really important because while we are repealing obamacare entirely, we want to make sure that one of these concerns that i hear -- we want to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions, you will not be bummed off your coverage or face huge increases because of a pre-existing condition or because you get sick. that is something we do under this plan to make sure you as americans is secure. "the washington examiner" has been following the story. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. what have you been learning from other republicans as this race unfolds? guest: i think walker was really try to distinguish himself by releasing this plan. it was a little bit surprising that you saw this detailed of a plan as early on in the primary

race. often, candidates back away from releasing a lot of details that could be criticized by their opponents. , or is actually the first second, really detailed plan. the first was from bobby jindal last spring. eels of walker, we from marcooposal rubio. are walker and rubio proposing are similar in some ways and center around this idea of giving americans refundable tax credit to buy health insurance. this is different from the affordable care act in one significant way. the one proposed by walker will be based on a person's age rather than income, i would probably affect the average federal subsidy, being much

smaller for folks. this would change the landscape of who benefits most from that. rubio is also suggesting a refundable tax credit. is that what i both of them would allow hybrid pulls for people with pre-existing conditions and expand the use of health savings accounts. waysl's plan in a lot of could be said to be more conservative because it wouldn't provide refundable tax credits across-the-board, instead it would provide a standard deduction people could use to buy insurance. benefithose would only people who are already paying taxes. his plan would do less for the lower income americans. host: i wanted to follow up and ask about the republican primary. there is a piece by karl rove in "the wall street journal" for

about to tell hopefuls health care alternatives. guest: i think it is something you have seenes -- candidates for the most part stay away from real detailed replacements and sticking to a standard gop message of repeal obamacare, and we will figure out other details later. in the last presidential election did propose a plan, but got criticized for staying vague on the details. i think republicans, at least walker and rubio, and maybe others eventually, may have a different calculus this time around. amongll remains a popular americans. the polls are split on whether

they like the health care law. candidatesy of these see this opportunity as presenting an alternative to the singers themselves from the others on the field, and also look like the positive candidate, if you will, on -- presenting that if they win the white house, they will still have congress, and will have a plan to replace this law that republicans have hammered for such a long time. is health cunningham care reporter for "washington examiner." that again before the 2060 elections or is all the grays in terms16 of health care alternatives? guest: the house already held its repeal vote earlier this

year. typically it has had to build a new one with every new congress. forward andid bring obamacare bu repeal provision which failed before they left for august recess. i think probably a lot of the focus will turn to the primary. -- hetually saw walker criticized congress saying they should have done more to repeal the bill. of course, the president would not have signed it. the candidates are trying to do things themselves from each other with what they would replace it with. host: thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: another headline from "the

the fighterss" -- continued to spread out of control in all corners of that state, also california. from our twitter page, given the , given the choices we will vote for the first woman president, and joe knows that, hillary is qualified and will win. we will go to james in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for allowing my call to get a. .- get in that last caller from delaware couldn't be more wrong about joe biden. joe biden was one of the first ones to come out and talk about intoshould be partitioned three groups. he is the one who nudged obama

with gay marriage. i think there could be many possibilities why he went to see elizabeth moran, maybe it was to her into the race, but it was to ask her to be vice president. , think the republican party with donald trump in the front, has proven itself to be not only racist, but for big business. remember what donald trump said -- mexicans love me, a lot of that work for me. i think the republican party is probably going to lose a lot of seats coming up. thank you. oft: thanks to you and all your calls and comments. the conversation continues online at facebook.com/cspan. we will take a short break. coming up in a few minutes, we

will turn our attention to jobs and the economy, and where the new jobs are coming from the economic recovery, especially with a topsy-turvy wall street in the past few days. later on in the program, we will get an opinion on the iran nuclear deal from the israel project. first, our guest on the program.rs" here is a portion from "newsmakers," which airs at 10:00 eastern. [video clip] it is like history in the making. we have teachers on the edge of their seats wondering what will happen to "no child left thested," originally called elementary and secondary education act.

