million people move to and out of florida each year.

the paper this morning is noting that any republican contender will have to win one in the early state. we are on open phones this morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that it is an insult. [indiscernible] the only thing i like about bush is [indiscernible] apart from that, he has nothing to talk about in politics.

anybody who has been in politics before, they should raise more people. we don't need people like that anymore. host: you can weigh in as well on jeb bush launching his white house bid or any of the other public policy issues. he has trade, or the debate over isis or iraq, the phone lines are open. republicans democrats (202) 748-8001 independent (202) 748-8002. [video clip] >> you and i know that america deserves better.

[applause] they have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but drug rest. -- progress. they're responsible for the slowest economic recovery ever. a massive tax increase on the middle class. the relentless buildup of the regulatory state. the mindless drawdown of the military that was generations in the militant -- in the making. [applause] i, for one am not eager to see what another four years would look like under that kind of leadership. the presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next. here is what it comes down to. our country is on a bad course.

what are we going to do about it? the question for me, what am i going to do about it? i have decided, i am a candidate for president of the united states. [applause] host: the miami herald called it a rousing step forth on the front page of their paper courtesy of washington. you can weigh in. good morning, linda. what is on your mind? caller: thank you. i hear a lot of people complaining about immigration and the borders. i don't hear any politicians speaking about the h1b workers. foreign workers coming in and taking high technical jobs.

disney has contracted with a foreign company to bring in workers from india. the utilities companies are bringing in foreign workers taking away high skilled jobs, and no one is talking about this. it is a real problem. we speak of the mexicans and the borders, but no one is talking about the high skilled workers taking away skillful workers. no one is speaking about this. everyone is complaining that the mexicans and other people taking low skill jobs, but what about the high skill jobs? no one has spoken. i have heard nothing. caller: here is a related story. "the wall street journal" front page. visa glitch strains u.s. farms. a computer error has prevented

the u.s. from issuing thousands of immigrant visa since june 9 leaving them stranded at the border as the summer harvest gets underway. jason resnick called a crisis and estimated that california agriculture already stressed by drought is losing $500,000 to $1 million for each day of delay. business and tourism visas are stalled by the glitch. charles in west virginia, an independent. go ahead. caller: i have three things to say. probably more than that, but what i am getting at is, we are turning into an ethnic group just like they are overseas. three types of people. the poor people. the people that go to school

college and learn everything. and the politicians. if you are in the school, or college area, these people only go by what their professor and then say. not by what has happened in the past. if it wasn't for the dummies in the united states wouldn't have no airplanes, no electricity. none of this stuff. you have to go to college to play football, basketball, and baseball. you don't give poor people a chance. host: another independent in new mexico. good morning joe. caller: i have been called on to say something for the poor people. i agree with it.

i wanted to say it. i am wondering why they had me say it now when we have republicans in office. where it is not likely to go through. here it is. we need food for the poor. we need $10 per day, food for the poor. host: we heard you. we will go to dawn. caller: i wanted to respond about hillary's comments on the tpa and taa. i am a bernie sanders supporter and i am against tpa. i have to say, i liked her response. it sounded well thought out. not rehearsed.

it didn't sound like a pat political response. even though i disagree with her i think she was not refusing to answer. i think she was presenting a well thought out opinion of how she felt about it. host: let me bounce this off of you. this is "the washington post" editorial. after years of support for free trade, hillary clinton recalibrate's. they say think of the bracing effect it might have had if mrs. clinton had still got -- stood up against electioneering political pressure and reiterated what she said in 2012. that we need to re-up our game bilaterally with partners across the region through agreements. imagine if she had read from her memoir published last year under the ironic title "hard choices."

the tpp, mrs. clinton wrote, is also important for american workers who would benefit from competing on a more level playing for -- playing field. >>caller: my response to that is, watching over the last year, political opinions are changing and are coming around. maybe she is coming around. it sounds like she has been doing a lot of listening and she knows how the public feels. maybe she did support it more wholeheartedly than, and i think she is still supporting it, but at least someone is talking about what can be done to improve it, instead of know we don't want it, or yes we do. i feel that it is going to go through eventually. somehow, some way. at least let's have it on a

conversation about how to improve it. i will keep fighting against it, but i liked which he had to say. i don't care that she changed her mind. i think you are entitled to change her mind. host: you trust her than? caller: i am saying that is how i felt about what she had to say. i felt it was an honest response. host: dawn, weighing in on trade. she says that hillary clinton must have been listening to the people she was talking to as she did a two month listening to work. here is how americans responded to a survey on trade when it is phrased this way. in general the you think it has been a good thing or a bad thing? 58% said a good thing, 33% had thing and 9% not knowing or refusing to answer.

that from pew research when the question is phrased that way. you can worry and again on trade or any other issue. we also want to share this quote with you from the singapore foreign minister. he was quoted as saying, the choice is a stark one. do you want to be part of the region or out of the region. if you are out, your only lever to shape the architecture is the seventh fleet and that is not the lever that you want to use. derek, good morning to you. caller: i think we will get a big thrill today from donald trump. that guy will give a speech today about running for president and he will spend 14 minutes of that 15 minute speech patting himself on the back,

talking about how he is that greatest is this guy of all time. he is the biggest clown. what is he waste is money? and that other guy from baltimore. the last time i checked economists estimated that the revenue stockpile by whites in money would be $11 trillion. you have that guy and the other guy in miami, the cuban. he thinks that hispanics love him and every mexican i have spoken to that they would not vote for him if their lives depended on it. host: derek referring to senator marco rubio. melvin, hello. caller: [indiscernible]

host: our connection is not great, apologies. hopefully you can call back on a better line. linda, an independent. caller: i just wanted to comment on that speech that mrs. clinton recently made. the young lady called in and made the comment that she thought it was a sincere -- i see it differently. she is so deceptive. but people buy it. then i look at radio. what stops me is when young people:, they are so -- one young people called in, they are

so pro-clinton. they should be supporting young people. you want different and changes but you keep electing the same. host: who are you going to vote for? caller: i haven't decided. i am looking at the message and the expressions. my mother raised me to be independent and have my own mind. i don't want to go with the crowd. i haven't decided, but if i were voting today, it would probably be -- it might be rand paul, only because -- what the others have given him. look around the country. i would vote for someone -- at the election i would never what down because i would be looking for traits and characteristics.

people keep talking about the poor. the poor will always be a monster. i suggest what kind of society the you want to live in because everybody is poor. yes, you helped them, but that should not be your focus. who keeps the economy afloat? the middlemen. host: look at what the 2016 contenders were saying on twitter. we will start with marco rubio. in politics, people throw around the word friend so much it often has little real meeting. when i called jeb bush my friend, i mean it. rick perry, jeb bush, looking forward to seeing you around more often. senator ted cruz, i am glad to welcome jeb bush to the growing and diverse field of 2016 gop candidates. hillary clinton was in new hampshire after being in iowa on

sunday. today in new hampshire, proposed universal pre-k, check. proposed two times investment in early head start. check. join to storytime. check. martin o'malley, for the thousands whose jobs are on the line with tpp, fast-track is not a process issue, it is about on their future and their livelihood. on twitter, jeb bush with some tweaks and we can show you those as well. here is what he had to say ahead of his speech. pitch in three dollars and the join team jeb on day one. the former florida governor saying i will take nothing and no one for granted. i will run with heart. gloria, we are on open phones this morning. caller: how are you? my comments were three.

one on hillary clinton, i basically say that you should follow the money there. there has been some real shady doings. then the other day i noticed on tv while she is supposed to be a people person, one person she told to go to the back of the line which i thought was out of line. the second comment is on the trade deal, they need to be really careful there because from what i heard there were some not so good things in it that might alter immigration law and take away safeguards that might protect the country like face-to-face interviews. he really cannot get the gist of a person unless they are there and asking questions.

and for confirmation of april work and other things like that, that might go by the wayside on the tpp. then, the last, i had was on the farm workers complaining about immigrants, as he just said earlier. not getting across the border. good heavens, we have 20 million or 30 million here. it seems far-fetched that they are crying that they have to have more. and as far -- you were asking people about the election. independent, i still haven't decided which way i will go. i kind of like ben carson. the black gentleman. host: african-american. republican. caller: i am looking at him and

cruz doesn't seem total bed but i like the others, too. host: you have time. [laughter] caller: thing goodness. but i did kind of like ben carson. i could not think that was his last name. i did like him because he has been in the real world basically. he dealt with life-and-death situations and that in the pediatrics he was in our cardiology or whatever it was. the medical and. so he understands a lot in the air iesco i'm keeping close track of him. and of course rand paul has interesting things i will let you go, but those were the few thoughts there. i am still undecided myself watching a few and seeing what they do. host: open phones this morning so keep dialing in to keep

talking to you about what is on your mind, public policy issues or the 2016 field. here is another issue, the terrorist elated visa denial upheld by the court. they ruled monday that immigration officials cannot deny entry suspected terrorists without offering a detailed information even at the cost of keeping a married couple oceans apart. three justices said denying a visa did not violate his wife's right for life, liberty or property. two other said even if it did, sufficient reason was given for the denial. that confirmation was enough to uphold the government action by a 5-4 vote. the supreme court with many decisions pending. they will be announcing them monday throughout the month of june and july and then they might add some decision days.

we are waiting for them to make a decision on same-sex marriage as well as president obama's health care law and whether or not subsidies were meant by congress for everybody, on every exchange or just those established by the state. here is another story for all of you. many of you might have seen the news yesterday that the white house, the president and the first lady held a private party at the residence and it was only known because of tweets like this from reverend al sharpton. leaving the white house party with potus and float us. -- flotus, awesome to have attended. [video clip] >> i don't have a lot to tell you. it is a nonpublic event, but we have confirmed that the president and first lady did hold a private party here over the weekend.

given the private nature of the events, i don't have a lot to discuss. >> even after it has been widely noted on social media by people like sharpton -- like al sharpton. >> what is the question? >> once information about the event is in the public domain it is interesting to white house does not at least acknowledge it. >> i think that is what i just did. the president and first lady did host a private event here over the weekend. given the fact it was a private event, we did not spend a lot of time talking about publicly. >> were there any lawmakers at the private event? host: josh earnest talking about the private party. it was noted that the presidents trade agenda failing on friday that the president did not make phone calls to lawmakers over the weekend, but that his chief of staff had been talking to

leadership in the house. he did talk to speaker boehner yesterday in the hopes that they could do redo and they are not planning to do that today. it could come before july 30 if the house is able to approve a rule for that. "washington times" reports that prince gave a private performance at the white house and 500 guests to celebrate african-american music appreciation. among the guests were former attorney general eric holder, susan rice, russell wilson, john bon jovi, james taylor, tyler perry, connie britton and angela bassett. what is on your mind this morning? caller: i have a few things, one is what we were teaching these young kids about student loans.

