about issues impacting millennial voters. markperry talking about his article about infighting at the pentagon over how to combat china. ♪ or soit'll be a month before debate begins in earnest on capitol hill on the iran forear deal, but the case and against the deal is being made on the campaign trail, by the president in the press, and also in social media across the country, really across the world and even as he mentioned the campaign trail. you heard from jeb bush. some of his comments on this "washington journal" for wednesday, august 12 heard who is making the best case for the iran nuclear deal? you can join the conversation on the phone. republicans 202 748-8001. 48-8000.s 202 7

join us on facebook as well. you can tweet us @cspanwj, said us an e-mail, too. there is reaction to the iran deal. again, it will be a mother so before congress returns. they return on september 8. debate begins in earnest in the house and senate. front page of "the washington times" looks in new york city. deal is aan nuclear tough sell to the public. the poll shows new york city supports schumer. president obama has railed against republicans for opposing his administration's nuclear deal to score partisan points, but the president has a bigger problem -- the american public opposes it, too. since the agreement was announced july 14 has consistently shown more people opposing the accord than supporting it --

a look at some other polling on the iran deal. "the washington times" writes about the deal. string of polls that finds americans skeptical of the president's nuclear deal with iran. c, monmouth university, we mentioned the quinnipiac pool polllarge portion of that polle cbs and nbc still saying don't know. who is making the cut -- the best case? before he left for his present vacation on martha's vineyard, the president did one last interview that focused on that

deal. here is some of what he had to say. president obama: this is the challenge i've had over the next several weeks as i've listened to the critics. some of them who announced their opposition before they read the bill. or read the agreement. and that is that they will put after aarguments that shown,nutes can be, uh, uh, as illogical or based on the wrong facts. then after them, what is your alternative? there is a deafening silence. what that tells me is that there may be ideological opposition to, uh, doing any business with iran. there may be skepticism with any diplomatic initiative where a uh,me that is admittedly, antagonistic towards us, anti-semitic, a sponsor of

terrorism, and that's an honest argument. if you want to just say, we do not think you should deal with iran. then that at least has a logic to it. if your saying, though, that this an issue that cannot be resolved diplomatically and you share my view that iran cannot get a nuclear weapon, then you are nearing your choices. -- narrowing your choies. president obama speaking before his vacation on martha's vineyard. who is making the best case for the iran nuclear deal? 202 748-8001 for republicans. 748-8000 democrats. south hill, virginia. first up, doug, good morning. go ahead. doug: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. go ahead figure,. caller: i'm just saying there is no need giving money and weapons

to our enemy when it never did any good in the past. so, it does not make sense. bad deal. in kansas on our democrats line. who is making the best case for the iran deal? caller: of course the president and his administration are. there is a -- no such thing as the perfect deal. even though you work on a deal dozen mean that -- doesn't mean it is going to go the way it is supposed to go in the future. the republicans and the war hawks out there want to get us into another conflict it appears when peace is the way. the president is trying to work and trying tods work things out with our enemies. going to be the

world leader, we cannot be the world leaders for conflict. we should be the world leaders for spreading peace. host: here is catherine in new hampshire. your thoughts as the -- as the president making the best case? to think senator schumer are those opposing the deal making the best case? caller: good morning. i think president obama's iran nuclear weapons deal makes sense. and i have just a short suggestion. do we want another war? orld ofant on -- a w green pastures and blue skies or do we want a world of radioactive rubble? we have lost and have injured soldiers and spent $3 trillion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and we are spell spending -- still spending. before war in iran, we should save up $3 trillion in a prewar bank account. congress would wrote and pass raising the $3 trillion by rick

increasing our taxes. then say, after 10 years, if iran has dismantle its nuclear bomb making facilities, complied with the treaty, the $3 trillion we saved in did not spend on war could be distributed worldwide to action projects were clean water, clean air, clean oceans and clean soil. thank you. host: welcome your tweets as well. tweet us @cspan wj. "has obama released the full agreement? even the secret once?" in:, california, on her independent line -- in colton, california. caller: hi. i know that congress and the senate like to talk to iran. they also do not like that iran is holding three american prisoners. why don't they put their foot down and tell iran we are not going to do this deal unless

they release the prisoners? host: congress in the house of the senate will get their chance debating the resolution of disapproval. lead editorial in "the washington post" talks about reaction to the president's comments on some of his critics. his finalobama made comments released before the vacation at american university last week. editorialngton post" says that the president has countered critics with servitude and ad hominem attacks. the combined import of which is that there are no alternatives to his policies that support for the deal isn't obvious call. -- is an obvious call. anyone who suggest otherwise is motivated by ideology. obama's rhetoric's reached his low point when he observed the deal

the views of "the washington post" this point. love your views on who is making the best case on the iran nuclear deal. others, 202-748 -8002. irwin in pompano beach, florida. good morning. caller: how are you? i wanted to say that we have dealt with the iranians before led by the ayatollah. remember 1982, october surprise

reaganitess., the went down to, met the iranians in vienna, and they held the hostages till the end of the election? a week lateroehold all the hostages were released. we dealt with the iranians in 2001 when we invaded afghanistan. we asked the iranians to allow us to enter the borders, enter afghanistan through the, um, through the -- through iran. american troops entered afghanistan and invaded afghanistan. iansave dealt with the iran before. we have a deal with them now. if we do not deal with them, our allies will turn on us. period. they will go with -- they will deal of the iranians alone.

money will be released to them. our european allies will be dealing with the iranians. it is too bad the republicans have made such a political issue of this. every minute now on tv, you have ads against the deal. it is a shame. we are heading toward war. and it will be on the backs of the republicans just like iraq. the american right wings are fools. the american republicans and charles schumer as well. host: here is the independent line, and leonard, your thoughts on who is making the case for the iran nuclear deal. caller: i really think the whole thing does not have anything to do with the deal. it has got to do with the oil. and shortly after this deal started, am i on the line? host: you sure are. go ahead. you're up. caller: ok. i think the whole thing has got to do with oil. if the iranian oil comes on the

market, gas will drop below $2.00 a gallon. and the people that own the republican party already oil companies. they do not want that oil on the market but the republicans shortly after the deal came through, uh, the republicans in the oil states, they want to sell our oil on the open market. so, i'm pretty sure it has got to do with nothing but oil. thank you. host: andrew next up. in delaware, also on her independent line. there you go. no. let's try that. andrew, rockland, delaware. hi. caller: hi there. i'm a physician, and i think of myself as a strategist. i originally was opposed to the president steel for all -- the presidents deal for all the reasons. people cheat, supporting

terrorist states but over time i began to think that the president deal made sense. you can't really blame the wanting a deterrent nuclear weapon because everybody's talking about bombing them because they are not doing what the u.s. is telling them to do. i really think that the u.s. should develop a security pact with israel so that an attack on israel would then precipitate an attack by the u.s. in -- with israel. the reason is that the u.s. is now giving weapons all the sunday to partners in the middle east to counter the iranians. and israelis are reluctant to have a pact with the u.s. because one, they do not think the u.s. is going to back them and the recent actions by the u.s. towards the iranians has

furthered that concern. i think that if the u.s., if the united states supports a deal that will prevent the iranians from short-term developing a nuclear weapon. and the attacks by hamas, hezbollah would precipitate, based on the pact, a response by the u.s. as well as israel to suppress that. the iranians would no longer be able to threaten further any nuclear potential or further action. so that in the net result is if the u.s., the pact with israel, would lead to more security. and if anyone was foolish enough, if the iranian revolution was to continue according to the ayatollah, and

they actually use the weapon, iran wouldn't exist. so, i think that the clever idea is go along, block the development of a nuclear weapon, and have a pact with israel so wouldezbollah and hamas be very reluctant to attack israel, which is the main concern for those people who think that the weapon, deal should go through. host: you are calling for a pact above and beyond what ever the current aid and the military agreements we have with israel? caller: right. because there is no pact. it is not like nato where an attack on a nato member -- all the other nato members are -- this is simply a one-way pact. i do not think israel was to defend the united states for any other reason. we are now essentially giving all of the weapons and money for israel, saudi arabia, and our other friends to defend

israel. host: i appreciate your call. there are number of lawmakers in the middle east, and israel, congressional delegation, a bipartisan delegation. headline "lawmakers take a well-timed israel trip paid aipact -- paid for by the terrible arm. 36 republicans are making the trip before congress is set to consider the controversial iran nuclear deal. the trip being paid for by the american israel education foundation, the charitable arm of the american israel public affairs committee -- we are asking about the case being made on both sides. here's to fines, missouri, and darryl on our democrats line. -- in defiance, missouri.

caller: good morning. i'm totally for the president is doing negotiating with the iran ians. israel has been screaming for 20 years that iran would have a nuclear weapon and he cannot have a nuclear weapon yet. meanwhile, israel has stock wild hundreds of nuclear weapons. nobody can-- has stockpiled hundreds of nuclear weapons. nobody can inspect their nuclear facilities. it is insane what trial schumer is doing and i think he ought to resign and live in israel. i mean, this is america. when are we going to stop taking marching orders from israel? you just said it, 48 members of congress are being flown to israel so they can get their marching orders from netanyahu. this is insane. they have done nothing but undermine this president since he has been in their. i'm not for israel because israel has not signed any nuclear nonproliferation treaties. they have not allowed anybody to inspect their nuclear weapons. and iran, you know, it is just

insane, this whole policy is insane. host: caller mentioned chuck shumer. john bresnahan writing about his efforts. " chuck schumer working the phones on iran." he calls to explain his decision and assured them he will not be whipping opposition, whipping votes against the president. on that aipac trip, another is really, israel lobbying group in washington is j street. they have released an ad. here is a look. >> the nuclear agreement with iran contains a thomas inspection program in history with inspectors on the ground, and round-the-clock monitoring at all iranian nuclear sites. israeli security experts say this agreement is the best existing option. the best possible alternative. it must not be rejected. this deal prevents iran for producing a nuclear weapon.

that is good for israel, good for america, and makes both countries safer and more secure. ad campaignstreet targeting michigan and four other states. couple of tweets on this issue. from richard who tweets that "do not confuse no bomb with no nuclear plants? geez." "first mistake that obama made is that he should have demanded the four americans be set free before talks ever began." back to call. we go to lutz, florida. on the republican line is ned. welcome. caller: good morning. i'm against the iran deal for several reasons. number one, this is really got a lot to do with the sunni and the shias. all of your jordan, your egypt, the saudi arabia, they are not going to have, be content to let mb when they do

not. so it is going to be a rush to get it. we've got our four prisoners that were never discussed. we all know that iran is one of the biggest state sponsors of terror and that they have killed thousands of our troops in iraq. the other thing is that no weapons, nowe've got our four ps that were never discussed. inspectors from america are allowed on their soil. also want to take their own soil, samples and they have got 24 days to get ready for that. it's a bad deal. it's going to cause a nuclear explosion as far as everyone trying to get their own bombs in the middle east. and how do you trust the iran ians? i think a lot of people do not remember about the 444 days of captivity in the 1970's. it's just not a good deal. and the president, he has gotten on tv and lied to us over and over.