we loved one it had a boring name when johnson signed it as part of the civil rights movement -- let's give states some extra money for reading tutors, bribery funding, and technology. then, 2000 to happen, and in -- 2002partisan fanfare happened, and in great bipartisan fanfare, they signed syncing, we will change it before we get to 2014, , whereust passed us by 100% of kids are supposed to be above average. we are in a panic because technically, without waivers

that have been given so we are failed schools, we are in this horrible limbo because of this thing congress did 12 years ago, 13 years ago. >> what stands in these versions? what has changed from the original? about what we needed from the house bill or the senate bill, -- >> what we needed from the house bill or the senate bill, he said, you have to do something against this one size all. we will label our children by standardized test, and that is all that matters. we have to replace that with something that does matter. we really do want information. we want better information. is i guess.arcia

you can join us every sunday at 10:00 for "newsmakers." "newsmakers" is also heard on c-span radio. is withcarnevale georgetown university and the center on education and the workforce. have seen a real kic up take in the recovery. the recovery has been very slow. it has been coming on at about been of previous recoveries. nonetheless, it is performing well. we have about 2.9 million good jobs, another 1.8 million jobs in the middle, and then we've

jobs that1.9 million pay less than $32,000 per year, not so good jobs. host: wiki. that this is a jobless recovery, jobs are not coming back as they have in past recoveries, and that we saw what happened on wall street last week -- whether that has any impact on jobs, yet to be seen. guest: we have recovered at half have in that we previous recessions during we have finally come to the point where we have all the jobs above $53,000, the have come back pretty much to where they were in 2006-2007. not terrific. we lost all the jobs that would have been there. the middle jobs are still lagging behind. that is a concern. we are losing construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, transportation, utilities jobs

faster than we are creating new middle jobs which are in health care, computers, office functions, and so on. defined that how you does a good job? guest: a good job is a job in the top third of the jobs, which says it pays at least $53,000 per year. 6% of those jobs are filled time. about 70% of those jobs have some health care provider. about 60% of those jobs have some kind of employee retirement plan. host: you have worked in a couple of capacities and previous demonstrations. ,resent reagan, clinton, bush you served on capitol hill. what can congress due to create jobs, if anything? guest: i think we missed an opportunity to begin to repair

america's infrastructure. truthfully, one of the reasons the recovery has been so slow is be did not stimulate the economy enough. that is because of very profound disagreements between the political parties in terms of how big the stimulus should be. we could have gone out and build bridges, highways, and better railroad tracks in america. that would have been a one-time expense and would have increased job creation dramatically. it would have left us with sturdy infrastructure that was brough -- that would last as us 20-40 years. host: what would it take to create a better recovery? guest: essentially, the economy is on its own. probably by 2017, i think he will be fully recovered,

notwithstanding the risk of god knows how many jokes and shots shots the economy can experience. if things go well, we are on track to create 30 billion job openings. 20 million will actually be new jobs. the directorst is of the georgetown university center on education and the workforce. be are dividing our phone lines a little differently for the segment. if you are currently employed, (202) 748-8000. if you are out of work, the number to call is (202) 748-8001 . if you are a recent college as the report indicates, you are first in line for those jobs -- (202) 745-8002 . what are the professions that you would recommend people study or get into the jobs going --

with jobs growing? isst: what is different now it is what you study that determines what you make in the end. it is your college major. people who get one-year certificates and something like heating, ventilation make more than the average college graduate. now is your field of study. .hat matters host: the other part of the thete in terms of what

individual earns -- guest: more an ideological question that an economic one feared in the end, it affects relatively few people. end, it does reduce hiring in the low-wage labor market. of whaty is a question we decide as a people is minimum , more i think a social question than an economic one. the economic impact is relatively small. there are people on both sides of the debate. host: the market down 530 points on friday and a lot of indication, not as much a sluggish american economy, what is happening there.

what impact does that have on american jobs if anything? guest: it is minimal. the stock market is like a mood ring, telling you how people are feeling when they get up in the morning. the fact the federal reserve may pull in the money supply the fact that they are concerned about china and other nations overseas whose economies are slowing down, has put us into a bit of a tailspin. my own bias is that the fundamentals in the american economy have now achieved momentum such that the next four or five years, the stock markets should stabilize. i think itit as -- is more of a correction. i'm not sure it is a full correction. you could get into a debate about whether it is half the correction i could occur or whether this is it. myra, are you full-time employed? caller: yes.

employed, in the health field for 30 plus years. it has been recession proof. good field to get into the i wish more people would look at it and not check out that route. it has been a stabilizing economy. thank you. health care is now 20% or a little more of our overall economic output, almost $.20 out of every dollar every american spends. it is obviously growing as the country gets older. grownnd health care have throughout the recession and the recovery. it is a bright spot in the economy. the caller is dead on.