they sign the paper and take out the loan for college and then they want us to pay for it. should we also paid for the ones who did not go to college and decide to take out a loan to buy a piece of equipment and start their own business? should we give them free money? it is not a very good lesson we are teaching kids that you can sign up for something, say he will pay it back and then we will say no. we will give it to you. some of these kids probably shouldn't even be in college. they should be at a trade school. i don't think it is a very good lesson we are teaching them to say you can fall back on your debt and not pay it. i didn't go to college. i invested my money and started a business. should i get my money free? if somebody says we will give you $100,000, to start your business don't worry about paying it back. where do you draw the line?

you talk about job training for people on welfare. the best job training they could get is to be -- every morning you get up out of bed and you come down here and we will give you the money, but sign a piece of paper saying, i was here at this building at 8:00. i don't care if you go home and watch tv, but you got out of bed, walked down the street and signed a book that said i would like to have a job. that is job training to start with. you have to get up in the morning. you cannot just lay in bed and think someone will give you something for the rest of your life. host: laura, in philadelphia. democrat. caller: i had one subject to talk about but i want to respond to this gentleman who is well ill-informed about student loans. i have a granddaughter that graduated from the university of vermont. she is still paying her student loans.

she is 25 years old. she is working to try jobs. no one gives you a student loan for free. what he doesn't know is that apparent pesticide now -- a parent has to sign now for the student to get a loan. the parent is also held responsible for the student if she reneges on that loan. he is misinformed. as far as welfare and not having a job, if there were jobs people would not be on welfare. these republicans are misinformed because they have other republicans giving them the wrong information about people. they need to come to the poor neighborhoods and see what people are doing, where there are three jobs and 500 equal standing in line. this makes me angry.

if you want to talk about something, have the correct information. don't get out there and tell lies about things you don't know anything about. he is misinformed, but he will get on the television and tell lies and have people angry and thinking that black people are minorities are getting something for free. a lot of these kids cannot even pay their student loans back they cannot even buy a car or get a home, because they are taxing their salaries and everything. don't think they are getting a free ride, they are not. host: deborah in minnesota independent, what is on your mind? good morning? one must try. moving on to new mexico, frederica, independent. what is on your mind? caller: on my mind it is about

us as americans, we should be always grateful that we had a great resident -- great president by the name of -- host: more quick headlines for you. out of washington, "the spokesman review" on that ncaa leader rachel dolezal lost the trust after backlash over claims about race. another headline this morning from "the seattle times." the former ncaa leader once sued for discrimination as a white student at howard university in washington. also this morning, in foreign affairs. here is the world new section. the u.s. believes an airstrike has killed al qaeda figure.

the pentagon believes it killed the militant mastermind of a series of attacks across north africa. the gas plant attack was targeted in libya. below that is the headline that syria claims a win against islamic state, able to take back a key area of syria and that allow them to stop isis from bringing in more militant leaders into the fight in syria and iraq. back to 2016, and jeb bush. "the wall street journal" editorial, he reboots his pitch that he can reform washington as he did florida. he adds to the list of candidates who would give the correlated mrs. clinton a run

for the clinton a nation's money. here is what the candidate had to say yesterday about the obamas and clinton's. [video clip] >> it is still a mistreat to me why, in these violent times, the president thought it relevant at a prayer breakfast to bring up the crusades. americans don't need lectures on the middle ages, when dealing abroad with modern horrors committed by fanatics. [applause] from the beginning, our president and his foreign-policy team, have been so eager to be the history makers, that they failed to be the peacemakers. [applause] with their phone in foreign policies the obama-kerry team is leaving a legacy of crisis uncontained, violence unopposed

enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling. [applause] this supposedly risk-averse administration is running a straight in the direction of the greatest risk of all. military inferiority. it will go on automatically until the president steps in to rebuild armed forces and take care of our troops and our veterans. they have my word that i will do it. host: jeb bush in miami yesterday, the former florida governor officially jumping in. this means he can no longer fund race with super pac's. he must keep his distance under the sec rules. some other headlines, here is one from the washington times.

clinton's blumenthal e-mails may have been withheld from the and ghazi committee. investigators uncovered a series of e-mails between hillary clinton and sidney blumenthal that were withheld the state department or clinton herself. republican staff found a number of libya related communications that were not included in the records previously submitted. the divisive former aide is set to appear before the committee this morning to deliver his deposition in the benghazi probe that brought her use of a private e-mail to light in march. his testimony will take place hide close doors. haley in arizona, independent. caller: how are you? host: what is on your mind. open phones. caller: i just have something to say about jeb bush and the tpp thing. it is pretty obvious, but he knew that he would run for president, and he has been

denying it. i am pretty sure he has been doing that, of the tpp things. he does have to distance himself and he has been fundraising with super pac's and taking advantage of the whole thing. host: i will leave it there so we can get in one more phone call. joseph in texas, democrat. caller: i just have a few comments to make, i will be very brief. from the outside as an american citizen if we sit back and watch our government fight against each other, instead of being productive we send them there to be productive and make things better for us and i think that when it comes to elections, you see a lack of participation. people are tired of the same old thing. as far as tpp and tpa. i'm pretty sure many americans

remember when the speaker past a bill on the vote. he has the power to get that done. we would love to see that happen. with health care, americans are really tired of them spending so much of our taxpayer dollars on simple repeal. if they have a better idea, let's make it better. host: i hope that you keep watching because next we will talk about trade and health care. with bill pascrell a member of the ways and means subcommittee. later, representative mo brooks and member of the armed services committee and foreign affairs panel, we will get his take on the president's isis strategy and the role of congress. today marks the 60th anniversary of the first edition of "rollcall." we recently sat down with the editor in chief to discuss the

newspaper, its mission and its founder. [video clip] >> he was a army veteran, a journalist to his core. he came to washington as a young capitol hill staffer. a member of the ohio delegation died, and another member did not find out about it for several days. and sid said, that is a problem. there should be a community newspaper for chapel hill. his true mission began. this would be a paper that brought the human element to congress. that reminded them that they deserved their own community newspaper, because they were interacting with humans. june 16, 1965 was the first issue. "rollcall" was his baby. sid's widow said that "role

call" was his first wife. they printed the letter from the office of the vice president dated june 10, 1955. dear mr. yudain, this is just a note to tell you that i am looking forward to -- with interest in receiving the first issue of " roll call." there is a place for your publication. the hill is a community of its own and entitled to coverage more personal than can be expected in washington or any other press. i'm glad to see that you are keeping it nonpartisan. i know you will receive the support your project lawrence. richard nixon. host: we want to welcome back to our table, congressman bill pascrell, democrat from new jersey. let's talk about last week on friday, the trade adjustment

assistance bill which is eight for americans who lose their jobs to trade bills. it failed him a dramatically on the house floor. you voted no why? guest: i don't believe the bill was fair and i would not held hostage by the trade assistance legislation, which went down heavily with both democrats and republicans objecting. i think that this has been a failed process. most of the people that are leading the attempts to overturn the proposal that the president has put the for us, have voted with the president on every major issue in the last 6.5 years. we are not a bunch of malcontents. we are not neanderthals. we have done our homework like everyone else. we're not against trade. that is a false pretense upon which this debate has been floundering. i think that we need trade.

i voted for the peruvian trade deal. some folks say when you go on the ways and means committee you drink the kool-aid and support every trade deal. that has not happened. i thought that the peruvian trade deal set a standard, a protocol which should be followed by other future trade deals. i do not believe that tpa, the bill before us right now, is good for america. it is not the common good, which i am most concerned about. it is corporate friendly. there is nothing wrong with that. everybody needs to be part of the act and i don't think that is happening here. host: trade promotion authority is fast track authority for the president. he can quickly get through any trade deal he has negotiated. why are you against that?

guest: i think it is not in concert with the constitution. do you know what i find ironic? some of the very people that are fighting to give the president -- not just president obama future presidents will have this authority as well so that congress simply votes up or down rather than be part of the negotiating congress. it means something to me. that body the call the legislature has the power and authority under the constitution. everybody has criticized this president for going beyond constitutional powers with executive orders, and yet they want to give him carte blanche and any president the power to put a deal together. host: did you vote against trade promotional authority for president bush? guest: yes. i am against fast-track, period.

i am interested in fair trade. i am interested in the bottom having as much involvement within the negotiations as anyone else at the top. host: how would any president be able to negotiate a trade deal if in the end 535 members of congress get to amend and change it? guest: we are talking about 40% of the world economy. to tell congress that you have to wait till the end, we will put together and you vote up or down. if you vote it down, it will come back to us and we will decide the parameters. that is why we have problems in currency. we have problems with food safety. when you talk about seafood, 1% of it is inspected before it comes to the country. you want me to deal with the country like, inevitably,

vietnam. sending stuff over here that has not been inspected. if we don't have enough people to inspect it, let's look at the situation. i am on the border two months ago in texas at the mcclellan bridge. i saw how hard those border patrol folks work. when these trucks of groceries come across from mexico, there is not enough and ike -- they cannot inspect every truck. there is no guarantee in this legislation before us, which i did vote against, which passed by eight votes, that this will be improved upon. none whatsoever. host: would you reconsider, if republicans agree to and as nancy pelosi wants, a commitment to passing a highway

spending bill? guest: i find those kinds of leverage of noxious. i will be very honest -- obnoxious. i will be very honest. i give you a straight answer. this is a trade deal. one of my brothers and the congress suggested, these things are not going to pass, they will put them all in an omnibus bill. at the end of the fiscal year. everything together so if you vote no you are voting against mother and apple pie. we need a transportation bill. i have introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation that gets us to the promised land. i hope that the bipartisan piece of legislation will stand on its own. i am realistic to understand that deals are made in the congress of the united states of america, but to me, transportation is critical and

trade with other nations is critical. omnibus bills, people do not know what we are passing. host: let me get your response to "usa today." representative paul ryan says that democrats sabotaged the president on trade. republicans, under the deal they had brokered with democratic leadership, promised to bring the boats on trade promotion authority. in exchange, democrats will bring the votes on job assistance. that didn't happen and nancy pelosi herself said she would join the other democrats. guest: that is the only leverage we have are in host: is it sabotage? guest: no. paul -- i love him. he is a smart guy. but he tends to the dramatic at times. they had tactics. we had tactics. there was no attempt to do

anything out of the ordinary, immoral. i'm not accusing him of doing anything of the kind. it was a leverage that we had voting against trade assistance, which i voted on on the past. though there was a question this time about how it would be paid for. on the other side, they are saying that this is an increase in taxes. you signed a pledge. you had better understand what the pledge is. we will take care of our troops, paul will take care of his and we will see. and never the twain shall meet. host: what do you think about this from the foreign minister of singapore? the choice is a stark one. do you want to be in the region or out of the region? if you're out of the region, your only influence is the seventh fleet and that is not

the lever you want to use. guest: i would agree with the last part, but who is he to tell us. that is one of the major problems with this trade deal. we will put our sovereignty on the line if other countries can take us to their courts. we haven't resolved that. i certainly don't agree with giving up our side. i'm sure that paul ryan doesn't either. i will continue to vote against it. it will take more than bribes to build bridges. saying you will get that road fixed -- that wrote should be fixed and i will fight to do everything i can for this imaginary road. i want this trade deal that i can be proud of. trade is critical as a strategy for homeland security, and no one is saying the opposite. give us a fair trade deal.