your doctors, insurance, all the stuff. the illegals. how do we trust and that he is telling the truth? host: appreciate your comments. we talked about the congressional delegation trip, t freshmen membershe in israel, democratic and republican. majority leader kevin mccarthy there. and steny hoyer there as well. some tweets from that. some photos and such. tweetingord "productive meetings in israel and palestine with each of their renowned leaders. great to hear both perspectives." he also treated the delegation met with israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu and former palestinian authority fayyad. and a couple more from seth mo lten. who said that the former head of

intelligence major general yadlin speaking on the iranian threat. the president ruvi can do a post agreement to advance the u.s.-israel alliance. former caller was talking about. and mo lten. who said that the former head of intelligence major general elizabeth esty tweeting " meeting with israeli president theen and learning about issues critical to the u.s.-israel relationship." our democrats line in illinois. good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i believe that the president is making the best case for the deal because his argument has been well thought out, whereas the oppositions argument has not been thought out as usual. for instance, they are talking about the four americans should of been a part of any negotiations for this deal. why would you want to tie the fate of four americans to a deal that could fall through? then you have no more bargaining power for the release. want to tie the released to the interests of the other p5 nations that were part

negotiation? the media, for some reason, is making the mistake and being allowed to do so that this is the president steel. was negotiated with the united states and six other nations. so, they do not have a well thought out argument. there are those who are in a position to this deal just because it is the presidents, he's involved in it. then there are those who are opposed to it because they want to see war in the middle east. and that is my comment. host: news this morning about illinois republican senator. the lead item in the" chicago tribune." kirk campaign pay for caregiver, the headline. "actions raise questions on use of donations." senator mark kirk who needed help with everyday tasks such as preparing meals and getting around since suffering a stroke

in 2012 put his live-in caregiver on his campaign payroll according to records and interviews while on kirk's payrolls, the caregiver came under criminal investigation, convicted in one case while the other is pending in court. replacement of his caregiver who had no prior campaign experience onto his campaign staff raises questions about whether kirk used political donations to pay for personal expenses -- calls on the iran nuclear deal and who is making the best case so far. paul in meridian, connecticut, independent caller. caller: yes. an american. i am not a jew. my main concern with the united

states and the people of the united states. and i can't imagine a worse recipe for our country than to . i am not get involved in trying to establish a jewish state in the islamsof 2 billions and approximately 25 islamic states in the middle east. and trying to establish a jew ish state when the people, we are represented have an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth attitude. they are arrogant. and they demonstrated as they did a jew ish prior to world war i and world war ii that they cannot get along with their neighbors. for the united states to squander our treasure and to risk a nuclear conflict over an establishment of a jewish state when we are reminded by jews at home, we are not a christian country. they love to rub our nose in it,

remind us that, uh, this country establishht to anything resembling -- at christmas time, they are against christmas carols. they go to public schools. they make sure -- host: who are you saying are against that? caller: sorry? host: who do you say are against that? caller: jewish organizations across the country have been organizing in this country for half a century to try to -- to get christianity out of our schools. continuously remind us that we are a secular country. and it's foolhardy for us to get in on the jews and the islams. it is just stupidly.

i'ts dangerous and extreme. -- it's just stupid. if you study the history 411 ia -- the history before world war i, you find out the jewish communist agitators throughout europe. and were constantly fomenting -- here now. now they are trying to get us into a third world war that will be a catastrophe. i'm just fed up with the whole thing. i'm sharing it. what the jews worship and be who they are privately quietly, just as most christians are expected to do. host: we are asking who is making the best case for the iran nuclear deal. looking at the u.s. foreign-policy front page of "the wall street journal" reporting on the comets of jeb bush. bush and clinton trademarks. they are talking about comments

made by jeb bush who spoke at the ronald reagan presidential library with sharp criticism on the obama administration and secretary of state, th secretary of state hillary clinton on the rise of isisen. its terrorist, proxy has blocked have fueled the conflicts in syria and iraq that it helps give rise to isis. yet, the presence deal with iran confronts none of these problems -- the presidents deal confronts none of these problems. in fact, the deal prepares the way for nuclear capability. with the lifting of sanctions, the deal also frees up more than securityion for iran services to use as they wish. in effect, the primary investors in a violent have just middle east

received a new round of funding courtesy of the united states and united nations. and this is president obama's idea of a diplomatic triumph. wow. thes a deal unwise in extreme with a regime that is on trustworthy in the extreme. it should be rejected by the congress of the united states of america. [applause] if the congress is not reject mustdeal, and the damage be undone by the next president, and it will be in my intention to begin that process immediately. [applause] knowing what has gone wrong, however, is not the same as knowing how to set it right. host: jeb bush last night at the reagan library.

all of that stage -- speech at cspan.rog. comments back to the over the mention we made earlier over the congressional delegation in the congressional delegation in israel. saying each day that congress continues to reviewed the iran deal we discover more information and reasons why we can't accept it. mimi walters tweeting a morning run and a selfie in the hills after a cell -- of jerusalem. and, carter, a photo of the congressional delegation. back to your calls. in the nation's capital, edward on our democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm calling concerning the iranian deal obama was talking about. i was suggesting that the democrats support president

obama on this deal. president obama does not have to run for reelection in 2016, but african-american voters will remember those who support president obama on an important policy deal. remember netanyahu did not deliver african-american voters, that president obama can. and an earlier caller, who is president obama having a short term memory about the iranians holding american guess the president has a short term memory because of the iran-contra deal, or the , orian backed hezbollah marines being killed. i guess they have a short term memory two. that's all i have to say.

host: let's go to south plainfield new jersey, and to lee. caller: yes. when i can't stand is the shortsightedness of those people who are against this deal. if iran is such an enemy of the , the problem is but they facilities have a facility on the ground. if you have a so-called enemy and you have an opportunity to be in the house of that enemy, to have a heat -- a seat in the house of that enemy -- and that is what this deal is about. you need to take that seat and you need to affirm what iran is doing. and you will understand after a. of time, you are going to understand that. you will understand after a period of time.

sanctions do not hurt the head of government. they have a very good life. it hurts people. if you are people they get angry. when they get angry, they get dangerous. that is why so many iranians are joining isis and so are other people. suffer, we make people the more isis is going to become stronger. we need to isolate them. what i feel is that as long as we are in the house of iran, we are going to be able to slow down their progress of making a bomb. that is the bottom line. not all this. creating this about israel trying to tell america what to do. host: we mentioned i ran it -- lee mentioned iranians trying to join isis. here is a story about to americans trying to join isis. two arrested trying to join. they arrested a man and a woman detained at the golden triangle regional airport in columbus.

they appeared in federal court on monday charged with trying to provide assistance and materials to a foreign terrorist group. officials tell the clarion two wereat the attempting to join isis. they allegedly had a plan to get married in turkey, and to cross over into syria. up next,up and -- even new orleans. what do you think? caller: good morning. obama's side to a certain extent. i think you did the best he could with what he had to work with. -- i think he did the best he could with what he had to work with. the republicans always criticize but they do not have a plan of their own. if you want to criticize, come up with your own plan. give us a better plan if you've got one. if you don't have one, get out

of the way. thing, the whole nuclear what about the way the new -- the united states deals with people who do have the weapons? flying overssians our airspace. that is a real problem. we are talking about the many who does not have a nuclear weapon. what about north korea? big nuclear weapons already. bigger threat. the republicans are still trying to make another war, and look have a treat our veterans. they are trying to make wounded veterans -- that's just ridiculous. if you are so quick to go to war , you have to take care of them when they come back all broken up. about 10 more minutes of

your calls on who is making the best case on the iran nuclear deal. in everett, north carolina, gary on our democrat line. caller: good morning. ago,ember back along time when we were just kids playing around, somebody would talk about they were getting go upside your head. one of -- what are we supposed to be doing all this time? we've got 15 years. what are we supposed to be doing? are we just mosys it -- supposed to sit back? they bombed pearl harbor one time. they world -- they were ahead of us in russia. we landed on the moon. host: do you trust any of the verification? caller: yes. 100%.

the man told the truth when he said you can't hide these things. they don't decide this. they know more than these people who are not a scientist when it comes to everybody else. but all of a sudden they are nuclear physicists. no. we are aware of what they are doing. we are the united states of america. beat by iran.t they are isolated. we are the united states of america. bomb we willt a probably make it inoperable. we are listening to them right now. host: a comment from twitter. he says, did he say, i guess referring to me, did he say jay street ads were targeting michigan and three other states? why are these states being targeted?

it exactly michigan and four other states. , i it is being targeted can't tell you that. but we can tighten how much. a $5 million ad by by jay street i believe on our website, c-span.org, we have a link to the outline of the deal that was released to the white house a couple of weeks ago. back to calls. this should be george in florida. i would like to say this reminds me of chamberlain talking to hitler. he has got to be either the dumbest man on earth or an absolute trader. you can't talk to these people. traitn absolute trader -- or. they are killing children wholesale and cutting off their heads. these people are unbelievable. this man is negotiating with them. i just can't believe it. the second thing is this.

they talk about their islamic leaders and how nice a people they are. if they are good people and only they terrorist, i wish would police them once in a while and lock them up. they don't seem to have any kind of concern about these so-called terrorists. so the billion of them are either compliant, or complicit, or both. host: we told you earlier the ad -- about the ad by jay street street in favor of the deal. veterans released an ad against the deal. [video clip] >> i was blown up by an iranian bomb. it cut me in half. total devastation. it is imprinted in my brain forever.

they kidnapped little kids from neighboring villages, put bullets in their heads, and kill them in front of the villagers. they said we are going to make bombs out of here. that is who we are making a deal with. every politician who is involved with this will be held accountable. they will have blood on their hands. a vote for this deal means more money for iranian terrorism. what do you think they're going to do when they get more money? call your senator. don't deal with iran. if you don't call, who will? host: that ad from a group of veterans against the new york that from a group called a veterans against the deal. today in the new york times, head of group opposing iran accord quits. study mr., after long

concluded that the accord was in the united states interest. i think president obama's strategy succeeded he said, who left his post on monday. he has created economic leverage and traded it away for iranian nuclear concessions. as soon as he left, the group announced a new standardbearer with a decidedly different message. joseph i lieberman, the former senator from connecticut. i will show you the reporting a picture there of former senator lieberman. your thoughts on the iran deal. from new jersey, good morning to eugene. caller: i am for the deal. i think the president is making the best case. i think the republicans have no case other than military action.

know what great that's -- debt the united states owes israel. that is my question to the public. does thet desk -- debt united states oh israel? host: susan, republican line. caller: good morning. the u.n. -- if the u.n. approved the deal it must be bad for america. host: all right. paul from silver spring, maryland, also on our republican line. caller: i am wondering why you allow your program to be a megaphone for anti-semites. several collars ago there was whoously a black man advocated that senator shuman should move to israel. then you had another caller talking about jews being communist and not permitting christmas carol. why don't you cut those people off? host: paul, we do try to give

everybody a chance to say their mind. there are some people who make some difficult comments. i challenged that caller, the one who talked about christmas carols, but it is difficult sometimes. people venture into the arena of criticizing a person or a group based on their religion, you are right. sometimes it hits a fine line. we try to get people as much say as possible. sometimes it will offend viewers. know, if il, you were to say something like that black guy should move back to he said something about chuck schumer should move back to israel. you would cut me off, and rightfully so. host: we appreciate your opinion. we hear from exeter, new hampshire. dan on our republican line. -- on our democrat line. caller: the best comment i have heard so far is from john

oliver, who said we should hold out for a better deal and when we get a better deal we should hold out for a better deal. moving typical goalpost that netanyahu has been engaged with with the palestinians, and now with the iran nuclear deal. this is the best, most deal.hensive arms control not just between the united states, but between the p5+1. than iranr danger acquiring a nuclear bomb is israel believing that they are going to have it and then preemptively striking a ran -- iran. that is the big danger. as far as chuck schumer, i am highly is appointed. i'm not an anti-summit. -- anti-semi. same with your lieberman. these jewish americans in congress are jewish first and americans at second.

i'm sorry if that offends somebody but that is the way they project. host: we should it is, that jeb bush front page today on the new york times. on another issue, the headline is bush asserts a clinton role in iraq decline. they said the former florida governor speaking to republicans issued a blistering attack on tuesday on the and ministrations handling of iraq and terrorism, asserting that hillary clinton, the front-runner for democratic presidential nomination, has stood by the secretary of -- as the secretary of state as the situation in iraq deteriorated. you can see this, the online at c-span.org. one more call here from virginia, democrat line. caller: hey, how's it going big guy. in the iran deal is better than nothing, and honestly, most of the callers i heard who were i guaranteedeal --

it's a know if they were a veteran. i thought in iraq. fought in iraq.- can't put airstrikes. host: travis, as a veteran, what do you think about the veterans and othere deal, groups who argue that iran is supporting many of this terrorist -- the terrorist groups that fought in iraq directly against our troops during the iraq war? to them, would say what do you think about us arming al qaeda against the soviets? armingyou think about as saudi arabia who cuts off the heads of christians every day? how would you feel about arming other dishonorable groups with our weapons? it is a concern of mine -- i don't care. i would rather have iran be monitored, tracks, and --

tracked and we would let them have certain things but not have others. i would rather have us do that than have us invade them, kill them, and get other isis to occupy. the alternative that anyone else can offer is pointless. even though i don't like him, i don't like president obama, i think this deal is better than nothing. host: last comments there. more washington journal ahead. we turn our attention to politics, michael warren of the us.kly standard" joins he talks about donald trump and the position he has begun to lay out. jen mishoryer on joins us to talk about issues facing the millennial generation. more ahead.