health care is a very good that. host: another tweet from karen -- guest: we looked at the new jobs that have come online since 2010 the recovery began on the jobs started growing again. among 6.6n people, million new jobs created. 2.9 million people got those good jobs. under 2 million got the jobs at the bottom. the good jobs are about 44% of the jobs we have created. jobs we are talking about and the economy. anthony carnevale is from george washington university. scott, how long have you retired? caller: a little over four

years. i think the thing that really interests me is the fact the republicans have totally ignored and have gone against the president from day one, as mitch , thenell originally said goal was to make sure barack obama was a one-time president. that is what they have done. they were always talking about hypocrisy, talking about being .oyal citizens or patriots these people have gone out of their way to stifle the growth of the economy by going against everything the president has tried to do to help out the economy. the lowest rate in our economy that has probably ever existed in the history of the country. they have totally abandoned even trying to help out the economy just so they could win the white house. me.eally amazes

this man gets no credit for what he has done. indicated itn here would have been better if they had put more money into the recovery. of course, that would never under this republican party that we see today. it is we about guarantee you, the way they govern will be entirely different than what they're doing right now. thank you for your time. host: thank you, scott. guest: one thing i think is reasonably clear is whoever wins the white house this time, and well,nate, for grabs as will be riding into a fairly bright sunrise in terms of the economy. all things equal, whoever wins the political fight in america

is going to walk into an economy that makes them look good. obama pull this out of the addition to the best he could to do that. -- whether he will get credit for that or whether he can pass that on to a democrat who wins the white house -- if the republicans win, they will be riding a good economy as well. something is to be had in winning the next election. what you may win is a prosperous economy. host: another viewer saying is out -- outsourcing hurting or helping the american worker? from: people who benefit outsourcing, technology and globalization, never the same people who lose out the same forces. the people who lose out to

outsourcing and technology change our males. winners. our workers, especially females who live on either coast, this a gain where there are winners and losers. the issue is how do we treat the losers? we do not treat them very well. host: and -- guest: there is no official definition of a good job. we just set if your job is in the top third, meaning you make more than $53,000 per year, there is an 86% chance among us jobs that you're working full-time, which most people want to do. a 68% chance you got health care from your employer. you have got some

kind of pension program, not to say your employer contribute a lot to it, but you have it. you think of two people in a two earner family, that is 106 in cash. the benefits are worth the 30%. you're talking about what is wage, andiving increasingly, all of our families are becoming. host: writing about this new report with the headline -- the job growth has been led by high wage occupations. the full story is online. joining us from virginia, how long have you been out of work? caller: about five years. i was a maintenance personnel. one of the things i would like to talk about, infrastructure. i think the railroads are missing this as far as passenger trains.

use two orcould three railroad systems across the country. that would eliminate a lot of .he drive a lot of baby boomers are tired of flying. that would create a lot of jobs. minimum-wage, leave it alone until you turn 21. get up to 12 or something, that people could live on. thank you for c-span and i hope elizabeth warren jumps in to run for president. in the final analysis, i agree. my bias is we missed an opportunity. interest rates are very low. if we are going to invest in rebuilding american infrastructure, which we need to this is the moment.

rates will probably go up. we are all concerned the federal reserve board will raise interest rates. when they do come it will cost a lot more to raise the bridges that are falling down. michael says the following -- guest: one of the realities we the going forward is, in old days, we were the biggest when we competed with the japanese and the germans. we were two to three times their size. china, those other developing nations, were not in the game. have theward, they bodies, the numbers of people who make them a very big economy. our only advantage is we can build a skilled workforce. beach.rom sandy

-- howdy respond to that sentiment? guest: i think the numbers do not support that. the economy went into a tailspin in the bush administration. i do not have a bipartisan story about that. it is something that happened out of wall street, not washington. we basically overheated the 1990's and it crashed. that left both president bush in the last year or so of his administration and then president obama with a real inanup problem, and economy a tailspin where we really were risking economic collapse. we are just now coming out of it. i suspect there are two more

years with that. willnk the next president explain a good economy and to some extent, bush, as he was going out the door, get credit for that. joan, wisconsin, how long have you been retired? caller: about 20 years. host: we are getting a little bit of feedback, turned on the time and we will get your question much better. caller: i just put it on mute. ok. go ahead. host: you go ahead. we can hear from you. what is your question or comment? caller: i have a comment about everything. i guess education since i am a .etired teacher i think what our government has done is a disaster for our state. he is supposed to be for