host: congressman pas grell serving his 10th term in congress. bill, you're a first. caller: good morning. i am reading your lips on the tv. host: just listen to the phone. caller: i called and earlier to get through, and i wanted to pick up on what the congressman was saying. i'm going to rant at first. it looks as if the democratic party in particular the labor movement is doing, is arguing to build a 30 foot wall around the country, and then we all get into 1957 and stay there. the world is different.

we need, we can build and sell anything around the world but we need to do it on a level playing field that is negotiated. guest: we need to do it on a level playing field, that is the problem. the democratic party, i can assure you, we work closely with the unions, but also with small businesses who are going to be hurt by this trade deal if it goes through. if you live in the heart of steel country in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, the steel industry has had to put up with the dumping of steel from other countries like china into this country that put a lot of people out of work. this is not some neanderthal idea. look around you. talk to the steelworkers. that is one industry affected.

now we are talking about not only product, but services which are part of the trade deal whatsoever. we need to trade. you are correct. look at me, please. you are correct but it has to be a fair trade deal, not just any trade deal. caller: james is a democrat in pennsylvania. you are next. caller: good morning. i am two times voting for barack obama. i am 1000% supportive. the question i have, due to the deafening silence about the canadian pipeline, in regards to this trades bill, my question is, will the new trade bill, assuming it passes, will the new trade bill impact the pipeline, the canadian pipeline, the xl

pipeline? guest: no, except that is one of the hostage items. i don't think so. i don't believe that will be part of this. but, the longer this goes on, the closer we get to the end of the fiscal year. who knows what will be thrown in. there will be a lot of poison of poison pills in this ominous bill. if you vote against it, your voting against mother and apple pie. host: you think this could come back. guest: that is what i think. host: the president has his tactics and you have your tactics. guest: last night, the rules committee decided strategically republicans have the majority, and they had every right to do it, that they will extend, not only will this deadline be until tuesday night, but now they will

vote on legislation today. debate will start at 12:30. 1:30, 2:00 this afternoon, a rule from the rules committee which will extend the deadline to july 30. anytime between now and then this could come up. so both sides will look at the strategy and then the tactics in order to get to that goal line of either supporting it or defeating it. it should be rather interesting. this will not be off the table today. host: likely, they get approval for that will that allows them to extend -- guest: that will probably gain approval. when your own party is there you usually vote for the rule. everybody sees this as a procedural situation. procedural situations have a lot to do with the bill in the condition it is right now. host: tennessee, independent

line is next. good morning. you're on the air. caller: good morning greta, and good morning, representative. i have seen this representative on your show before and he is excellent. let's look at china. china is not a part of this trade deal. guest: not yet. caller: asian pacific companies are. i think if you research china some of the executives of their countries will be locked up if you threaten to move their factories and this is is out of china. i think they're looking at specific hours to get away from china, move their factories to the spin -- the pacific islands korea, and the other islands. taiwan, philippines. that sets them up with more power. what that will do is it will cause a war in the asian-pacific coast. i believe that is what is happening to him against the trade it all i can say for the representative is run for president. i would vote for you. guest: oh i want to respond to

that. it is ironic, when the president of the united states was fighting for this, which he has every right to do, he has a positive impact on america, but i am not with him on this. the day after, we had this signal, which we are told about i think it was on public radio at the time when he made the statement, that china is enjoying this deal. the day after we find out we had been hacked by somebody or people in china. we are looking into where all of these records have now been found to be, we know, we believe, in china at this particular moment. china has not been h rue player. on the question of currency,

they manipulated their currency. this is why we are struggling to have good relations with china and yet at every turn, we have major problems. if i may do this, this was a line from president bush's eco nomic report in february 2004. this is what he wrote. "when a good or service is produced at a lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it to mystically. -- domestically." if that is not surrender, i do not know what is. they all have to understand and future presidents have to understand, this is no longer going to be our mantra.

you better give us a clear, fair trade deal and we better have something to do with it a quarter to article one section eight. this is not simply corporate america's games. host: he told you to run for president. you mentioned the chinese hacking of personnel management. that will be a hearing on capitol hill today. a committee will take a look at that. look for coverage on c-span.org. back for calls, john, democrat. caller: hello. here is what i want to say to it i have followed this stuff since i was a kid. i was originally for the free trade deal when clinton signed that. congressman, i have followed this stuff. but everybody is wondering why the middle-class is evaporating.

that is one of the reasons. all the good factory jobs have gone overseas. let me ask you this. last week, they passed this deal where they do not have to tell you where meat comes from. i buy seafood. this weekend -- guest: a new jersey horse. caller: yes. a wonderful horse. but i was telling people about the thing with the meat and i do not care what party, they said, you are kidding. why is everything so secret that they do not want to tell you where your meet comes from, do not want to tie you were the campaign money comes from, do not want to tell you about the free trade eel per that is a bunch of horse s-h-i-t. guest: both parties have a problem of transparency.

why do we have stagnant wages in the united states? why have the past 25 years particularly middle-class wages remained basically the same? we cannot get over the top. people cannot see their way through. a little more difficult for your kids to go to college, etc. do not forget, we have trade assistance, one of the bills we're talking about here. trade assistance is after the fact. after the folks have lost their jobs. why don't we put more effort into keeping jobs? the jobs we are losing are not only in the manufacturing area, but also in the service area. those jobs on an average pay about $60,000. the jobs that are replacing them are about $33,000 to $36,000. where is the logic?

we are dumbing down the american workforce, the most productive in the entire world. the president knows this. bill clinton knew it way back when. george bush knew it. why are we doing this? we are not doing it for the average working person. in the long run, as president bush said, you will to buy things cheaper. that is not the bottom line. the bottom line is, what is good for the most, as pope francis says. host: do you hear enough from hillary clinton on trade in the past couple of days? she did not say she is against it or for it. she is just saying maybe it needs to be looked at again. guest: i think hillary hit the right tone. we are not backing off on this, the democrats that are there. we are not lapdog spirit we are independent thinkers. we support our president we love our country, but this is a deal that stinks.

the president has every right to do those kinds of things. that is the power of the presidency. he came to our ballgame the night before. it was kind of a circus atmosphere when he was there. god bless him. i love to see him at these kinds of things. i wish at times he would have done more of these kinds of his over the past 6.5 years. the president came and spoke and left. we were stronger after the speech than we were before. host: charles in michigan, republican. caller: thanks for having me on. as an agricultural producer, i would mostly be in favor of the trade pact. i would like to ask the congressman why he would be sold said about a bill that they want to be passed and they do not know what is in it, when that was exactly the same formula for

the health care bill that was passed. now we have people coming back where we do not trust the person in the next day, they are claiming is not a tax, or you can keep your doctor and you can't. people are coming on saying, you know, that was part of the reason why they mislead them. they can get them to pass the bill. host: i think we understand your point. comparing the process of passing president obama affordable care act. nancy pelosi saying we have to vote on it to know what is in it. and this still voting against the president's agenda. guest: i am guilty of both. i was on the ways and means committee when the aca was put together. some things i wanted did not get in there. something's i wanted did get in there.

it was -- the listener is right on target. we did the best we could with a very complex problem. we're talking about health care for all americans. we're not just talking about a yearly venture. we're talking about trading with the country now. no longer to mystic issue. we're talking about an international issue. it is critical to our security and i will admit that are most of the folks who opposed the legislation admit that. we have got to have a deal that helps american workers keep the jobs that they have. if they lose those jobs, come up with something decent so they continue to support their families. i am convinced this deal does not. host: how do you do that? what needs to be added?

guest: whether it is currency food safety, origin -- where the product came from, this is why i voted on the south korean deal. china could send it over to south korea to get finished, china will get the goodies in the deal, i think that is why we lose jobs. how many more american cars are in south korea today because of that deal? very few. we came out the losers in that deal. host: tracy, an independent. go ahead. caller: i am a welder. i have been for 20 years. i have kind of scene my pay go down. i went from $19 and hour to $16 an hour. it is hard for independent welders or small, private businesses who do heavy construction, to compete with unions. just because of cost.

talking about government work we did a job, i make $16 per hour, we did a job for a hospital here in maryland. my pay went to 50 something dollars an hour just because it was a government job. that is wasted money to me because i appreciated it but i did not need that to come from the government. where did most of that money go? also, the quality of roderick's coming overseas. i worked with aluminum and stainless steel that was not even worth welding. it is just garbage. in order for a private person yard ornaments and stuff that you buy, say walmart was somewhere like that, you pay 30 or $40 for it. i cannot buy the metal to make that but it comes from overseas. china and places like that. they will fall apart, they rest

-- they rust. there is no good way to get around it unless we make it ourselves, keep it here, keep the taxpayers here -- tax money here. guest: all right, i think what you just heard makes sense. make it in america. our democratic anthem in the last two elections, where is that in this bill, anyway? where is it making in america? the gentleman here is a welder the backbone of america. keep it simple. the backbone of america. he needs work and has got to be paid a fair wage. i do not believe his wages will be improved or enhanced by this particular trade deal. that is what he is talking about.