>> this sunday night on today. institute for policy studies onlow and antiwar activist the recent negotiations with iran and the war on terrorism. >> who are isis? what are their origins? why are they so violent? all of those questions are important and digest them all in the book. but think what is more important because it is something we can do something about, is what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can we really go to war against terrorism? are we really doing it wrong or is it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? i think those are the questions that will be the most useful. >> sunday night at eight across eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. with the senate in its august

break, we will feature be -- booktv programming on c-span2 starting at 8:00 eastern. and here are a few special programs. saturday, august 22, live from jackson mississippi for the inaugural mississippi book festival. beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern. with discussions on civil rights in the civil war. on saturday, september 5, we are live from our nations capital for the 15th annual national book festival. fallen on sunday by our live in depth program, with lynne cheney. booktv on c-span two. television for serious readers. >> washington journal continues. the: mike warren writes for "weekly standard," joining us to

talk about donald trump and some of his evolving views on the issues. you wrote, trump defiance at gop debate. when does that defiance turned into policy positions on issues? guest: that is a really good question. we would like to know exactly when donald is going to come out with some details on what his positions are. he was asked a few policy questions during that debate. he was asked about health care, immigration, of course he inated a lot of controversy his comment about mexico sending criminals over the border. he talked about the iran deal. he didn't actually offer any specific policy descriptions. on health care, for instance, there is a big debate among republicans about what to do with the affordable care act. do you rid of it entirely? you replace it with something different? you go back to the status quo before? he doesn't seem to be interested

in discussing that. he just says, whatever we are offering it will be better. and in fact, he endorsed socialized medicine, saying that in canada and scotland they have a good system there. it was surprising to hear that in a republican debate. i think it shows you how shallow donald trump policy positions are. host: clearly at this point he is moot -- best served not really revealing his positions. at some point, the debate schedule picks up. it is and other month until the cnn debate coming up in the middle of september. you would have to think that those questions would get more specific about policy. what about behind-the-scenes. courtesy have working and developing in terms of policy issues? has been a little opaque about what exactly he is doing behind the scenes. he says he have a great team, he has been firing a couple people. a couple people have left. he says he is stepping up. staffing up.

i would be interesting -- interested to hear what sort of republican policy thinkers he has who are lining up to join his campaign. i have heard about plenty of them joining the other campaigns , and there are some interest that i hear out there about tax reform and what to do about immigration reform. how a republican president might address the iran deal if it goes forward. again, there doesn't seem to be any indication that trump is doing anything to move in a direction that would seem more specific about policy. i think what is going to happen is as the debates, as you say, ramp-up, and there is more discussion and more details going into the fall about some of these debates that congress is having, that president obama is bringing up. as a campaign starts to focus on iowa and new hampshire, those early days where you have people who had voted in

several primaries in the past and they know what they're looking for, trump is going to really struggle. he is going to have to either come up with something substantive, which i think is going to have a hard time doing, or he is going to drop out of the polls. i think you're probably going to see that just from some of the early polls after this first debate. host: those early polls after the first debate include this one, reported by usa today. trump still leading in gop field in iowa. paul finds that his performance in last week's cost himebate has ground in the state that will hold the first presidential primary next year. in iowa, if it voting was today, with 500 likely voters, donald trump, 17%. scott walker, 12%. ago rubio, 10%. ben carson, 9%. ted cruz, 7%.

donald trump hasn't made any on the ground inroads in iowa has he? no he hasn't. he made an appearance their last month or the month before in front of a large number of evangelical christian and catholic voters, who make up a big chunk of the iowa caucus pool. he said some things that i think turned a lot of people off. if you talk to anybody who read the reports of what people thought. he said he had never ask god for forgiveness, dismissing, or sort of being glib about the eucharist and taking communion. i think it rub people the wrong way. rubbed people the wrong way. all of a sudden this idea that donald trump was this white night coming in to save the republican can't -- party from suddenlylishment,

people were saying, maybe we didn't think deeply about who donald trump really is. i think some of the things brought up at the debate about women i think are probably going to turn a lot of conservative christian voters in iowa off. host: but we have not seen evidence of that yet in terms of polling. guest: the drop i think is important in the suffolk poll. is down nine points from where the average was. that is significant. can be, in many ways, flagging indicators of where people are. the fact that he is still in the lead but you are seeing other republican candidates moving up in the polls, fiorina and rubio particularly in the iowa poll -- these debates are happening and people are able to see them all on the same level and edge

them, you are going to see a shift. people are going to say there are more options in this election and jeb bush and hillary clinton, which i think is the font of this approach from -- pro trump movement. host: talking about donald trump, and his developing positions on issues. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and all others, (202) 748-8002. hishere he is talking about proposed wall between the united states and mexico. [video clip] >> 10 years ago everybody wanted the wall. you know why they couldn't get a? environmental -- you know why they could not get it? environmental impact statements. mexico is making a fortune off

the united states. mexico is going to pay for the wall. and they are going to be happy about it. peanuts of the wall is compared to the kind of money they are making. mexico is becoming the new china. i have a great love for mexico. i have loved for the american people. i have loved so many american people over the world -- over the years. mexican people work for me. they are great people, great spirit. but their politicians and their leaders are much smarter and say more- and i cunning, more cunning than our leaders. they will pay for the wall. they will be happy about it. they will continue to do well, not as well as they are doing right now. they're taking too many of our jobs. host: donald trump less night in michigan. are you hearing anything there, just beyond immigration and the wall. other policy. areas,er policy

environmental impact statements? guest: to be honest, no. i think there is a lot of nothing in what he just said. he is repeating a lot of what you hear from republican politicians frequently about the border. we need to build the fence. we have been hearing that from republican candidates for congress and for president for several years. it is really nothing new. i think what donald trump is offering is sort of a more stylistic and less substance-based revival of messages. listen to what he said there. mexico is the new china. their leaders are smarter than ours. the drain lot about that china is having on america's role in the world, he does not really offer any positions. does he talk about what should be done about the current situation in china? i have not heard anything from

him. maybe he is going to get into that. there is no indication that he is going to break out of his him ag points that get lot of applause at republican and conservative groups and rallies. but he's been saying the same thing now for two months straight. i don't think there is any indication that he is going to get any more specific. host: let's hear what listeners are hearing from donald trump. we go first to thurmond in fayetteville, north carolina. caller: good morning. we need to take this a little seriously. mr. trump is saying what mostly to people here want to hear. they are tired of the people in washington dc being bought by nothings, and eight -- is getting done. the people are tired. this man can be president.

because the what you're talking about. speaksi think that entirely to the support that trump is getting. he is speaking to a large group of people out there. larger than we would like to think, in washington, that think hillary clinton is the likely democratic nominee. jeb bush is the likely republican nominee. and they say, please, these families are the only families that can be president? caller said, these people come to washington every year and they don't get anything done. trump is offering a message that people like to hear. the problem is, it is all stylistic. it is all sort of things that people out there might say to each other at the bar at the waffle house -- at the bar or at the waffle house, but there is nothing behind that. once people see more of drop and ck him more questions, --

more of trump -- see more of trump and asking more questions, there is going to be a revelation that the emperor has no clothes. our democratgo to line, anthony, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for being very even minded in your presentation of the news. i think donald trump is all fluff and no substance. he will implode and then he will, out with a line of fluff to make money. host: i agree with that. but i will say this. this is something republicans have brought upon themselves. a lot of the stuff i mentioned, for instance, about immigration and building the wall. that is something republicans have been saying for years in campaigns and never delivered. it is a collocated issue. there are lots of interest in

the country and here in washington that makes doing that difficult. but i think republicans need to understand that there is a group of people out there who do not trust leadership to follow through on what they say, or who believe that during election time they are hearing something from politicians that will help them get elected, but then when they get to washington nothing ever gets done. that is a real frustration, but i think that people will again realized that donald trump maybe a voice to those frustrations, but he is not proved himself to be a voice for solutions. host: he has had many projects he has on many projects. as a politician he has evolved from being a democrat to a republican. does that evolution of his it -- of his views hurt or harm -- hurt or help him? host: you would think it would.

gave gave made romney -- mitt romney a really hard time about being pro-choice in the 90's. there were a lot of people in the party who still do not trust him. was pro-choice within the last decade, or maybe even sooner. he has now changed his mind. think a lot of people are willing to believe that folks will change their mind on that issue, but it does raise a lot of questions. that being said, whether it is the abortion issue, whether it is being very honest about this work he has done. any of that would sink any other politician. i think for donald trump it is a combination of celebrity and the way in which he does things, which makes it seem a little more like a reality show. , but ise he's the donald

like what he is saying about lobbyists and politicians in washington. i don't think that is what is going to catch up with him. i think it is more this lack of substance on issues that are serious. i think republicans are serious for the 2016 election. host: host: we go to fran, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i am a nervous wreck here, but bear with me. i don't care what his policies are. i do not care. right now he has a job to do. he has to shake them up and inir boots -- shake them up their boots. they are scared because he has enough money to play until the end. that is the only thing they care about. that is what scares them the most. i hope he goes all the way. he cannot be any worse than what we have right now. i don't care what he says about women. i don't care what he says. i tell you what, if he gets

will stop these stupid trade deals and he will put up a wall. i am convinced he will do that. , that put usse ahead of where we are now. there you have it. i am a republican tried and true. i am a social and cultural conservative. but republicans have done nothing for me. all they want is my money and my boat and they walk away. i am done with them. i don't want them to come to me and say, if you vote for me i will do a, b, c. now, you can do some a first and then come to me and tell me to vote for you. host: thanks for the call. she mentioned the trade deals. we heard donald trump on the trade. yes.: he was taking really a more populist view on the populist --

trade deals of the early 90's. but again, i'm not quite sure what his solutions are for these sort of things. again, he talks a lot about china. he talks a lot about russia. he talks about the fact that they are beating us. therek that is a view out in america and i tended to agree with it. [no audio]