you heard the gentleman from pittsburgh. 20 minutes ago, he talked about i mean, that is the place where steel has been dumped and they lost their jobs and we have a loud it under the previous trade deals we have had. we have allowed steel to come into this country and put our guys and gals out of work. host: jeanne, independent, good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i just wanted to tell you i do not know whole lot about the trade bill, but i do know you are right on it i have watched you over the years and you have done a magnificent job. i honestly really think you are a very straight shooter. you talk right from the shoulder and what comes out of your mouth is 99% truth.

guest: you are in wisconsin? that is a great state. one of the major proponents of this legislation is from wisconsin. a democrat who i work with on the ways and means committee. we disagree severely on this but he is a great congressman who really cares about people. we perceive these trade deals they differently from one another. that does not say he is wrong and i am right or vice versa. i really thank you for your comments. look. if you cannot stay the fight, if you cannot stay in their and fight for what you think is right, you do not belong there. the people in my own district in new jersey should get somebody else. i believe this very strongly. i'm out to help those people. i believe the trade deal will not help my district. let's talk about my district. my district, hard-working

people. many blue-collar workers, many of them have lost their jobs because of trade, from the textile industry that has gone sayonara over many years, and that was not simply trade deals. it was because the industry they keep up with the state-of-the-art, the unions ask too much at any given one time. we are not cooperating in order to make sure the industry continues. textile is like a lot of other industries. regardless of which heart of the country you are from. trade deals can shut that down and also help liberate those who are hard-working americans. everybody is hard-working whether you are the 1%, the 99% everybody is working hard. i want to see the rich survive and do well. but let's be fair about it. that is all i'm asking. host: north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think it is ludicrous they

expect you to vote on a bill you are not allowed to read. guest: we were allowed to read it. we were allowed to go down to a room and read it and i thought i was in soviet union. but the point of the matter is this is not a way to get to the conclusion. i know your point and i agree with it. caller: how many of those 30 chapters are you allowed to read? we understand you are only allowed to read the first five chapters. guest: you cannot take notes. i am not the brightest guy in the world, you try to retain as much as you can. the fact is you are right on. i think there should be some way of doing this that is better than what we call fast track. i think congress should have its rights under article one section eight of the constitution, and i believe if anything, it should be a dual effort and not simply giving the power to the executive.

all i'm left with is an up or down vote. that is where i am going and i will not back off. host: how do you plan to respond to this possible scenario, and it is laid out in the washington post by her democratic colleagues from maryland, representative connolly, who said he would support the speaker if you try to pass trade authority without the worker program and set it back to the senate, laying blame at the hands of liberal democrats if that meant that the worker chart -- worker reach training funds dried up. guest: gerry connolly we are talking about? from virginia. right. i thought there was another gerry connolly. one is enough. a good guy, but one is enough. gerry connolly, in that same quote you are saying, those of us against us as them and their.

i am not them or their. i am one of us. i am a member of the congress of united states, note that are than anyone else. i have the right to move down the path i choose. we want to have a robust trade deal, thank you nancy pelosi. i want to have a trade deal where i can go back and say this is good stuff for us. good things are going to be happening. it will not be a new heaven, but good things will happen. the president's problem about all of this, and gerry connolly's main problem, is the adage, make friends he for you need them. we would not be in the situation today in the debate over trade if we would have followed that adage. host: what did the president due to not make friends? guest: i do not think

purposefully. he never engaged us in many things in the six and a half years. things would have been a lot easier and i am not saying results would have been different, but things would have been a lot easier. the process would have been a lot easier. the process has been treacherous. we have had numerous meetings with the trade representative. many meetings both public and private. he could only go so far. we told him from the very beginning, you will have a tough time selling this if you cannot get, as an example, this currency thing under control. we had the same problem with japan. if you do not do this, it is costing jobs now. if the country -- most of these countries subsidize their companies. and they make the deals. that is not a level playing field. i do not even want to use that term. everybody uses that in every issue p or to we will never have a level playing field.

but what we should be doing is going in the right direction so we can meet and have a compromise. a compromise. host: jeffrey in louisiana, an independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. i pretty much am in agreement with the senator. i agree with everything he is saying. the only thing i have problems with and have been having problems with, is the parties. they never really worked together. it always seems as if they are against america. of course, i know that is not the idea, but it always seems that way. and when we get to a point, as to this trade agreement thing they will take stuff that we really need, as the senator has said, and throw in to get their

points across. i think that is very damning to the country. guest: take the issues of climate change, affordable health care, there are divisions. no two ways about it here this is a little different than those three examples. what is different here is you have a mixture of -- at the time, we called it -- between democrats and republicans. some republicans favor the deal. some republicans do not. just as with democrats. you have a little different take on this particular issue of trade. get to the heart of it. find out which countries we will be trading with. this deals with 11 or 12 countries, where there is 40% of

the world's's income, economy. this is very important. there are no two ways about it. i'm not trying to minimize what we're doing here by any stretch of the imagination. but i want to maximize my opportunities to help the american worker p or i think and fast trade deals, they have been getting shortchanged and short shift. i want to do something about that. you are right there is too much animus, too much flossie here in the congress of the united states, where there needs to be a coming together. my saying it does not make it happen and presidents have to go out of their way to make it happen. i think the president tried to bring in the early stages of the aca, and since i mentioned that, tried to get republicans, but they were just stuck in the position of, no votes to do anything within the procedural

and we divided and divided and that is where we are. host: ohio, willie, a democrat. guest: hey, willie. how are you, sir? caller: i am very good, thank you. secretary of labor under bill clinton a renowned economist the economic policy institute say that this bill is bad for the people. thank you. that is all i have to say. guest: i agree with you, willie p or you said it better than me. host: let's look at what president obama's's labor secretary had to say on abc passes this week. >> i do not think we need a plan b.

so many different pathways will get you to the finish line at the house. i am confident we will move forward on this. america needs to set the rules in the global economy. every day the president way except his northstar is, what can i do to help the american worker, what can i do to help the american family. that is what he has been doing since the day he got into office, whether it was the recovery act, the affordable care act, the bailout, and this is no different. we need to rewrite the rules of the global economy. the world is watching us rent now and the president strongly believes and i agree that this is the most progressive trade promotion authority we have ever given. guest: i wish i had a week. i say to secretary perez, that you are doing your job and i understand where you're coming from, but when you tell me we

will be writing the rules do not play games. we are not writing the rules. in fact, we are allowing other countries to overstate their importance and their significance. a fair trade deal is one in which every country participates . a tpp is one where congress is participating. get it clear, mr. secretary. we are not going away. this is not the deal. i am flabbergasted at that argument, that if we do not do it, then the chinese are going to do it. the chinese are doing it anyway and we are letting them get away with it, whether it is manipulation whether it is where the product comes from an the first place, agriculture, we are not going to get rid of duties here in this legislation. we are not getting our cars into other countries. look at the other deals.

so i respect mr. perez. he is a great guy and a great secretary, but you are wrong on this,. period. caller: good morning. according to the trade bill i am understanding, the money for that is supposed to come out of medicare. what will that do for the seniors, if their payments go up or doctor payments go up or whatever? how will that affect us? guest: talk about tactics. it was in there and it was taken out of there. this is the mystery, the inner sanctum of this legislation. there are no two ways about it. i would never vote for it if they cut medicare and many democrats would not. and i think many republicans would not. but this is how they were trying

to sneak it through an the first place. then they went back because of what nancy pelosi said and what rosa delauro's set on our side. let's not do this because you will lose votes if you're trying to get to that promise land of getting the legislation. you ask me today, i could not tell you whether or not at this given moment, because it could be the rule. that is an interesting way to get legislation passed. we need transparency here and i do not believe we have it. host: massachusetts, dave is next. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i am a conscious constitutional republican. i follow what the senate and what the house of representatives to, what the president does, and you know, i see here that congress has the

responsibility to regulate commerce. congress cannot give up its power. guest: oh yes it can. caller: it has already given up enough. guest: that's right. i do not know if you heard what i said before, those beating on the president trying to grab too much power congress has laid out fundamental principles and then congress does not act on those principles, the president has felt absolutely determined to get something done, rather than simply look back and say, well, we tried. i give the president credit for that. this is overreaching. if there ever is an area where the administration is going to be exercising the authority, at the expense of the congress, trade is the issue.

article one, section eight. go read it. remember when we fell asleep in history classes, one going over the constitution and we would rather watch the paint dry on the wall? we should have been reading it. it is exciting. this is the greatest country in the world. read the constitution. some issues are already in court, as you know. maybe we will have to take this to court. host: medical device tax. republicans want to do away with it. guest: and not replace any of the money taken out of it if they do away with it. democrats and republicans, not just republicans. host: it sounds like you are a no. what is it? guest: i am an absolute no. much of the industry is very productive in america. has come through with major, major changes in the 21st

century. but some in the industry are a bunch of crooks that should be in jail. we have had cases not only at the end of the 20 century, the beginning of the toy first century, of bribery, of doctors to use those medical devices be a i'm not making this stuff up here this is real. go back to the record. the present governor in a state of new jersey who might be running for president of the united states, he was the u.s. attorney. when he hired ashcroft was his original boss when they worked under the bush and ministration, to oversee some of the device companies that were being investigated, and they were fined, slapped on the wrist, and sent on their way. i am going to defend this particularly because they have not substituted any other thing for it, and they want to ruin aca drop by drop, and it has been a big success. host: the tax brings and how

much for the affordable care act? so it is a big revenue stream? guest: it is major. they agreed to appear at when we put these things together, the industries agreed to it at the time. they are now trying to return to former history. host: from new jersey, and independent. caller: congressman, i hear a lot of members of congress talk about the trade package is bad here it but i never hear members of congress say specifically what they want for their constituents, a detailed list of what they want and the trade bill that would make it fair. secondly, why can't members of congress propose that workers in foreign countries as part of the trade pact he paid the same amount as workers in industrialized parts of the

world like america, great britain? if you neutralize that issue and have all the workers making the same amount, the corporations would not be so fast to rush overseas. guest: corporate america would never agree on that. particularly when they have offshore businesses around the world. they would never agree on paying their workers over there. when i went to china the last time i was not able to get into the walmart areas where they make this stuff. they are not owned by walmart. these are independent companies. they would not let us in. the lack of transparency from a-z here, greta, is horrific. it really is. i want to address the comments of this man. let me go down the list very quickly, because there are proposals in and it -- everyone of these areas long before this was on the table here. the trade assistance program, or the tpa or tpp, or the tpa,

which we will follow. currency, we have made specific recommendations. we want to make it now before the deal even went into effect. the administration stopped us, republicans stopped us. worker rights. do you know how many leaders of workers in this many countries we cannot find, they get lost, they are shot or killed, even in central america, many of these countries killed labor leaders. we have had specific proposals are certainly on the environment. i think this legislation has us going back the other way. investments. new safeguards to protect legitimate government actions growing concerns about investment state. we live our sovereignty in the legislation when other countries are able to take our companies to court and to whatever they wish according to their loss. access to medicines, automotive market access. we got shafted in the south

korean deal. we are going to get shafted in this deal. the rules of origin, where a product is made, where a service comes from. state owned enterprises have it all over our countries, all over our businesses in this country. our businesses are not operating in a fair environment. and if we did so, there would be higher wages. food safety is a big deal. in my district, food stacy -- food safety resonates strongest are people realize most of what they are eating is infected. they are do not believe it. i think, i promise you i am not making this stuff up. when we get into the area of seafood, only 1% is being inspected. the contaminants would come out. they do not have the same sanitation conditions. how about malaysia?