caller: why can't we just march

the illegal immigrants. stop calling them undocumented. they are breaking the law. they have no allegiance to this united states and it really upsets me and other americans. are you supportive of donald trump as a candidate, outside of his position on immigration? caller: yes. he is a viable candidate. hillary clinton is not saying anything about these illegals. what is your reaction to his thought? guest: i think if you look at the polling on donald trump there has been this false

the mostn that conservative group of republicans are the ones that are supporting donald trump. i don't think that is necessarily true. he is actually getting quite a few votes from moderate republicans or democrats like the color right now. i think we sort of look at dichotomya right left and say, ok, if you are supporting a republican you must be far right. i think it speaks to sort of a middle out there that is angry and justifiably so about illegal immigration. he is speaking to that. inald trump is giving voice a way that other candidates really are not. they talk about things like the dream act, we are a nation of immigrants. they speak a very aspirational language about immigration. i think that is an important part of american history. but there is another part of american society you know, bad

economy. the feeling that the country is being overrun by people and there should be limits. trump again is speaking to that. the problem always goes back to, there is a lack of substance. that video clip you played when i first came on here this morning about mexico will build this wall, and they will pay for it. and he said they are going to be happy about that. he turns around and he says, because they are making a lot of money right now in this current regime of sending folks over. there is some truth to that, sending remittances back to mexico. it is sort of an incoherent a statement. mexico is going to pay for this wall. we don't know how. and they're going to be happy about paying for it. but they are also going to be making less money from remittances as a result. incoherence, an because once you dig down deeper into the service level issue that i think is very real and something the republicans and democrats should be paying attention to, you don't get much

substance. i think this is an opportunity for republican candidates to step up and offer summing to these voters. akita whos hear from is on our lawrenceville line. who is on our democrats line in lawrenceville, georgia. i was a democrat for a long time, but i involved because the democrats turned into a socialist party. i am a capitalist. donald trump is a capitalist. he is for sovereignty. he is for the teddy roosevelt type of president. he carries a big stick. maybe he doesn't walk softly but he carries a big stick. he is not a democrat and he is not a republican. he is an american. all the americans will gather together and they will do for him, because he is for us. thank you. thank you.

and from my home county of gwinnett county, i understand what the caller is speaking about. that donaldhats trump has been wearing around. i think a lot of folks, particularly in washington, have been snickering about them. they say, make america great again. that is sort of an ironic reaction from inside the beltway type folks, but i think that is a real view that people feel like america is not great right now. particularly i think the last eight years, or even after the last 16 years. whether it is sort of the economic crisis, the iraq war, the way that turned out. there is a feeling out there that america is not respected in the world. we are not the leader we once were. again, trump is speaking to that. what i can't seem to get from it is thewhether trump campaign or listening to what he says in the debates or in the speeches, is anything

more past the first step. look, i don't have $10 million. and i ask aalist lot of these candidates questions. aboutare serious debates what to do, and donald trump seems to rising above all those debates and not having to answer any questions. i am eager to what he -- to hear what he has to say about making the health care system more competitive. he's in place at a better once i am elected president. i wouldn't trust anything if you said that, whether you had $10 million are all kinds of experience. i think that is a problem. host: front page of the current talks aboutdard" the difficulty hillary clinton and jeb bush are having in their races, the dynasty difficulty. showl pull this off and the front page today of the washington post, and they are lead article on the other leading candidate in the race, bernie sanders. how is he doing?

they're talking about the numbers that he is doing and his appearance particularly in california. he is the other populist candidate in this race, getting a lot of attention. he has beend trump, pretty specific on these issues. why is it working for him, and donald trump is taking a completely different approach? think for one thing, i bernie sanders has a complete worldview. he is a democratic socialist. he has a view that sort of a european-style mixture of capitalism and socialism would be better for the united states. you see that when he talks about free higher education, universal health care, stopping foreign wars, these sorts of things. it is a fully formed viewpoint of how the world should be. it is also appealing to democratic voters. there is a new poll out today from the boston herald of new hampshire democratic primary voters that shows bernie sanders

ahead. this is just one poll. of thenot be indicative actual what is going on on the ground in new hampshire, but he has been gaining in that state. it is not just because he is from the next-door neighbor, vermont. he is speaking to democratic primary voters who may be are not fully satisfied with a way the obama administration has gone. they thought it would be a greater progressive era that we are seeing. you're seeing more of a mixed record from the obama administration. hillary clinton does not exactly seem like a great progressive hero to these voters. i have been to bernie sanders's events, not ones that had 20,000 ,eople, but he speaks to young progressive voters in the democratic party. the kind who might have been excited by a barack obama who look at hillary clinton and think, is this all we have? is he tapping into some of the same frustration that donald trump is? guest: i think so.

i think he is tapping into some of those debates over trade. i think he is tapping into it, again we talk about it on our cover story in the weekly standard, about frustration with dynasties. i think there are a lot of people out there thinking, are these the only two we have to choose from? if these two work running i don't think sanders and trump would be happening. host: calls. we go to faribault, minnesota, and the independent line. caller: good morning. i am glad for c-span. i would like to make a comment or two. he says that donald trump does not put anything out, but he said that he would open insurance up to all the companies. in minnesota we have three or four companies to choose from. why can't i buy insurance from texas, arizona. wherever. that is one of the things that they talked about.

he talked about building the wall. debates,about serious what candidate has put any policy forward of any kind? none of them have. republicans stand up there -- and i was a republican and now i am an independent because republicans are the party of no one. i am sick of the party of no one. they don't do anything. all they do is, if barack obama put that out there they don't want it. some of his ideas could be changed for the better. he doesn't have all that ideas. i don't like the guy, but i will tell you what, trump has got my vote. campaigns for donations, i will send it to him. i am not sending anything to the gop. no. are the party of they've done nothing and they are still doing nothing. this point though, he has not asked for campaign donations? got anat -- i actually

e-mail yesterday from an affiliate asking for campaign donations. i just saw this yesterday. it's the first time i seen it. tosaid he would be willing fund his campaign. he is by far the richest person in the field. but i think it is interesting that the caller would be willing to send money to donald trump. how popularament to his messages. i do want to say, on health care, i think it was a great point of the caller made about the need for people to be able to buy insurance across state lines. this is a republican position on health insurance. it had a for years. the affordable care act was passed. the problem with republicans is they have not really coalesced around one replacement division for health care. 2014 midterm elections that are of public and when, to their credit, but again , i'm up here complaining about

trump's lack of substance but you could really say the same thing about the republican party a lack of cohesion about where the party wants to take the country. whatsk someone out there does the republican party want to do for the country? i don't think you could get a cohesive vision or message. that is a problem. host: is part of that due to the fact that they do have 17 major candidates running? tough to get cohesion around 17 candidates. guest: yes it is. both houses of congress are now controlled by the republicans. there could really be a counterbalance to the president ad his agenda, and also republican agenda setting work in done on capitol hill. there is some of that happening, but is not cohesive and complete. you are seen as again in the health care debate. there are competing views about what to do, whether you replace it with nothing else. entirely and

started are completely? there has not been a consensus among republicans in congress like you might think there would be. 2008, in the2007, run-up to barack obama's residency, democrats are really putting forward an agenda. they did not get anything passed because george w. bush was president and he would really threatened to veto these things, but if you look at the health care debate a lot of the children's health insurance program, that was laying the groundwork for what happened in 2009 and 2010. we haven't seen that kind of work being done on capitol hill. donald trump is speaking yesterday in michigan, we showed you some of his comments. here is the comment this morning, trump expect latino, and female vote. you are going to love a president trump he tells 2000 people. from silver springs florida on

our republican line, it is jack. hello. caller: good morning gentlemen. good morning mr. warren. guest: good morning. caller: i'd like to offer you all a little counterpoint and i want you to consider this perception. history, and what we are seeing is an american republic that is revolting. they are tired of the politicians conflict of interest . we see all this stuff in the news about hillary clinton right now. i don't even think she is going to make it to the national. basically what they are looking up from their point of view with a single party system. trump, as you have said, has struck a chord, that i disagree with you on the point that he has no substance. even though people have said that is no infrastructure behind

him, i don't think they are doing their research closely enough. i want to bring up the point that reagan wasn't going to make it either, and he was a democrat before he was a republican. all of these other things that people are throwing out there at a it, you are looking cross-section of america where it is divided down the center, and you've got a lot of older folks and then you've got these young lefties. there for twop terms. when trump says that mexico will build the wall happily, he's got a good point and he knows or he is coming from. once he brings the security to the border and the border is armed, mexico will build the wall happily. i'm not talking about a physical

wall. thanks for your comments. we will get some thoughts from mike moran. -- mike warren. guest: first of all, i think we are overstating donald trump's influence. you look at the national republican primary paul, it is 20%. it's significant. he is leading in the polls, but you could also say he's got 80% -- 80% of republicans are supporting someone else. we should keep that in mind, particularly when we compare the trumpet insurgency in the democratic party. he is consistently polling in the 30th, and these are early primary states. i've even higher. he is just as big of an influence in the democratic primary -- of course with your dan donald trump is. i think the caller also mentioned a lack of substance from donald trump, which i have been talking about. look, i think that if donald

trump is going to move forward in iowa and new hampshire, he is going to have to offer something more than simply, i am going to build a wall. if this iran deal goes through, i am a great deal maker and i can negotiate this, that, they won't get any nuclear weapons. but he is speaking, again, to a frustration that the caller mentioned of a sort of one-party system. once everybody gets up to washington they are all sort of on the same team. i think that maybe a little unfair to some of the republican candidates in the race, a lot of them are governors who are doing interesting things in their own states. there are other republican candidates out there that i think are saying interesting things about health care, about iran, about the -- about defense spending that should be listened to. the more debates we hear we hear we're going to hear more details about that and then the caller won't be so frustrated with the state of the party.

and they will see that there really are two distinct parties in the country, offering two different missions. host: we are with michael warren the book the -- from so messagesdard," on twitter. this one says trump's message is will do whatever i want when i am president. another one says, trump has credibility as an economic populist because the casino business relies a lot on people with disposable income. let's hear from centreville, virginia. we go to rich who is on our democrat line. caller: hi, good morning. just really quick. this morning- when you played that clip about trump, he also said in that same blurb because i listened to it that he has a $2 $2 billion plan

to build cars and trucks in china. i love you guys, that it would have helped a lot of listeners who did not listen to that last night, they could have formed their own opinion, that he was trying to link the wall, immigration, mexico, and our situation. when your guest is saying that he doesn't have any policies, i think he does. he is just being a generalist because of the came out with policies that everybody would be attacking him on his policies. -- he said hey would bring jobs back to america. i think that is something people are interested in him about because nobody else has even talked about that. back tot bringing jobs america, a lot of candidates have proposed that or have offered that. guest: that's right. sameabout the cert -- amount of substance or detail. maybe that is not quite fair to someone like, say, rick santorum, who has really put out a detailed policy proposal about

limiting immigration -- legal immigration by 25%. changing some of the tax code to give manufacturers advantages that they don't have in the current tax code. but look, i think this is speaking to the divide among republicans. you might want to call it sort of the chamber of commerce style republicans and the sort of blue-collar, reagan democrat style republicans. i think they have had a lot of -- a lot in common over the last several decades, but there are fishers there on several issues. the caller mentioned the plant in mexico. the level of illegal immigration. and the sense that there are republicans out there who think not only is illegal immigration something that maybe we can put legal but we need more immigration. there are people out there thinking wait a second. i don't have a job. i'm not making the amount of money i ought to be making. why should be the -- why should

we be letting more people in? host: any sense on where the tea party supporters are on donald trump? i think it is mixed. i don't think the tea party automatically flows into tropopause support. -- trump's support. ted cruz is another one out there and i think he has maintained a level of support, even though trump has taken some away from those like rand paul. ted cruz has retained a level of support that suggests he retains that sort of, we are mad at washington. if you look at the way he talks, he goes after mitch mcconnell, leadership, congress. this is what the tea party phenomenon is all about. host: in columbus, ohio. jane, good morning. she is on our republican line. good morning. thank you. i am totally against how the republicans and the democrats have been running our country.

one is just as guilty as the other and two wrongs do not make a right. i want to let you know that, republicans. and i think you should stand behind donald trump, or we are not going to get back in office. i really and truly do. host: let's get one more call here. we go to diana in on more, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning. forget theall to not eric cantor affect. the polls said he was a shoe in. blue-collar,re manual labor people. we need a dollar. not a food stamp. not a government handout. we have pride in what we do to earn our buck. we cannot continue this stuff. you talk about donald trump flip-flopping. are you kidding me? every person i voted for -- i

voted for obama. wrong. the flip-flopping is you get out here, get our vote, and you flip-flop between up and in there. say california murder suspect in the country illegally. one candidate has personally been active on twitter. his twitter response to that is, again, illegal immigrant is charged with little bludgeoning of a wonderful and loved 64-year-old woman. get them out and build a wall. i have sort i mean, of been talking about the need for donald trump to speak on substance, but i think that stories like this, sort of what the caller was just talking about, the struggles of blue-collar america in america right now and the false promises that both parties have given them gives republicans in opportunity. if donald trump needs more

substance, the other candidates could use a lot more on style. know,ar a lot about, you we have, as republicans, have to reach out to those who don't normally vote for us. the number ofpand people who vote for you as much as you can, especially would have been losing elections. but republicans cannot forget the type of voters who vote them into office in the first place. i think the caller who said she voted for obama has also voted for republicans in the past. these are voters who do work hard, they don't want a handout, but they feel at the system is against them. it is interesting and ironic to me that donald trump has become the champion for that, but i think it goes to show you the leadership on those issues among republicans and democrats. host: covering politics, president, and otherwise on "the weekly standard."

thank you very being with us. guest: thank you so much. host: up next, we talk with jen mishory, the head of a group called young invincibles. joining us to talk about a number of issues important to millennials. later on, as part of our spotlight on magazine series, mark perry will be here to talk about his recent "politico" article over the best way to combat chinese aggression. all that had on this morning's -- ahead on this morning's washington journal." >> first lady helen taft made several notable changes to the white house. the most obvious was replacing the white male ushers with

african-american staff. she also led an effort to raise funds for a memorial of the victims of the titanic. but her greatest legacy was bringing thousands of japanese cherry blossom trees to the nation's capital. this sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "first ladies." examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. this sunday night, institute for policy studies fellow and antiwar activist phyllis on u.s. foreign policies since 9/11, the recent negotiations with iran, and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? where they so violent tackle those questions are important and i address them in the book, but i think what is more

important is what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can we really go to war against terrorism? is it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? i think those other questions that of the most important and will be the most useful. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." journal" continues. host: joining us is jen mishory, the executive director of a group called young invincibles here to talk about issues of importance to millennials. we will begin the focus on college affordability and student debt. your organization, what is it and what originally formed to the group? guest: we are a national nonprofit organization working on economic issues facing this generation and issues that

perhaps face millennials differently than our parents. issues like access to college, student debt, access to health care, employment issues. a lot of the economic pocketbook issues that are really quite different for this generation. host: so heading up to the 2016 election, we are beginning to see candidates unveil some of their proposals. hillary clinton. we will look at that more in-depth in a moment. in terms of student debt, college loans, and college affordability, what is your group's view on where the federal government should be in terms of making college more affordable and doing something about the amount of student debt out there? guest: higher education in general is a reflection of both state policy, federal policy, and what is going on in a very local campus level. states are actually the ones that fund a lot of these public institutions, and most --

students go to a public institution. at the federal government grant and pell student loans. they provide most of the student loans in this country. so they are providing access for people to be able to attend school. at the same time, we know that student debt is growing, so there is certainly a role for the federal government to step in and ensure that we don't have a lot of young people holding that cut of that. host:. debt is growing. just to give folks a reference point, the total u.s. student loan debt, it seems like it was just yesterday it was under $1 trillion, but now it is $1.2 trillion. the average debt per class is $35,000. and the total number in the fault currently is 8 million. 8 million out of how many holding student loans? 40 million or so? guest: exactly.

about 40 million or so. and we have seen that volume increase. it has doubled since 2008. and we have also seen the debt increase significantly. we have more people going to college, and that is a good thing, but we are also seeing rising levels of debt. host: we are going to break up our phone lines a little bit differently for this morning looking at student loans and student debt. loan 748-8000 for student or student debt. (202) 748-8001 for if you have paid off your student loan. (202) 745-8002 for if you have no student loans. if you don't3 for feel like you fit in any of those categories. at can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. you have student debt out there, college affordability, and the whole student loan process. what is the most important thing

to address first? guest: you are right, it is a multi-legged stool here, and that is what is so hard about this issue. so we need to see states reinvesting in higher education. we have seen that investment to drop, particularly since the great recession. see somethingo that actually addresses the debt that folks currently hold. we have a lot of people who are defaulting, and that means it is ruining their credit, their financial lives are really impacted by those defaults. so providing some relief for folks that are struggling at two are really having trouble making those payments is critical. and then we need to start thinking about how we provide more transparency. so when you are a student trying to figure out how to get school, you are. trying to help your kid never get that system, it is not that

easy to be able to look and find out, well, if i go to the school, this is how much it is going to cost and here is the program that is the best program at the school. and here is my prospect of getting a job afterward. that can of information is not really accessible for students today. host: do you think it is a responsibility both on the side of the school and the parents /students going to that school in terms of awareness before you get into this -- before you go to the school of what overall this is going to cost in the long run? guest: unfortunately, costs are rising across the board. i think what we can do is provide better, clearer information to students and families so they can make that decision more easily in addition to actually taking on policies that reduce costs and debt. so providing that information in a clear way will help students and families make that decision. and providing some accountability to schools to

provide programs, to provide that information is critical. host: your group arose initially out of the 2010 debate over the affordable care act, correct? guest: that is right. host: in terms of where millennials are in the affordability of health care, do you look at that as a success or failure? guest: it has absolutely been a successful young people. we look back at the uninsurance rate for young adults before the aca, they are quite high. in fact, the highest uninsurance rate for young people -- young people are also the lowest income. when you're thinking and talking about things like the medicaid expansion or talking about things like these tax credits, they are going to disproportionately fall to young people because they have lower income. so they are going to be able to access some of those benefits as they are, for example, leaving school with student debt, trying to find a job, having access to

things like tax credits is incredibly helpful. also, the provision tuesday under plan until you are 26 is one of the most popular provisions. that provide some sort of leeway for people who are trying to figure out where their next job is after they leave school. if they are trying to start a business and they don't have access to health insurance through a new startup, staying on your parents plan is critical -- parents' plan is critical. that youer any lessons can apply to your efforts on college affordability and reducing student loan debt? guest: i think actually what is most interesting is that providing really clear data and information, and also the perspective of young people themselves, is something we have brought to that debate. so, for example, he took our name, young invincibles, from the young around

people just think they are invincible. and we sort of took a tongue-in-cheek approach to that , but in reality, when they talk to young people, we had most people say they wanted coverage. we had about 15% of people with chronic conditions. we had a lot of young people who needed access to things like benefits, and we had a lot of young people who were low income. wages have dropped considerably for young people, more so than for other generations. so being able to access and afford health care was really difficult. and when we are talking about the kind of health care access you have at a job, for example, it is much different for this generation. young people are much less likely to have an offer of health insurance at their job then an older worker -- than in an olderker -- than worker. so they were facing a situation

where maybe they didn't have an offer of insurance. they were facing -- so being able to provide that kind of story and being able to show what was going on with young people was critical. and i think that is the same thing with student debt. we need to be able to show what is going on. host: here is some of what is going on. we have callers waiting. lake station, indiana. how much student loan do you -- student loan debt do you have? caller: a lot. [laughter] just completed my masters degree in education, so i actually took on quite a bit more. host: congratulations. caller: because my bachelors degree do not seem to be enough to get, you know, a paying job. i went to work for the state of indiana at the department of corrections back in 2010. when the economy tank. tanked.

guest: and we are seeing a lot of situations where young people are facing high unemployment levels, dropping wages, and to your point, we know that the more education you get, the higher your wages are. even though we are not necessarily saying huge increases across the board in wages, we are still seeing a premium on getting that extra degree. so it is certainly something we are seeing a lot of young people thinking about. host: shelbyville, indiana. amy is on the line. no student loans. have you finished your education? caller: well, yes. i went to college and law school in the 1970's and early 1980's. with no student loans or anything. back then, my college, mount vernon college in washington dc, was $4500 a year. and it ispart of gw

$35,000 a year. but that's is not what i was calling about. my daughter tried to get a student loan for her nursing school in chicago. and all she wanted was books. she and her husband, he makes good money and they had their apartment and cars and everything, but on the website or whatever it was that she was having to fill out, they -- it was encouraging her to borrow all this other money for rent, for groceries, for whatever the standard of living is for the chicago area. host: do you know if that was a private or public government student loan? caller: i am not sure. other different ones? isn't there just one major website you go to? anyway, she had to find out where to click or call, i think, to tell them that all she wanted was $4000 and not $30,000.

and i'm concerned that some kids are just trying to -- are borrowing the maximum amount, but they really don't need because they can to stay and live at home or they can get an apartment and share with two or three roommates. and they don't need that huge amount, but they are so enticed to borrow it that they do end up with huge student loans after they get out. host: appreciate you sharing the story. guest: first to go back to some of the changes, that is exactly right. we saw tuition levels much lower at the time when my mom went to school versus when i went to school. 1/3.obably cost her about it cost me about $6,500 eu to go to school. i went to ucla. that tuition since 2007 has doubled. it is now $13,000.

host: and this is a state school. .uest: absolutely you are seeing huge increases across the board. i think to the question of around two daughter, you know, figuring out. -- to your daughter, you know, figuring out around the options. some private loans can have higher interest rates and also lacks some of the consumer protections that the federal loans have. so really making sure you see the signs of what she is taking on is critical. host: having paid off her student loans, we will hear from sandra. good morning. caller: good morning. i paid off my student loans 40 years ago and they were minimal. and i paid my own way through school. , but i went town local schools, except for a one year abroad program in spain. and i am thinking to myself, why

does everybody think they have to go to college in the first place? there is trade schools. there are other ways. they can work in their parents business or something else. host: can i ask you why did you think you needed to go to college? guest: -- caller: at first, i worked for 10 years in the secretary field and decided that was not what i wanted to do. but by the time i decided that i wanted to college, i was older and i decided i wanted another kind of education, not the minimum that i had in being a secretary. but a lot of kids are unprepared to go to college mentally and emotionally. and i don't think they should be in college. thesee what takes place on -- spring break, the behavior of those people. they act like they are entitled to all the bad behavior that they participate in, but at the same time, that is an indicator

of are they really ready to go to college in the first place? host: thank you for your call. any thoughts on her experience? guest: it is interesting. when you look at some of the ways the economy has changed over the last couple of decades, by 2020, about 65% of jobs are going to require some sort of post secondary degree. it does not have to be a four year degree, but there is an increasing demand for skilled education. certainly, not everyone might want to go to college, but providing a pathway for everybody to afford to go to college is critical not just for personal individuals and financial health, but also for the economy. in we are seeing a rise quote unquote nontraditional students. folks that are working, folks that have families and are going back to school. some diverse backgrounds at a variety of agents -- ages.