all of these -- how can they even accept this? i could go on and on. host: we will leave it there congressman. thank you for the conversation with our viewers. coming up next, we will switch topics. we will talk with mo brooks p or we will get his take on the president's strategy. first, a look at our 60th anniversary of the first edition of the newspaper wrote call. here is more from our recent sitdown with christina bella tony. >> very simple and a lot of fun. this is a newspaper for people who live and work and play in and around the capital. members of congress themselves

what are they doing, what is the power dynamic between parties were leadership, who is up and who is down? whose districts have changed? it is then also about people who work in that building. that is everything from staff, the very first issue of roll call it was about staffers getting a pay raise. we still cover those issues today. one of the popular stories was about the house cafeteria, there will be a dunkin' donuts coming to the house. this is an entire huge workforce that work in the building interact with one another on a human level and they're also trying to make the world a better place even if the policy is kind of broken sometimes. capitol hill police, they are protecting members of congress the ground, it is about the history of the building.

they kept that through rowe call over 60 years. everything from what is happening with how they are paid, whether they could get childcare on capitol hill, what the restaurant scene is like on capitol hill. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] host: congressman mo brooks is back at the table this morning. looking, alabama. the president wants to send an additional up to 500 military advisers into iraq to help fight against isis there. what is your reaction? guest: i am somewhat uncomfortable with that move. put it in context and when the president says there is no strategy no game plan, then you have to wonder why we are risking so many lives and spending so much that we are having to borrow to get it i feel much better about the president doing what he is doing if he said, this is why i am doing it.

this is how we will approach the situation and this is how we will prevail. but he does not have that game plan yet. i hope in time that will evolve and be shared with the united states congress and the american people. host: the president said the iraqis hate to take responsibility for the situation there. the u.s. will help them along. guest: i agree the iraqis need to play a greater role. i'm inclined to seek a real team that is substantive, not where the united states is once again doing the bulk of the work risking substantial number of lives with very little substance, predominately symbolic from other nations. if the rest of the world is not

willing to join in this endeavor, i do not think the united dates -- united states -- we should let things play out until the rest of the world to join with us as a team where they are invested as much as we are. host: do you view isis as a threat to the united states, does that not require boots on the ground? guest: if i were the president of the united states, yes, i would determine the islamic state is a threat to the united states and i would be much more aggressive. but i do not want a repeat of vietnam were you going to a fight halfhearted you burden your troops with rules of engagement that prevent you from winning. if you do not go in there to do the things you need to do to win, then you should not be there. i see that it is more symbolic

than substance, it is not doing what is necessary to win. if you are not, then the president should not be doing what he is doing. host: the military is even wary of putting more advisers into iraq. here's a headline on sunday. the military telling the president there are not a lot of good options and they are not sure it is worth more american bloodshed to put more resources on the ground there. guest: the military is smart like congress. depending on who you talk to, that will depend on the answer you get. they will resolve in the united states prevailing if we engage islamic state in the way that needs to be engaged to defeat it. but there are not good options if you're not willing to do what is necessary to win. if you are not, then do not engage. do not waste lives. host: what about arnie -- arming

the cities and the kurds directly? syrian kurds in a win against the united states. they have been successful, the kurdish military, and fighting against isis. why not give them the direction -- directly the weapons? guest: the kurds are the shining star in the middle east with respect to the united states -- to the islamic state. they have done what is necessary to defend their own territory with the help of america and perhaps other countries with armaments. i feel more comfortable assisting the kurds. what we are seeing too often in this region of the world is american treasury's spent, we arm people and then they flee and the bad guys get this military equipment, which means they are upgraded in their capabilities in inflicting the damage and loss of lives. we have to be judicious and

ensure the people we give weapons to will actually use them to defend themselves or defend their territory as the case may be, and not fully and add to the armament and empower the islamic state. host: how do you respond to those who said the president sent out an authorization for military force in syria and iraq ? the congress has not taken it up. the republican leadership could take up their own but have not done so. guest: the president's authorization for military force is weak and has a time limit of three years. it talks about enduring ground troops, whatever that may mean. again, if we are going to get in there, the president is to have whatever authorization he needs to have to win. i will vote for that authorization for use of military force spirit i will not vote for one that replicates the problems and loss of lives associated with vietnam where we do not get in there to win where we hamstring ourselves.

a good argument can be made that's a ums provides the president with a greater authority in iraq than he now wants. i do not see us weakening our position but i will give the president the authority to win. i do not want to give the president the authority that limits him to a halfhearted measure. host: other democratic lawmakers in the senate and house proposing amendments to the debate congress is having right now on defense spending and authorization for the pentagon. the resolution would force president obama to remove u.s. personnel fighting isis within 30 days. if the president determines it not safe to remove the troops within a time frame, the deadline would be extended to the 31st, and other was trying to force congress passes hand to debate military for spared if this will get a vote, how would you vote on that? guest: i welcome the opportunity

to debate this type of resolution, which is basically withdrawal. i think it gets into a situation where you have got three options at one is you fight to win. two is you repeat the at nam and fight halfheartedly or three, you withdraw. you need to do one of these two. we do not need to do the middle ground the president is now seeking. if the president is unwilling to accept one of the military strategies advised by the pentagon that would enable us to win, if the president will fight halfheartedly, then we do need to withdraw our troops and have a healthy debate in the senate and house of representatives. host: let's get to calls. john, republican, good morning. you're on the air. caller: yes ma'am. mi to be asking a question? i told the individual who has responded and picked up the line that i thought it was more

confusing than giving credit extensive branches of these sorts of faculties. just that, as far as this fellow is concerned, he seems correct as far as doing it right here if you're going to do it, it seems too dangerous and i am not sure how that, if they are actually attacking or interested in persecuting, i am not sure. host: all right. i will move on to new hampshire democrat, you are on the air with the congressman. caller: how are you doing this morning? the representative just mentioned vietnam. i am currently reading "the real history of vietnam war: a new look at the past." i would suggest anybody read this and we never should have

gotten involved in vietnam. he is talking about a strategy to win, attacking the president, as everyone does, but the issue is our foreign policy. there has not been really a justified war since world war ii . because we push our nose in people's business and think that we are going to win. if we learn from history, the russians were beating afghanistan come if we learn from history, the french were beaten in vietnam, who do we think we are? guest: you make a good point. what happens after the islamic state, who will be in control. will we empower the regime in

syria, by using weapons of mass destruction against its own citizens. are we going to empower the iranians? you have got a conflict and on the one hand, you have got the islamic state trying to claim that leadership, and you have got the iranians also trying to claim that leadership or mantle of power and they are fighting each other. if we help one side or the other defeat the other, then what is left? that is one of the complexities in the middle east and i hope the president with his advisers would be able to not just get past the defeating of the islamic state part of it, but go to what happens next. that is quite frankly one of the problems we have had with the wars in afghanistan and iraq that have begun over a decade ago, what is next? i am hopeful the secretary of the state and the president can come up with a strategy, a plan they can share with congress or, in the alternative, just say

look, we do not know what will happen next and it is not worth the cost of american lives, and because of uncertainties, we will not engage. host: are you talking about a political solution for the iraqis? guest: there has to be some kind of government that ensues after the islamic state is defeated we easily have military capability to defeat the islamic state if we are willing to use all of the capabilities in the united states military. maybe easily is the wrong word. it would be a tough fight but we would prevail and we would know with certainty we would ultimately prevail. we will not be the government of iraq or syria. there in mind the islamic state now is also in africa afghanistan, and many other parts of the world. we will not be the resulting government. we have to have the people themselves in these regions, in my opinion, that are not only willing to fight for their freedom as american ancestors had to do in the revolutionary

war, but are also willing to come up with a governmental system that functions as we were fortunate enough to have with our founding fathers. host: "the washington times", serving as vice president in baghdad, al-maliki third playing a critical background role in undermining the push for a more inclusive government, warning the shiite hardliner, al-maliki, is still pulling the strings in a bid to hold power in the year ahead. guest: i want to mention something that is probably not brought up very often for time ok with iraq splitting into different territories or countries. bear in mind that the borders of iraq were artificially imposed by european powers roughly a century ago. not necessarily consistent with geography or the various tribes

or fashion -- factions in the region. i am ok if the kurds, for example, have their own country. i am ok if you split iraq up so the now warring factions have their own territories and we have peace. if that is what is necessary to have peace, i am ok with that. we need to think outside the box and look at different alternatives, bearing in mind that a lot of the borders in the middle east that exist today are not natural borders. they are not borders the people themselves chose. they were borders imposed on them by european powers long ago. host: we will go to virginia beach, paul, an independent. caller: how are you doing this morning? my question is pretty simple. i hear the representative using the term "win" a lot. i want to know specifically what he means by winning it i was born in 1966. in my opinion, we have not "won a war" since i have been on this

planet. we are fighting a different battle. terrorism. a mindset. after isis it will be somebody else. after that group, somebody else. i do not think you can beat a mindset with bombs, guns, and tanks. basically, my question is to the representative, what specifically does he mean by winning? guest: i would disagree with you. i will use that as an example. if you have people with a different mindset and they are all dead, you do not have to worry about them anymore. i know that is blunt. that is often the case and worse. you have people with a different mindset and people fighting on behalf of that mindset and one side or the other loses. the people who lost, they are no longer there. there is a point he is making and i agree with the point. i think the world needs to be looking at the koran more seriously, reading it, understanding it, to have a better idea of where radical

muslims, and i put pregnancies -- i put parenthesis around the word "radical." you have got three great religions formed in the jerusalem area in the middle east. who certainly see jerusalem as the nexus point, and when you have got religion involved, as a part of the mindset, that is where you have got people more than happy to give up their own lives on behalf of the guide as they view their guide. it makes things much more challenging. we can have a military victory, but you are ultimately right that we have to change the mindset that has poured such horrendous violence against somebody people in the middle east, where christians are killed and murdered in her thick ways for no other reason than that they are christian. i should not say just the christians.