host: in particular, we are talking about student debt, college affordability. the college affordability crisis was the lead editorial yesterday in the "new york times." saying that this is clinton's plan aiming to reduce costs to students. borrowers to refinance their student loans at the lowest interest rates. it would reward states that agree to spend more money on higher education and give more money to colleges that reduce expenses, though it does not say what kind of costs should be lowered. [video clip] >> under the new college compact, no students should have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college or university. >> [applause] [cheering] [applause]

ms. clinton: schools will have to control their costs and show more accountability to their students. increases over 10 years. way above the rate of inflation of anything else. states will have to meet their obligation to invest in higher education. >> [applause] [cheering] ms. clinton: the federal government will increase its investment in education and will not profit any longer off of student loans. >> [applause] ms. clinton: and everyone, everyone who already has student debt will be able to refinance

it at lower rates. >> [cheering] [applause] to do with student debt, there is a big chunk of it, in terms of affordability, that is up to the states and making those schools in those states affordable. guest: certainly, states have a huge role in the ways in which our higher education systems are financed. and we have seen since the great recession, even before that, but particularly since the great recession, this investment in higher education budget. 47 states have not reinvested since that drop off. as a result, most students go to public colleges. so as a result, you are seeing states have a huge role in sort of the debt loads that students are taking on. host: are there a couple that are sort of getting it right in your view? guest: yeah, there are certainly a few. north dakota is one of them.

we are also seeing some states that are struggling. i think that it is very state to state. theally, if you go to student impact project, we do a state-by-state analysis and really look in depth at how states are investing because it is actually, again, like this issue, there is a lot going on here. it is both what you are investing in your higher education budget that impacts tuition, and also what you are investing in your state aid programs. a lot of states have really active state aid programs. in texas, it is the texas grant. so that is an important metric to look at. host: let's hear from maryland. you have student loan debt. welcome. caller: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: yeah, i have plenty of student debt. bachelors and i have any loans

from i bachelors, but i did for my masters. pharmacology, in i didn't have to take any school loans for that, either. i work at a community college and one of the trans-that we see that we see trends currently is students going to community colleges to prevent those exorbitant school loans. and the community colleges are now playing a much larger role in education. they are noe not -- longer for low income individuals. the community colleges are actually very important institutions. they have a different view now, i think. the loans is certainly are reduced because, of course, the

price is much, much more affordable for parents and for students. sometime students -- after they finish the community college. so i have also a question. what controls the price what schools ask for for tuition? what regulates that? host: thank you for your question. guest: sure. if you are talking about a public school, then you are talking about what the state budgets are putting into higher education. it is often set by the board of regents or whoever might be sort of overseeing setting those tuition and fees. if you are going to a private college, then it is going to be up to a -- the institution. but i think that is exactly right. community colleges are a

critical part of our higher education system. when i mentioned that 65% of will require post secondary degrees, that includes community colleges. host: onto miami, florida. how much do you go, billy? caller: originally it was $10,000. back in 2002, i went to a school that advertised on television, which i honestly personally feel they are phony. $10,000 to loan for the national school of technology. and the school closed halfway through my course. i do not get a degree or anything like that. and now's actually told by a person from the office that asked me that the money was paid up front. and i was actually told that the school actually hosted the student because they already got

their money. and i havered if -- it down to $3086 -- and i was wondering if there was any recourse against that ?onsidering that it was paid and my second question is to the moderator. thank you for taking my call because it takes up a lot of space on the call. and i will listen to your answer off the phone. i appreciate c-span. thank you. host: i think people have been saying that because it is the longest we have been holding on-air conversations here on c-span. your thoughts. guest: i am not familiar with the institution that you went to. we have seen a rise in for-profit colleges. expensive.o be more and we see a lot of students coming out of those goals with larger amounts of debt and higher default rates.

so i think part of the conversation is around how do we ensure that schools across the board, in particular some of these for-profit schools, some of which are failing now, are andally held accountable how they provide the information up front, too, so people can make decisions when they see an advertisement to say, what is the school going to provide for me, what is the return on that investment of going to that school? to new jersey, peter does not have any school loans. how did you do it, peter? caller: hello. i would like to talk to jen. i would like to ask jen a question. it nephew went to a school -- is $28,000 that he owes. my mother my mother -- and i are thinking of paying

that off for him. so i was wondering, what are the legal dynamics, you know, he is saying he is going to pay us back, but we don't really -- are not that concerned about it. he will draw up a contract, etc. and so the $28,000, you know, there are things like gift taxes and sort of -- also at the shenanigans. know,wondering what, you what is the proper way to handle this? should we -- host: peter, i think we got the question. thank you. hard for me to know the details of exactly what is going on there. i would suggest probably talking to a lawyer, someone who could help you with those details.

theuld say to you to go to website. we have some information on how to pay back your student loans, what options you have, what retainer plans that exist out there. there are a lot of different kinds of payment plans, such as income-based repayment so you're paying back based on your income, not based off of your total debt load. host: we showed that figure earlier that the total is $1.2 trillion and i think it was 8 million out of the 40 million currently holding student loan debt are defaulting. on average, what is the average student hold in student loan debt? guest: it is hard to say what the average former hold -- we do know that today, that average debt load is around $30,000. obviously, it is going to vary. some would who is leaving with a

masters degree or law degree are going to have higher that levels. it is really going to depend on where you it to school and what you took on. but that is the average for bachelors degrees. host: do we know on average how much of a trick of income that takes up on your typical millennial who is a full-time worker? guest: that is also a tough question because there are so many variables at play. in andy who enrolls income-based repayment plan may be able to lower their monthly payment and paid over a longer period of time, but lower it right now. i will say we can look at some trends in major financial purchases to see some of the impacts that we might be having. for example, there was a study a couple of years ago that looked at homebuying rates. and for the first time, young people of student debt were less likely to purchase a home than

those without student debt. we used to see it to the opposite. host: so millennials postponing decisions like buying homes, things like that. guest: that is right. we are seeing a -- that increasing. married, i put off buying a car, i put off starting a business. some of that data is starting to come out. host: let's get back to calls. you have paid off your student loans. caller: hay. thank you both. jen, you are an inspiration. i grew up in a very large family. my mother worked my whole life and it took a toll on us six kids. i was lucky. i didn't make it out of the is great. i got a ged. i would to the university of maryland. and i do not realize until 2002 when i graduated in my 30's that

i suffered from a very serious cognitive disorder. and it was just god's grace that i made it through college. since then, i've been taking care of ailing family members. so i just wanted to give a shout out to all those who did go and get a degree and are -- i call it god's work week as we do not always get to pick and choose what we do -- because we do not always get to pick and choose what we do. i am taking care of my brother and sister who are both chronically. but i wanted to commend you and i encourage more young women to get involved in not only politics, but education. elizabeth warren, i saw her stuff on youtube, she is the most sincere person i have seen. i think litton has borrowed her idea. the wealthy really need to start paying more of this. i like the idea of giving more breaks on the debt owed and getting more balance in our

society. we can see with the trump thing that we are really out of balance. and it is going to continue until we fix it. thank you. host: thank you for your call. guest: ansari to hear about some of the things with your family. i think certainly millennials are often caregivers either to kids or their parents or members of their family. and so as we are thinking about some of the economic challenges that young people are facing them when they leave school, often it is taking care of family as they are trying to figure out all these other financial challenges. host: you talked a little bit about your college experience. but you also went to law school. did you to got student loans for that? guest: i did. i did take out debt for law school. i think that looking at some of the challenges we are facing and that folks face when they leave undergrad debt versus grad school with debt is an important distinction.

when you leave a for your campus with debt versus when you leave a law school with a debt, you have different job options, etc. so when we are talking about the amount of debt, the kinds of debt, the levels, it is important to talk about a two-year degree or four year degree, graduate greek, etc. host: just some views here on the education issue, more specifically on student loans from marketwatch. some of the views of the candidates. , running on the democratic ticket, unofficial, calls for increasing government funding for higher education. and from hillary clinton, she using government intervention to ease the student debt burden. the former maryland governor, debt-free college is what he is calling for. tuition free college is also a position of bernie sanders. student debt is holding people back.

jeb bush saying getting through -- students through school faster and expanding access to alternative higher education programs. marco rubio also talked about his student right to know before you go program. he discussed that recently at a recent appearance. here is a look. [video clip] >> we need to reform traditional higher education, as well. we can no longer afford to graduate people from school with loans and degrees that do not lead to jobs. and that is why i believe before any of our young people take out student loans, that school has to tell you how much you can expect to make when you graduate from that degree from that school so people can decide whether it is worth borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to major in basket weaving. marco rubio. he talked a little bit about his knowing before you go. how realistic is it for students before they get into a four-year university to have a really good idea of where they are going to

end up in terms of a career? guest: you know, it is time. gets tough when a student their financial ladder. it can even be hard to figure out if you are being offered a grant or a load. some of those documents can be really unclear, particularly when we are talking about a lot of students who are first generation. host: and a grant being you don't pay that back. guest: and alone being that you do and are required to. can belling out a fafsa incredible economy get it at as something that needs to be simplified. -- incredibly complicated and something that needs to be simplified. what kind of loans you are being offered, and then providing information about a school a program that is actually going to provide you with information that you need. and we don't have some of that information right now. for example, what kinds of jobs

are people getting after they go to this program or the school. host: let's get back to callers. who hasey, it is ben also paid off his student debt. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i guess my question is that the 65% of workers when they do have a college degree. i was wondering if that was necessarily a good thing or credential inflation? i know in the past, it was common for professors to have a bachelors degree. way tother there is a maybe break from the model we have where an 18-year-old has to commit to a four year degree to learn six or seven skills that he needs to start his job rather than working and getting degrees as he goes on. 65% does include two-year degrees, certificates, as well as four-year degrees.

to your point, i think there is a lot that could be done for employers to better define what kinds of skills they need for sturgeon -- certain jobs. and to work, for example, with a local community college to find a program that will really train someone in a skill that is going to be useful you'll -- locally. we go to leesburg, virginia. stephen who also has student loan. how much do you oh? caller: hi, how are you today? host: doing fine, thank you. caller: so, there is a couple of things here. i listened to the marco rubio soundbite you played regarding schools needing to communicate to students what they can expect to earn. you know, that seems like it is a bit of a personal accountability issue because with the internet, i mean, i can hop on the internet and find out

what i can expect to make in a given profession over a subset of time. and, you know, if we are loaning someone money to do that, so that almost sounds to me like you are putting somebody in a position where you don't even expect them to be able to pay off the loan, you are loaning them money. and so to the fact, in this country, it is so easy to get a student loan that colleges are charging more and more and more for tuition, but then it is not easy to get a job after school so it is harder to pay off that loan. host: a couple of points there. yeah, i think we were looking at providing someone with the kind of information that they need to make a decision, we don't have a very clear, transparent system. you can go online and google, what our jobs in my field? there are a variety of different ways you might be able to do

that and it might be able to figure out what is -- but what is even more difficult to figure out is which programs or which schools near me are going to give me the degree that i need to be able to get a job in that field. so that kind of clear pathway can be difficult to really ascertain for students and families. of thend to this point available the of student loans driving up the cost of college, is there a correlation there? that: what we have seen is the higher education budgets are going down and that is driving what -- most of what is going on here. and we have student enrollments going up, so more folks are going to school. so you really need to be investing to make sure you have your student investment on the state level increasing. host: a couple of quick reactions on twitter. we are at or send us a tweet @cspan #comments. if you want to -- we are at @cspanwj him want to set this

up. are so many people to, whose policies are destroying the future. any question, why are millennials less socially active in their own interest to why are they not -- social interest? weest: when we work with -- have offices across the country. when we work with folks to really work with students to figure out what is going on in this state, what is going on with their student debt, young people are vocal on this issue. they really are because it is something that is filling effect fit to do. is really impacting their day-to-day lives. host: -- -- guest: it is an issue that some