with the islamic state, if you are not muslim, in their particular sect of islam, you are at risk of being tortured and killed. there has to be something to change that mindset. i welcome ideas on how best to change the mindset. host: to have a military victory like you're talking about doesn't that require troops on the ground? guest: absolutely. somebody has to pull the trigger. if we are going to go into win you have a choice. you can either rely on an unproven uncertain ground presence that has proven an inability to do what needs to be done to prevail, or you can have american ground troops there that is the kind of decision our commander in chief, he ran for the job, barack obama, he wanted the job and he has got it. as commander in chief, he has to make the decision whether these risks, the spinning of american treasury, the risk to american lives, is worth the cause we are

embarking on. if it is not, he is our president, it is his decision to make, then we should not do it. but if we're going to do it, we need to do it to win. it cannot be a halfhearted measure. unfortunately, in my opinion, at least, today, you're looking at a halfhearted measure where you are not doing what you need to do to win on the one hand or not engaged on the other. host: florida, alfredo is a democrat. caller: i also had a question in regards to specificity. with 40,000 troops would that be enough to win? or 100,000 troops be enough to win? also sir what is your role as far as being a congressman, in declaring war?

why haven't you guys given the president the capability? why are you still sitting on the sideline? guest: we are not sitting on the sideline and we are budgeting the kind of revenues necessary to sustain our military. $612 billion in spending is what the house of representatives has passed this year. we will see what happens in the senate and we will see of the president carries through in his veto of it. with respect to a declaration of war, i am one of those who believes that is the kind of language and emotion we should be debating. the economic how can you say that was not a war? it was never declared to be a war. we can use example after example. i do not like the idea of splitting hairs. again, i think we as the people, it is not just the united states congress and the president of the united states. it is the american people who have to make the decision on whether what is at stake with respect to the islamic state is

worthy of going in with whatever number of troops is necessary to prevail. i will not say it is 40,000. it might be more or less. i will not say it is 100,000. that is a decision for the pentagon with their expertise and the president of the united states come our command -- commander-in-chief. if they make the decision to go in, we need to go in with whatever forces are necessary to prevail. i will reiterate a point i have said many times in this interview. if you're not willing to do what it takes to win, do not get in. we do not need another drawnout conflict with no hope for success where ultimately we have lost american lives, with an american treasury, and we have not had the victory our men and women in uniform deserve. host: rockland, maine, thomas, a republican. you are next. caller: i have one question for the representative appeared all these years now, they have been coming up with the cruise middle -- cruise missile.

from hundreds of miles away of a camel's nose. you now see on tv isis is taking over this heavy equipment and everything we left there. isn't there any way there could be a chip put in these military vehicles and everything to disable them once they went into other people's hands? host: ok. guest: i am not sure that is technologically feasible. if you are talking about a cruise missile something that has got a weapons guidance system that is heavily computer oriented, perhaps it would work in that situation. but if you're talking about a motor vehicle, a humvee, a bradley or something of that nature it would seem it would not be difficult at all to pull out that chip in it, it would be discovered very quickly. it is a motorized vehicle care ultimately, you could run it without a chip. host: we will go to pennsylvania next.

an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. all right, congressman or do you want to think outside the box? you want to win wars or avoid how's this. let's start at. with justice. let's take care of people here and what they need. things like jobs, let's redistribute some wells. let's take money out of the hands of millionaires, billionaires, who end up with all the control, power, say so. let's put that back into the hands of middle-class working people here. let's lead and that will be the example. let's create some justice in america. let's see if we have any worldwide followers. people who want to be like us. not people who we go to their country and occupy it and get them to do it the way we want

them to do it. and then when they fall out of favor with us -- let's create some peace and justice in america. we all know what that is. republican democrat, ask any american family. it means having your human needs met in a civilized way. let's take a poll of all the middle-class people. they will say the same thing. i want opportunities for myself. i want opportunities for my children. i want peace and safety. host: we got to her point. guest: the number one cause of the suppression of wages is our poor southern border. we have had a huge surge of illegal alien labor that have taken millions of jobs from america, and suppressed the jobs -- wages from americans.

americans can be paid less for the work that is done. i have done everything i can to improve border security to try to remove illegal aliens from jobs that americans would do if the illegal aliens weren't here. if we can address the illegal alien issue, you would see 10 million jobs open up. if you want to take it a step further and look at our immigration policy, it is the most generous in the world. no nation comes even close to giving as many citizenships as america does. we give almost as many as the rest of the world does together. the biggest challenge for american-born workers today is the huge surge of illegal aliens coupled with a most generous

lawful immigration policy, where you have people who are foreign-born taking jobs from americans. host: and in new york. a democrat. caller: hi. i would like to say i am against our military involvement in the middle east. i don't think we should put our troops in, that is up to the other countries in the area. you hadn't mentioned containment as one of the options. i was wondering obviously, you consider that not a real option. i think the military budget should be cut, and the money should be sent back here. thank you. host: ok. guest: i would love for the world to be at peace. where we could reduce our military budget. but the world seems to be going in the opposite direction over the past couple of years. china is becoming much more aggressive in the china sea.

you have the rising of boko haram in the islamic state. you have a toppling of the government of libya, which resulted in a civil war where muslim extremists are trying to take over that country. you have russia with the attack on crimea and ukraine. there is a lot of uncertainty in the world today. like it or not, the united states is who people are looking to for world leadership. while i would love to be in a position to reduce our military spending, i would only be willing to do that if the world was much more peaceful, both today and with the outlook going forward. as far as i see it, the dangers are increasing around the globe not decreasing. i believe it would be the wrong thing to do to produce our

military when these aggressive nations, russia, china, the middle east, might become more aggressive and draw america into a world war where we don't have the capability to defend the united states. host: front page of the "new york times" on sunday, the u.s. is poised to put heavy weaponry in east europe. what do you make of this? guest: i think it is good if the goal is to deter russia, and to let russia know we mean business. to let russia know that their military aggression in crimea and ukraine -- the disappointment i have is with europe. why is europe cutting their defense budget. why is the u.s. being put in the position to defend europe when they have the economic capability of defending themselves. atinin more aggressive.

at some point, the u.s., given our own financial situation, our deficits and debt, we will have to proceed from the world stage because the financial circumstances of deficit and debt are going to forces too. and europe, japan, south korea, any number of nations around the world, a will have to step up. otherwise aggressors will take advantage. host: putin has not responded to this possible deployment. -- put out a message yesterday saying it would -- the pentagon maintains that it is merely deploying the equipment, not the troops themselves. speaking of putin and sending him a message, telling him we mean business, here is an opinion piece in the wall street journal from last week.

it says, boycotting the world cup or showing that it was gained by corrupt means would be one hard lesson for the russians of being led by a disreputable men. -- undeniable losses on its invaders is another. would you agree with that? guest: i would have to think that one through. this is the first time i've heard of the boycotting the world cup. i would like to think that there are some things where we can interact with our geopolitical foes or rivals in the hopes that those things would result in a better relationship amongst nations. so that is something that can be considered, i will have to give that more thought. we definitely should be in a position to assist the ukrainians, more than we have.

to me, europe needs to become more involved with the ukraine does that is their neighbor. they are in close proximity. if russia is successful in taking crimea, it looks like they will be, if russians are successful in moving further to the west through the ukraine some of these smaller european countries may be next. we need to learn from the example of the 1930's that presage world war ii. it is best to get these things in the bud, rather than confront them when they are out of control. in world war ii, over 50 million people lost their lives in that conflict. there are a lot of pieces to look at and put together in this puzzle. have to be careful. ronald reagan said it best, he's through strength. you need to show strength in the front of aggressors.

they are rational actors. they don't want to commit suicide. they will respect the strength that we show. that is entirely different than people like the islamic state who don't mind giving up their own lives on behalf of their god . a different strategy will have to be employed with them. host: we'll go to your home state of alabama, william is next. caller: i would like to say that we can end the war in 24 hours, it won't cost america one dime. we have atomic bombs in the united states left. let's drop 10 bonds -- bombs, we will save 54 russia and five for china in case they interfere. japan was never our friend. host: congressman? guest: that is an approach i hope we never have to use.

host: joe, cedar rapids, a republican. caller: hi, i appreciate c-span. patent must be spinning in his grave with the way we are handling this. where are the a-10s? 90% of these missions are being flown by planes that are totally inappropriate for tactical support. also, how many vehicles are left in europe from the real fortune program that we could be giving to the jordanians and the kurds? host: sorry about that. guest: with respect to the a-10s, you have to ask the commander in chief. i'm not second-guessing the type of weaponry the commander in chief is using.

i think there is a desire to fight from afar. we have aircraft and missiles and guided bombs that enable us to fight from afar with a minimal risk of loss of american lives. that seems to be the president' g. an a-10 is great for ground support, but it is greater risk of loss of life for the pilots who crew the a-10. the president has made the decision to fight from afar, using the types of weapons that are best suited for that purpose. thereby, he minimizes the risk of americans losing their lives in this conflict. the american people will have to make a decision. is this worth fighting? if it is is it worth fighting to win? if it is worth fighting to win we need to engage in a strategy that results in a victory. a victory would be a defeat of the islamic state, airing in

mind, we have to know what comes next. are we helping a brutal iranian regime? there are a lot of complexities. i am not secretary of state, i don't have access to the same kind of information that they have. but i hope that they will make the right decision with the information they have. host: new york, frank, you are next. caller: yes. -- you want us, the average citizen, to go refight this? you are crazy. what you need to do is put yourself on the front line i'm am talking about you, sir. on the front line where those soldiers died for the lie that you told, and now you want their children to believe that same lie. why don't you do it?

guest: apparently this gentleman has no idea what he is talking about. i don't know what lie he is referring to. host: i think he is referring to bush getting into a rock. guest: weapons of mass destruction? there were weapons of mass destruction. before we went into iraq, and afterwards. you can have a discussion as to whether it was worthwhile to get into iraq, given that saddam hussein had used chemical weapons of mass affection against his own people. apparently the gentleman has not watched the whole show. i have not said that we need to go in there with all forces and win. i have said that congress needs to make a decision. one is to go in all out and win. or two, if you are not all in, don't go in at all. i've said don't fight in the middle.

where you are not continuing to -- not intending to do what is necessary to win. that results in defeat. this is a repeat of a run. -- repeat of vietnam. the annan is an excellent example of a mistake in sending our troops to fight that did not allow them to win the fight that they were risking their lives for. americans lost their lives in the anonymous as a result. we have to view other places in the exact same way. if we are going to impose rules of engagement for our members of the armed forces that does not allow them to be the enemy, do not engage them at all. there should be no debate about a middle-of-the-road policy that does not allow us to ultimately prevail. host: columbia, maryland with tom. you are on the air.

caller: good morning. i agree with what was just said. the one solution that nobody ever listen to was joe biden's solution about -- government, where the shiite and the sunni had their own states. host: earlier, the congressman said he would be for that. guest: if that is what is necessary to have peace, let them divide into three different countries and move forward from there. if that is what is necessary for peace, i am all for it. bear in mind that the iraqi boundaries on the map today is because of european powers from a century ago. those are artificially imposed boundaries. host: we go to florida, and

independent. caller: good morning. this is my favorite show. one thing i have to say is that i agree with the congressman that we must negotiate with power and strength. my problem with that is that our power and strength has led up to our events. when he answered the question on immigration, when he blamed the immigrants for jobs, most of his support will come from the businesses that gain from the illegal aliens and their low wages. i like him quickly to tell us that he is against this action. secondly, i commend him. i happen to be a muslim. he said for all of america to read the koran and he is right.

rather than creating conflict with islamic countries for military gains, i would like him to address that. guest: i disagree with the chamber of commerce boss desire to flood the labor market and to suppress wages so that they can make more profits by paying american workers less. the ticket only by their desire to import more and more for norse -- foreigners illegally. that is not the way to go. if the american economy is robust, and we have the room to bring in people from around the globe to fill jobs that are not being filled by americans or lawful immigrants, that is fine. when we have a robust economy. but right now we have an anemic economy. under those circumstances, when you have a continuation of huge

surges of illegal labor, huge surges of unlawful labor searching for jobs, not always low-paying jobs. the american people are being suppressed in their own desires to seize the american dream. we are looking at a suppression of wages and a loss of jobs. i will share some information with you that the american people need to think about when they think about immigration policy. i'm not sure if your listeners are aware, but over the last 14 years, the american economy generated a net gain of 5.6 million jobs. you know how many went to american-born citizens? minus -- 5.7 million jobs when

two people who were not american citizens. that is having a friend's affect on families who are struggling to survive. it is having an effect on our use who can't find a job. those jobs are being taken by a legal immigrants and lawful immigrants who are flooding the market place, and are willing to work for less. if we had a robust economy we could accommodate all three. but when you have an anemic economy, you have to have an immigration policy that reflects -- host: we will hear from natasha in troy, michigan. caller: i am absolutely amazed that they are trying to put the trade on the american people. crimea belong to russia many hundreds of years.

has anyone heard of the crimean war? russia, a country that lost 28 million people in world war ii helping to defeat the nazis has now become -- i think america should get out. russia and ukrainians are like brothers and sisters. they can solve their own problems. the greatest misconception that they are trying to perpetrate on us is that crimea belong to the ukrainians. -- was the one that gave the crimean area to ukraine. they took it from russia. it didn't make a difference at that time, because it was all part of the soviet union. stop blaming russia for wanting to reclaim land that belongs to them. host: all right, natasha. guest: when the soviet union

split up, there were another -- there were a number of treaties that ensued. the ukrainians gave up their weapons in part because of the boundaries that russia said it would respect. the boundaries that russia agreed to included ukraine having possessed an -- having possession of crimea. bear in mind, superimposed over all this was the soviet union. russia was a subpart of that and now, russia ought to respect the agreement that they participated in. host: representative mo brooks, thank you for but it's abating today. we come back we will open up the phone lines. we can continue talking about the strategy against isis also 2016 with jeb bush getting into the race yesterday.

we will get to those calls in a minute. but first, today marks the 60th anniversary of the capitol hill newspaper roll call. here is more on our last sit down with the editor in chief who discussed the articles that appeared in the first issue. >> the inaugural issue was in 1955. this is not like a newspaper we see today. we publish dozens of stories today -- a day. this was a newspaper that came out and put times the first time it was in existence. we have the archives here. the prominent feature on the front page is actually a letter from richard nixon, the vice president at the time, who said he was happy to be the very first subscriber to roll call. he was a gregarious social person, he was friends with a lot of members of congress,

which is why the paper was able to be successful. we have a story about coworkers who are getting a pay raise. we have some fun stories about a chorus line, members of congress . we gave out secretary of the year award. things have changed quite a bit. we have had three female editors over the last 60 years. we used to have capitol hill pinups. and then a story about a bill, something that had passed in the recent times. the next neighbor didn't come out for another few weeks. but it was important to have teachers. we had a column that was a gossip column. a precursor to heard on the hill. always a bit of republican versus democratic hitting.

this beers of the congressional baseball game was founded, it is in its 54th year now. we got at the congressional baseball game lots and lots of photos of congressman in their communities. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back in open phones this morning. taking your thoughts on public policy issues or politics. call (202) 737-0001 for democrats, (202) 737-0002 for republicans, and (202) 628-0205 for independents. -- you can go to twitter at http://twitter.com/cspanwj. we will get to your calls in just a second. but first, the pope is going to urge climate change on action --

urge action on climate change. the headline in the washington post says that pope francis blasts global warming declines. -- in words likely to anger his conservative critics, the pope backs the science of climate change saying plenty of scientific studies point out the last decades of global warming has been generated by human action. mike, in hinesville, georgia. what is on your mind? caller: i wanted to speak to that congressman, on immigration. that is not really my topic. i wanted to mention the fact that this is how the state -- he

talked about it in a benign way. that is how he talked about it in his home in alabama where he is from. that is what the republicans do. it's ok for your family to immigrate here, and for you to be immigrated into american society, but you speak of immigrants as alien folks. this is america. -- will tell you his grandmother came to america and he was speaking about it in terms of his grandfather walking hard, so he should be president. what he doesn't tell you is that his grandfather took the job when he came to america. that is what you are supposed to do when you are an immigrant to america. you don't sit on your hands, you take the job. the job doesn't belong to

anybody but the job owner. on c-span i always hear about the president belongs to the american people. that is right. that is who decides who gets the job. you don't blames the immigrant forgetting the job. you blames the job owner. -- acting like only certain people are able to come to america. why not take the torch from lady liberty's hand and replace the sign -- replace it with a sign that says "for whites only." host: audra, what is on your mind? caller: listening to the senator or congressman earlier, does he think it is ok for us to put any type of nuclear bomb in a ron? when russia tried to put nuclear

bombs in cuba we almost went to a full-blown nuclear war because of it. and now we think it is ok for us to do the same? we think russia isn't going to react? host: are you talking about the new york times story? heavy weaponry. i don't know if it lays out nuclear weapons. caller: any weapons. why do we think we can put the weaponry close to them and it will be ok? host: ok. brenda, a democrat. caller: hi, i want to respond to the guy from georgia, but i also have a statement that i was originally calling for. for the guy from georgia, i am black, please understand that it is not that we are against immigration, we are against illegal immigration.

try to please understand that. what i really called for was the democrat tax barrel. i cannot believe i was listening to a democrat. it is ok to disagree with the president, but to be so ugly with it? they talk about how wonderful the different republicans are. i tell you what, i say to the democrats, you don't do bad by this president the blacks will remember this come this time at the election time, and we will stay home. you need our votes. host: are you for free trade? we won't know. we lost brenda. it on the trade will issue, the washington post headline says today that the house is going to vote on a roll that would allow the speaker to bring up the

trade debate at any time for a do over on the trade package that failed on friday. soviet, in massachusetts. an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with everything that congressman brooks had to say. i don't believe that the president wants to win. what will be accomplished by sending 400 and 54 men to train people who don't seem to have what it takes to fight for their own country. bring back the equipment, the enemy will use it against us. blow it up. don't leave it there in enemy hands. host: arnold in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning.

do you know who lucy parsons is? host: i am not for calling. why do you ask? caller: she has a wonderful quote. i'm not sure if she was a slave but her parents were slaves. she was born around 1853. she died at the age of 89, around 1933. she has a very interesting life. code goes, never beat the seas. the vote will never let you vote the way their wealth. i use that quote quite often. i followed it with another quote that says, never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens could change the world. indeed, it is the only thing

that ever has. the only thing that is going to save america and the world is love. love is the only thing that is going to work. let me share a second quote by dr. martin luther king, he said darkness cannot drive out target -- drive out darkness. only light can do that. host: dave, an independent. caller: hi, i am a longtime c-span viewer. i have been trying to get c-span3 on my satellite provider. i'm calling to ask all c-span viewers to call their cable or satellite providers today and ask for c-span1 c-span2, and c-span3. host: all right, days. good morning to you, what is on your mind this morning?