.thele will prioritize -- there was a gallup poll recently that was at the top financial concerns, and paying for their kids' college was important. host: joseph, good morning. caller: yes, how are you doing, sir? thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say -- i just wanted to talk about what the schools are doing. i'm a veteran. i went to school. i'm a first-generation graduate of my family. have $60,000 in student loan debt. i just had my first little baby. and it is hard. over $500 a month payment that we have to pay. with work and stuff, the schools do not allow you to really know what you're going to get into after your degree.

it is sort of a presumption will do and want to start, they don't allow you to transfer you try to transfer and they will make you pre-much -- . and theyo transfer will pretty much not to let you. work is so hard right now. how do we do this? do you have any suggestions or us? guest: yeah, i mean, we particularly hear a lot from you veterans about some of the challenges they are facing. and from parents. about 25% of all students -- if you already left school and you are facing higher monthly payments, wanting to check out is the kind of repayment options that might be available. being able to pay off of your income, and that way you might be able to see some relief there. the website and click on the education tab, we

have some options. host: we were talking earlier about the average debt per class. a chart on that called the head of the class and where the average debt per borrower is going back to the class of 1993, about $10,000 for the -- someone in the class of 1993 up to today's current student graduating this year of $35,000. one more call here. we go to jason. jason does not have any student loans. your thoughts for jen mishory? caller: good morning. my thoughts are that it would be -- what our parents doing if they are not looking out for the cost of educating their children? tothink that more carrots -- keep kids from needing to take out loans, parents --

[indiscernible] as they get a social security number, get up with these good mutual fund companies and start a uniform yet to minors act, wheref a contribution $50, hundred dollars a month, just get something started and started very early so that you are looking out for your own kids. and that is one of the best gifts you can give them. host: appreciate your comments. any final thoughts? guest: yeah, i think as we look at what has happened over the last couple of decades, there are a lot of families that lost greatof -- during the recession. so it has been increasingly difficult or families on the hold provide education for their kids -- whole to provide education for their kids. so to the point, this is a family issue. host: jen mishory is the

executive director of young invincibles. that is younginvincibles.org. appreciate you being with us. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: as we look at our spotlight and magazine series here on c-span's washington journal, we will talk to mark perry on pentagon insight over the best way to combat chinese aggression. >> this saturday night, and antiwar activist phyllis kind of u.s. foreign policies since 9/11. the recent negotiations with iran. and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? what do they believe? why are they so violent?

but i think that is -- think what is more important in some ways is, what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can we really go to war against terrorism? is we doing the war wrong or it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? i think those of the questions that of the most important. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." with the senate in its august break, we will feature booktv programming weeknights prime time studying at a clock p.m. eastern. and for the weekend, here are a few special programs. saturday, august 22, we are live from jackson, mississippi for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 a.m.

eastern. on saturday, september 5, we are live from our nation's capital for the 15th annual book festival. with former second lady and senior fellow at the american enterprise institute lane cheney . booktv on c-span2, television with serious readers. -- for serious readers. "washington journal" continues. host: this week, focusing on a "politico" magazine article by could jupiter mark perry -- by contributing author mark perry. mark perry is with us here. what prompted you to write the article? guest: this is kind of a below terms,ar, in washington real fight between the armed

services. i began my career as a journalist looking at that kind of fight. budgets andok -- strategies. and the airsea battle doctrine, the new doctrine that government how the u.s. will fight in the future, was a real fight and an interesting once -- one. host: what does that govern? guest: it is a concept developed by the air force and the navy to respond to threats from weapons that are deployed by countries like china and iran. -- that will

undoubtedly govern military strategy in the future. article on china begins back in the 1990's and the desert storm. at first it is hard to see operation desert storm as anything less than an unparalleled american military victory. you begin there and take is where in the article? guest: i begin there because the navy and air force, in the first operation desert storm, their access to the persian gulf into the air over iraq was absolutely uncontested. there was no antiaircraft

capabilities on the part of iraq. makers -- of defense sat back and watched and thought about this victory and said, what if there had been anti-access and anti-weapons? what if we had a hard time going to the persian gulf? would've we had a hard time in the air over iraq? -- what if we had a hard time in the air over iraq? and that is where airsea battle began. that is where the doctrine really took off. the air force and the navy looking at the kinds of weapons they would need if they were to face an enemy that is much more robust than saddam hussein's almost nonexistent air force and navy. host: why does china rise up to the top of that list? guest: because of china was looking at the same more and was ray frightened of american

dominance. and their military thinkers at their chief military institute began developing anti-access weapons. those weapons that would deny u.s. access to waters off of china and deny the u.s. air force access to the air over china. host: who write about this airsea battle plan that came out of these considerations you -- you're right about this airsea battle plan that came out of these considerations and there is a loser in this. tell us about that. guest: the air force and the navy cooperated early on to develop the systems that would be needed for any future conflict. and they set up an office to mr. they had 14 officers -- they set up an office to do this. officers.4 this was viewed as an air force-navy show. doctrinetacked to the and who sought basically as a budget grab on the part of the navy and air force.

and over the course of, what is it now, 20 years, the army fought the airsea battle doctrine, accusing the air force and navy of doing a budget grab. and only very recently decided to embrace the doctrine because they didn't have any choice. it has become american policy. ray andu're right about his reaction to this. you write that the resentment gave rise to his view that his service was actually fighting a three front war: one in afghanistan against the telegram, another in iraq, and a third in washington against the air force and navy. quote, "there is always tension between the service heads, but this was on an entirely different level." well, it is actually an understatement. the air really resented

force and navy. the earliest papers were classified. the army was not brought in. this is still viewed in the army today as a plot against them, a ,lot to get into the numbers and a plot against the way the u.s. has traditionally conducted is wartime strategy. host: we want to inform our viewers that we will be covering one of the final news conferences of the army chief of staff. he will be talking about the future of the u.s. army today. look for it live on c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we welcome your calls and conversations with mark perry. and some of the political and military fighting at the pentagon. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents. for let's hear from mitchell, indiana.

hi.er: i just have a couple of comments. i keep hearing things are paid for, commercials on tv, by the us army or the u.s. navy. the u.s. citizens pay for that, sir. and, dies, if we quit to borrowing money from china, they would respect us more -- guys, if we would quit to borrowing money from china, they would respect us more. take you, sir. guest: my only comment is that you are absolutely right. taxpayer money pays for everything in the pentagon. all weapons systems, coast guard, army, air force. you are right. i will not comment on the death to china, except to say our military is really the preeminent military power in the world.

it would be difficult, ugly, and bloody, but it is -- there is no question in my mind that our air force and navy are preeminent. every show this in a number of instances over the last 20 years . it is true that we have had problems in iraq and afghanistan, but those were primarily air force wars. ay kind of stand up with maritime or airpower, i don't endures in the question of who would win. host: is the ultimate result of this airsea battle plan the u.s. approach to it would be largely sea campaign if he were to be a conflict with china? and what about china's the? -- view? their constructions of these artificial i was give us an idea of what their battle plans might be. guest: they have placed a lot more of their budget to a

resources for the years to come into a large array of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, surveillance and intelligence, cyber warfare capabilities. everything that is exactly in the airsea battle plan. host: so let's focus on ground troops in china, too? guest: absolutely. and more money given to what they view as the future of battles, which is why we have airsea battle. host: caller previously mentioned the budget. a look at mark perry's article accompanied i a chart. -- by a chart. the surge in the budget during the wars in afghanistan and iraq. although a drop off in the other forces, the navy and the army tailing off, a precipitous drop-off in the army budget. is that largely because of a reduction in troops? guest: that is right. manpower in from

iraq and afghanistan deployments , and now it is slowly being cut back. i think we will see about 2017, and army that has probably 450,000 soldiers at all. host: let's go to the democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a comment regarding chinese relations with america. we have pretty much ignored the threat that the debt to china is really -- the united states. we are addicted to their products and while they are making money off of us, they are

also an ideological enemy. and they have the military capability. it is not to destroy the united states with ballistic ballistic icbms, they have the capability to severely cripple us so that if they did have an , say north korea, or even worse, russia, we could war of a lose a defensive posture. anyway, that is all i had to say. thank you. say what i think as an important point. one of the really controversial aspects of airsea battle is that it seems to single out china as a future enemy. it made members of congress who studied the doctrine very uncomfortable. a number of the members of the the militaryght

was purposely trying to pick a fight with china. initiale air force's response was no know, that isn't that even though they initially studied chinese anti-access weapons. maybe they said, well we we have to plan for every contingency as china is not. constante, we have talks with the chinese military. we understand the very well. there is always conferring on issues. me that a major war with china is really very unlikely. the reasons of the military developed airsea battle is that they have to plan for every contingency, including a rare contingency. certainly the chinese are the one nation in the world that

could probably challenge of us militarily across every war domain. guest: mark perry -- "ost: mark perry's "politico article is about chinese military plan. we welcome your calls. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. four202) 748-8002 independents. matt is in massachusetts. thatr: i wanted to mention i wonder that we have if it renders some of the pentagon in fighting mood -- moot. they have project and everything goes through satellites so maybe

it is a little bit of a turf war in a cyber world. well certainly the color is right. focus, and one of the major focuses of airsea battle has been on cyber warfare. we have seen recent comments of the secretary of state on just how much of a threat this is. not just the pentagon, but by the entire u.s. government. optimally, and this is a little speculation but i have heard it from the military. one of the first things you might do in any future war is just to turn off your weapons. this is a highly electronic now.al, computerized army and battle space. that,uring out how to do

how to interject yourself in an enemy's network and just turn off their weapons is an interesting process -- prospect. that is what a major component of airsea battle is. it is not simple. it takes lots of work and lots of money. it is being developed all the time and being worked on all the time by the u.s. military. certainly i think we can assume the chinese and other countries are trying to do the same. headline in the new york times, u.s. decides to retaliate against chinese hacking. what is the current either pentagon or broadly, the administration pause approach -- the ministration's approach? host: they are working on this 20 hours day, all the time. the programs they have developed are highly classified.