carol, apologies. start over. caller: regarding citizens united what is the logic of congress and the supreme court that citizens united is a good ring? it makes me sick to see the huge amount of money being spent on elections when our country needs so much. the people need so much. our air, soil, water needs help. it is unbelievable to me that anybody would believe in this. thank you. host: we are taking your thoughts on any public policy issues or news that we have discussed here on the show this morning. we want to get an update on the trade debate in the house. rick cohen -- richard cowan is

joining us. richard, what is the plan today? the house failed to vote on the trade package. guest: the plan is no plan. other than to put up the vote. there will be a vote, a procedural vote that will allow the house speaker boehner to try it over, and try it before july 30. host: what needs to be passed for the president to get his trade package? guest: it sounds like an easy question, but it is complicated. the fast track trade authority has to pass --

you need a lot more. there is no evidence. it was pretty difficult. they took the vote on friday, and over the weekend people may have gone off and change their minds, but it may have been unrealistic. there needs to be a slow down and changes. not just a do over on the vote. yesterday on capitol hill

leaders were hoping for a way out. it seemed like they were in a maze that would lead them to the answer. host: 144 no on that trade assistance bill, only 40 democrats voted yes. the president would have to convince some of the 144 democrats to vote with him on this. if he hasn't been able to convince people to vote with him on this, could there be a workaround? could this republican led house send back the fast track authority? guest: there could be a workaround. one way would be to simply take this legislation and find and other that has to pass congress and attach the trade legislation

to it. people have talked about a highway bill that needs to pass in july. pelosi has said it would be great if the highway bill was done before the fast track bill, because it will create jobs throughout the country. it is very popular. you could try to take the fast track trade bit of it and send that back to the senate, approve it, and see if they could get it through the house by it self. see if it will fly in the senate. there are problems there as well. even republican senators who are up for reelection, they need this as part of the package for their consist units -- there constituents. host: what did hillary clinton's

comments on trade do or not do for president obama? guest: she came out very strong on the side of those democrats who voted against the worker assistance program. she kind of made it a bit more difficult for the president to persuade democrats in the house to retake the vote. host: richard cowan, he is a correspondent with reuters. we appreciate the update. guest: thank you. host: back to open phones. here is the miami herald front page this morning, a rousing

step forth in what they call jeb bush is official launch for the white house. here is the former florida governor talking about running for president. >> you and i know that america deserves better. they have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress. they are responsible for the slowest economic recovery ever. the biggest debt increases ever. a massive tax increase on the middle class. the buildup of the regulatory state. and the mindless drawdown of a military that was years in the making. [applause] i, for one i'm not eager to see

what another four years would look like under that leadership. the presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next. so here is what it comes down to. our country is on a bad course. the question is, what are we going to do about it? the question for me is, what am i going to do about it? and i have decided that i'm a candidate for president of the united states. host: jeb bush in florida yesterday, in miami, talking to a crowd of supporters there. he was joined by his wife, mother -- his father was not there. he is reintroducing himself. usa today noted that one million

people a year ago in and out of the state of florida. an early primary state that any candidate needs to win to make it all the way to the general election. jeb bush was the 11th candidate donald trump could possibly be announcing his bid for presidency in new york today. we will have coverage on that on c-span3 as part of our road to the white house. he will also disclose his finances and say he is worth $9 billion. karen in pennsylvania, a republican. caller: i am calling to congratulate republican mo brooks who has a great understanding of the immigration policy or the lack there of. where is the compassion and common sense for american citizens when it comes first and

foremost to the immigration policy? i ask that question. this idea that illegals as well as legal immigrants are absorbing any jobs is a great concern. it should be for all of us. these politicians in washington aside from mo brooks, they are not getting to the heart of the issue. as well as the chamber of congress -- chamber of commerce in the united states. it pains me to understand how difficult it is for the lower and middle classes who are struggling to meet their economic needs. we have this influx of illegals and legals coming in here and absorbing those jobs. host: ok.

a republican in pennsylvania karen. this is stephen. caller: thanks for letting me have my say. i saw a jeb bush tour through europe, and i agree with a lot of his decisions. congress has an unhealthy fascination with the iraqis. or even mexico. i'm excited for jeb bush, even though he is a nerd. i would like to see what chris christie is going to do. and hillary needs competitors. host: all right. we will move on to john in for monti. a democratic caller where bernie

sanders there is running. caller: hi there. i want to say next election, we don't need a democrat or republican, we need an american. the united states is hanging by a thread of economic collapse. we need somebody who is going to do strict and strong decisions. host: who would that be? caller: first of all, like isis, i think we have to go after isis and quickly. we have the freedom of religion, and people are being killed overseas because of their belief in their religion. the u.s. is a wonderful place. the next president has to be strong. he has to make big decisions. host: matthew, an independent. go ahead. caller: yes, all of these big

decisions, destruction, chaos refugees, these are tremendous strategies. -- tremendous tragedies. in vietnam we jobbed tons of bombs, people were still dying -- people are dying there now. from bombs that we drop their 50 years ago. this nonsense about solving things about isis. it is an idea. you cannot fight an idea. host: ok, all right, matthew. let me throw at story for you to discuss. this is on the front page of "wall street journal" -- former

aig chief hank greenberg wins moral victory in bailouts trial. the former aig chief and thousands of shareholders who joined his action didn't win any of the $40 million in damages they had sought. the judge ruled that the government violated the law when it took a controlling stake in aig. still, he accepted the government's argument that without a federal reserve bank, -- reserve bank's $85 billion loan to aig, a company would have files for bankruptcy and would have been left with nothing. testimony included testimony from the former treasurer

secretary and others as this case played out in the court. eva, in the bronx. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i'm against the trade deal. host: tell us why. caller: obama cannot be trusted. look what he has done with the health care. he died -- he lied to the american people. there is a secret in their. it is going to backfire on the american people. i believe the trade deal will ask fire. he is not doing anything good for the american people. host: ok. >> rex in walnut cove. i pushed the wrong button. start over. caller: i'm against all immigration, legal or illegal, while the job situation is the way it is in the u.s..

i think there should be no immigration at all. host: what do you mean the job situation? caller: well, it is not that rosie. they can underbid you on jobs because they don't have to pay insurance. there is no way you can compete against them. you have to have the fbi followed them to see who is going to be the next member of a isis. host: that was rex in walnut cove. the phone numbers are on your screen. tell us about what you think is happening. and the supreme court, the justices made a decision yesterday on terrorist related

visas. u.s. officials can deny entrances to terrorist officials. even at the cost of keeping married couples apart. officials denied a visa to a former taliban civil servant in afghanistan, and it was ruled they did not violate his wife's right to life, liberty or property. we are waiting on the supreme court to make other decisions this month and into the next. one of those cases is same-sex marriage. another one is what the court says on subsidies under the affordable care act. are they only four states -- are they only in states where it has

been established, or are in the in other states that have set up federal exchanges? take a look at this piece in "the washington post" -- people could lose the government subsidies that helps some of afford private insurance. that is in 34 states that uses the marketplace. the average subsidy is $272 each month. consumers in states that establish their own exchanges are not affected. you can see that those are the blue states that are enrolling consumers, and the gray states are the state-based exchanges. here's the number of people in florida. 1.3 million people in florida are at risk of losing their subsidies. in texas, 830,000.

georgia over 400,000. you can go right down the list and see where your state stands on the risk of losing subsidies. the average subsidy is $272 a month. everyone in washington is waiting to see what the court will do. whether they will come up with an alternative, a short-term solution, along with a long-term solution. tagged in rhode island. what is on your mind? caller: very briefly, the citizens united deal is destroying the country. elections can be bought, that is not good. with the partnership, the most insidious part of that bill besides all of the job loss is that we will lose our sovereignty.

states and the federal government will not be able to make the laws that are not agreeable to the world trade organization. they will be the sovereign. we might as well just give up. the experiment has failed unfortunately. thank you for your time. host: i want to show you what the white house had to shape -- had to say yesterday about a private party. the press was not aware of the party, it only came to light after tweets like this one, from reverend al sharpton, leaving the party with potus and flow tests. awesome to see prince and cb wonder on keyboards together. >> i don't have a lot to tell you about nonpublic events that happen at the white house. we have confirmed that the

president of the first lady held a private party over the weekend. given the private nature of the event, i don't have a lot of details to discuss. >> even after it had been widely noted on social media by people like al sharpton? >> what is the question? >> what information about the event is in the public domain, i thought it was interesting that they would not acknowledge. >> that's what i just said. they did host a party over the weekend, but given the fact it was a private event, they didn't have a lot to talk about. host: that was josh earnest at the white house. he did tell reporters that the president and the first lady paid for the event themselves. prince gave a private performance for the obamas and

about 500 guests to celebrate african-american music appreciation month. michael, good morning. caller: i was wondering if there was any way you could get the head of the american communist party on your show. i would like to know what they have to say. are they going to run for resident? i would like to hear more about running mates. host: ok. rosemary, hi. caller: i have a couple of comments. am upset that the congress gets away with the country of origin element on our meat. there are people with health problems and we know that some of these countries don't raise their cattle the same as american farmers do. my solution to anybody that is listening who is upset is to find a local farmer that grows

his own livestock and buy from him in set of going to the grocery store. i would like to say i am against this trade deal totally. it will destroy more american jobs. i am upset with the republicans for pushing this trade deal. i'm really upset. host: you are going to hear a little bit of trade talk on the floor today when they gavel in here. they're going to be talking about a rule that would allow the speaker to bring up the trade agenda between now and july 30. tune in to c-span for our coverage there. on the senate side, there could be debates this week over what to do with isis. -- introduced an amendment to the authorization act that would prohibit the use of large-scale ground troops with few exceptions.

his amendment is in line with promises that president obama has made to limit ground troops, but could put restrictions on the next president. particularly if the gop hauck is looking to expand u.s. involvement. the amendment is supported by senators on both sides of the aisle. whether or not they get a vote is up in the air. the senate continues to debate the authorization bill for the pentagon. on the house side, another debate, they are set to repeal tax on medical devices. democrats stand by law or industry groups. -- that makes it through congress this year. congressman team up with --

republicans team up with democrats who have said the 20 -- the 2.3% excise is -- after it finishes its debate on the defense bill. dennis, a republican. we have a few minutes left. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i think it is interesting the fact that our nation seems to be supporting reality in regard to the young woman rachel, who considers herself to be black. her parents say she is confused about the matter, she says -- they say she is in no way black. the nation seems to accept this, but on the other hand, you have bruce jenner, who considers himself a woman, but in reality he is not a woman and never

will be. and yet the media seems to accept him. i don't know. it is confusing. anyway, thank you for taking my call. host: the spokesman review has said that her claims have lost the trust, and so the local naacp leader has resigned after backlash over claims about race. the seattle times notes on it front page that the former leader once sued for discrimination as a white student when she attended howard university. kevin in nebraska. a democrat caller. go ahead. caller: hi. i am calling concerning the affordable care act. the question that is before the supreme court. if i am not mistaken, it is four

words that are confusing people. these people that wrote the bill -- why don't we ask them what they meant? host: dave in massachusetts, an independent. caller: good morning. i am against the ppp and giving the president the authority to advance the agenda like the investor state -- a way for foreign companies to sue government. it has been used in the trade agreements before at the expense of the taxpayer. some great examples can be found at -- host: i'm going to leave that there. i'm getting it jerry, i need you to get in really quick. there are about to open the doors on the floor of the house.

caller: it is so easy with the immigration picture, jobs, jobs and jobs. we need a way to restrict the employers who are hiring these people. host: i apologize for the quick interruption, the house is about to gavel in. think you for watching today's washington journal. munication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., june 16, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable randy hultgren to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to o