what's interesting about the current controversy is no one in the american government seems to be willing to admit, and no one has asked very bluntly, don't we do it to them? i'm quite sure we do. host: a gentleman in west plains missouri, welcome joe. the republican mind. good morning. mr. perry i have two points. first of all, i think china eight -- beat- the piss out of us in a war because they have more men and a fervor for fighting. at second, over the last year and a half i have seen china on the television saying he wants to cut the military back so far so we can't stop -- start anymore silly wars. please, double my points. -- comment on both of my

points. host: i will. i don't think that they would be this. despite the fact that they are -- you are right, they certainly have more personnel. but the whole point of the airsea battle is that we would use highly technical weapon systems to counter their personnel, and we would never i think it would be on for us to deploy the u.s. in a land war in asia. there is not much appetite here in the congress or the obama administration. it issecond point, understood the station now. there are automatic cuts to the defense budget, and there are redundancies among the services that are huge waste of budget money that airsea battle is

designed to solve. i don't think that the cuts are fatal to america. our readiness, if they were seek would be at an end and the budget for the military would increase. we might see that at some point, but right now that is not what we are operating on. brent, welcome. caller: hi. first time caller to c-span. one of the things we keep hearing about is the reduction of force in the army, but we don't hear much about the increase in contractor services. frankly, whether that is beneficial to the military. i would like to hear the guest comment about that. host: contractor services is new to me in my lifetime. war weo the second iraq

never hired out our fighting or security capabilities. i generally think it is a bad idea. america's wars ought to be fought by american men and women in uniform. i think there is a strong sense, especially in the army, that contracting out conflict is not the way to go. they look at themselves as the premier american military force, cut backwould like to military contracting or security .ontractors host: we welcome your comments on the budget on infighting over our china prodigy. -- china strategy. this is from jd reading, who says, what does the head on plan to do to counter the chinese island strategy that we talked

about earlier? i think that the obama administration is being very chinesein handling this -- and i think it is a challenge. very carefully and diplomatically. no appetite in the u.s. government or in the military for a conversation -- confrontation on the high seas with china despite the fact that we would clearly when one, -- win one and we would rather this challenge be met diplomatic way. i think the obama administration has made it to clear that there is a price to pay, china has a price to pay for the strategy. the price is that they lose the confidence of their asian neighbors, and the united states has gained real support and in southeast asia among very unlikely allies, including be a non-. they view the chinese very skeptically -- including

vietnam. i think we're going to see more of that as a response to what many view as a really reckless policy. our pentagon officials actively seeking alliances or improved relationships with the like of vietnam and other southeast asian nations? certainly we have increased our military cooperation and began talks with many of these -- in the case of vietnam, would be considered former enemies. that will increase. we have also strengthened our relationship with our traditional southeast asian allies, including australia. and most recently -- maneuvering with them, and conducting wargames with them which i think is something that worries the chinese. host: you mentioned the japanese.

what is the motivation for them to change their defense posture where the -- with regard to china? guest: i think there is general worry in japan about chinese expansionism. there is growth in the chinese military budget. they are spending on military does not read anything like our spending on our military. we are still the preeminent power. but japan i think realizes it is going i not just on the united states but its own military power in any future conflict. so there is a strong movement in japan for that. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independence. make a hi i just want to quick comment. japan holds more debt than china does, and also what australia,

taiwan, and japan, all the money that we put into japan, billions and billions of dollars, could they not be involved in the same campaign to help our military -- they would be still our allies as far as i know. lot asally oh america a far as helping guard their coastline. would it make them allies with us in the sea campaign? host: you're exactly right. they would be allies with us in this campaign. but i would add this cautionary note. well australia has a very capable military, as it has proven over the years, and has a very capable navy, nothing really compares with the kinds

of assets we can bring. aircraft, almost 11 aircraft carrier battle groups. we can put three in the waters off of taiwan within three months. china is just now really developing its airsea capability. it has one aircraft carrier. any helpould welcome we have ines that the pacific, any help that they would be able to give us, we are still really the preeminent naval and air power in the pacific. line inxt up, democrats chesterfield, virginia. chris, hi. hi chris, you are on the air. we will go to charlie and mineola, new york, on the independent line. thank you for letting me talk. i think we need to challenge the idea that we need to go to work with china. with china.

we seem to have a distorted idea in the military of social darwinian ways of thinking. we have to take over the world. him is notinian is based on science, or darwin, or anything else. i think itis not -- is a distorted idea and there are options in the world. we don't need to go to war. host: you are not -- guest: you are not the first one to say this. not to meeting what you're saying at all. members of congress have said this as well. why are we out here with this new doctrine that seems to pick a fight with china. but i don't want to leave you with the impression that the air navy, army, and marine corps wants to have a fight with china. we do not. there is no appetite for a war with china. and when i bring this up with air force and navy officers they say, listen. our job is to prepare for every

contingency. every possible challenge. that is why we have developed airsea battle. you should not look at it as the military wanting a conflict. there is no appetite for military -- in the military for a conflict, particularly in the wake of the real difficulty we have had in our continuing to have in iraq and afghanistan. host: it's not military news making- headlines in china. its economic news. it china devalues as currency, the yuan's cut by 2.9%. from debbieeet dingell, saying mr. trump and i don't agree on many issues but he is right, china's currency manipulation hurt u.s. jobs. and lawrence on our republican

line. go ahead. thank you so much for c-span's continuing informative programs. i wanted to ask your guests u.s. the so-called relationship with asia. here's the question. how does airsea battle fit into that, and what is the actual capability change or projected capability changes within the u.s.. to asia? pivot to asia? guest: it's a really great question. there are some simple answers. pivot to asia, it's public policy now, is to increase trade, maritime trade, air trade with the nations of and to give our economic

relationships with these countries. but to protect that trade we are going to need to deploy military assets to the seas and the air off of china and their china and southeast asia. we believe in freedom of access to the seas, and we have deployed our navy to make sure that in a pivot to china, we will protect the assets that we are going to be building. i have found inside the u.s. government real support for the pivot to asia. certainly there is a strong support in the navy and air force, you might imagine this is in their interest. we are going to see more and more of this moving away from the middle east and moving towards where the future of .rade is that is the intention of the asia and the military

component is to ensure that the access we have to our trade and economic partners in asia is insured and protected. perry's article in magazine. here's a reaction from charlie on twitter who tweets that very large, very fosse i'll fuel dependent -- fossil fuel dependent military with increasing fuel costs. do the math and see the future. in china u.s. war would be a multinational conflict. who are our allies and you are there is? how would the lines be drawn? this is a fairly speculative but interesting question. has anted states understanding of how wars are fought, and one of the principles that we always get into when fighting a war is that we never go it alone. we always have coalition partners, people who are willing to bear the risk and the challenges.

that is certainly true in asia. our best allies there are south japan,the philippines, new zealand. potentially vietnam. china on the other hand, has a huge population base and growing economic assets. they don't have many friends and allies. there is a lot of mistrust in asia for potential expansion of chinese foreign-policy into various air is bang of it -- areas of -- saying -- influence. i had a question for mr. parry, and a statement. is, there are a lot p, adverse opinions about tp but from what i am hearing about -- from you, the major

is not exactly trade and economics as much as it is another way of coming in ,hina in a nonmilitary position the emphasis the president is putting on it is just a cuts we are so reluctant to do battle with china this is another way of doing it. i am reallyment is, so against chuck schumer becoming the minority leader and his stance on the iran treaty. i think it prevents him from becoming the democratic minority leader. thank you. guest: thank you for the question. i won't comment on mr. schumer. i have my own opinions, but let's focus for a minute on china. i am not a trade or economics expert, and i am not on this

program claiming that i am. that, broadly speaking, the obama administration has shown in the last years a willingness to engage with china on all levels. at the same time making it clear hashem that good behavior its rewards and bad behavior will result in the development of u.s. weapons. it is very clear to me, and i think you made it clear in your so,ent, and quite rightly that trade with china and trade with asia has been increasingly a vital component of american foreign-policy and the development of airsea battle is a reflection on that. morganton, north carolina, mike on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to comment on the fact that due to the large corporations in both western europe, canada, and north

america pushing so hard for , tontrolled free-trade dodge all regulatory measures, they have created a trade world where they can carry resources using cheap labor that they don't have to pay. basically all these agreements have led to us holding up and , and we haveina broken the industrial might of this country down tremendously. class has no middle-class jobs anymore. all the industry at all the ing that would support this country and another conference like world war ii is gone. we don't have the manufacturing capability to support our own nation. we willl right mike,

you go there. are there any considerations for this airsea battle about the economic considerations during any sort of conflict? airsea battle plan is focused almost exclusively on the development of military assets. i would respond to the caller by saying that there is strong washington in general, in policymaking circles, the trade integration and increased trade is probably the best dampener of any tendencies towards conflict. the longer global trade is integrated, the more individual china andations like the united states have to lose by going to war. that general view, that the united states promotes trade and promotes a free and open trade, transparence trade, is a -- transparent trade, is a policy

that this country has been wedded to purdue hundred years. it is a good policy and it is not going to be overthrown now. thel lede in this new york times article is, who threatens america most? say martin dempsey, the departing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said today's global security environment is the most unpredictable i seen in 40 years of service or if saying a formidable challenge for the administration is deciding what his priorities should be. where does china rank in terms of its military priorities? the head of the joint chiefs of staff said two or three weeks ago that he threat tothe greatest our national security to be russia. this raise some eyebrows among those who thinks isis is the

greatest threat. you notice china was not mentioned. theif i may comment on deputy quote, i'm pretty stability of future events is a really big problem for the united states. i think i would rather have that with what we lived through in the cold war, which is the looming catastrophe of intercontinental atomic conflict that could have wiped out humanity. we are a long ways from that, and there are plenty of people in the pentagon who will take on for disability any day rather than the other option, which is world war iii. theink since i stayed nine, fall of the berlin wall, we have made some real progress. lily,t want to paint the that we have made real progress in understanding trade. yes we have some problems, but nothing like we had when we had a hair trigger nuclear option

available to us during the cold war. that is the one positive. we might have an unpredictable world environment but it is not nearly as dangerous as it once was. host: next caller is on, in taylor michigan. -- don. caller: thank you. back in the 80's i read a comment i a chinese official denied it to hire one bullets to take over the united states because they said that politicians here were so corrupt they would sell their mothers. when clinton signed the nafta agreement i always thought he was going for the mexicans there. but it was going to china. all the corporations want but because they are making all this profit. money is paid and gotten rich in the military.

peril over in this corrections. it is all corruption with our own government. democrats and republicans. there are some counter voices to my optimism. one of the things that china has had that has been in the news a lot is there government corruption. they are really struggling to do something about it. there have been a number of callers who have talked about the united states helping china economically. one of the great miracles of the 20th century is the lifting of 400 million chinese out of epic poverty. we did not have anything to do with it. they did. this is a good thing. it is not a destabilizing factor. they don't want to take over the united states whether they have to fire one bullet or one

billion bullets. i think that what china wants -- i'm not a china expert but from what i understand i think what china really want is to grow their economy, to integrate themselves into the world community, to help their own people. do they want to resources in southeast asia? yes. but it shouldn't be the cause of world war iii and i don't think it will be. so i think some of the real positive that come out of the debit- recent events -- to asia and airsea battle. host: here's a headline, army plans to cut 40,000 troops. guest: it's hard to imagine a conflict in which we would deploy soldiers to the mainland of asia. the economy is getting lighter. more mobile. that means that there is going to be a focus on new kind of weapon systems, and the

importance of storming a beach somewhere or parachuting in to a normandy like situation is really not one of the options that we are likely to see. int: mark perry's article " magazine is the pentagon's fight over china. they do for being with us. -- thank you for being us -- with us. that doesn't for washington journal. we'll see you tomorrow morning. have a great day.

policy center is hosting a discussion this morning on immigration and the 2016 presidential campaign. it is moderated by francine kiefer of the christian science monitor. we will have live coverage and about half and hour at 10:30 eastern. we will be live again at 1:00 eastern as the senior bishop of the african methodist episcopal church talks about race in america. the reverend john richard bryant is a speaking at the national press club. and this afternoon, a look at heroine addiction in the u.s.. we are going to show you a house subcommittee judiciary hearing on how heroin abuse is trending. acting deputy administrator will testify. that hearing begins at 4:00 eastern. republican presidential candidate jeb