education reform. he is cutting everything dealing with education in our state. as you can tell, he is not one of my favorites being a retired teacher. that, they have a shortage of teachers already, and it is not a surprise to me what he has done to our state. opinion on education. i have opinions another thinks, but i am for bernie sanders at this point. i think he is for real people there we need someone for real people instead of for the billionaires. host: thank you. guest: one of the things we are seeing is we have a bad economy for some many years. first, we lost jobs in construction and manufacturing, mostly in mail domains where males are highly concentrated.

is inas been noticeable the recovery, you had a collapse of public budgets because the revenues are down. the economy is in trouble and that hurt females the most, especially teachers. we are having a predictable swing in which we start hiring teachers and now we are facing shortages. that will have been a number of other areas as well, if we're lucky and the economy keeps growing. is a hard copy of your report. cw.georgetown.edu. host: george's next. to cover thet minimum wage. it seems that the jobs used to they were more schoolkids,

after school and things like that. somehow, they have evolved into kind of a career thing. also, it seems that, over the years, from personal. enough fore to learn skilled blue-collar worker jobs, equipment operators. we tended to make good money and have good benefits. i am a follower of my grow. he seems to have his finger on when it comes to that. a lot of good jobs after 30 just have to be willing to learn. they can never take away from you what you have learned fear the more you know, the more money you can make. thank you very much, c-span. thank you. guest: one of the things that is striking about the current economy is how different it is from the old industrial economy.

in the 1970's, 75% of working americans had high school or less and were doing fine. the vast majority were in the middle-class. have got a situation where, pretty much, 60% of the education,quire some and industry-based certification. in the old days, people learned the job on the dot -- on the job. now you have got to have education or training after heist to get on the job so you can be able to learn there. next's liz from marlton, new jersey. good morning. i am calling it. i'm a recent retiree as of july 1. a career in teaching. i think the definition for good

jobs is probably accurate that your guest is using. the main thing in determining a difference, since the regular administration, to try to and make sures the rate of all the things employees need, health benefits, our shoulder on the back of the employee more than the employer. we need to, if we will have a chance of creating good jobs, of sustaining a middle-class, you have got to get more of the workforce unionized. we cannot do it, it is a global economy, it is this and that and something else. unionhout the time that

membership went down, -- guest: one of the interesting changes i have seen in my time following the economy is that it used to be the unions bargained for people and that is how they got wages and health care benefits. collapsed as have a source of clinical power, the government has become a union of last resort for most americans. obama care. we will settle these issues in government and workplaces between unions and employers puts enormous pressure to 'sspond to a whole nation workspace problem. going forward, more and more, the government will have to be the place for this kind of work has to get done. host: a lot of questions and interesting comments. you can share your thoughts on twitter. opinion, the trade

promotion authority, and the near term trade agreement? i am schizophrenic on this issue. in the end, trade benefits the american economy but does not fit all americans. that has been reasonably clear since the late 1960's. we have not done much to take care of people hurt by the trade because they are almost never the same people who get help. people who lose their jobs are quite distinct. like your ipad or ipod or a modern kind of product, only about 5% of that product comes from manufacturing. the manufacturing is done overseas. 95% of the value is the value of

information, the internet, marketing, design. picked up those jobs and lost the manufacturing jobs and got them done more cheaply overseas. of consumer one but a lot workers lost and we did not do much to help them when that happened. if you are going to have open and free trade, there has to be a bargain between american workers in the american government, those innocent from trade, and those who do not. host: our guest is the director of the center of it nation and workforce at georgetown university. jeff from nebraska, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i have got to tell you. it was obvious when they put the stimulus out there that it was a total waste. even the president with his , i guesske on the side there weren't that many jobs after all -- that money was wasted. it went to the blue states.

they paid off the bills. president, the next we know is going to have such a because the first thing the fed will do is raise .he interest rates we will all be in trouble. that will affect the stock market and everybody in the entire world. we best be ready for that because that will happen. one of the simplest laws of economics

powerhouses in the american economy has always been immigration. when immigrants do come here, what you see even with skilled immigrants is they earn less than native americans do in the same job in the same occupation and the same education. but they earn a lot more than people like them in the country they come from. that is what makes it so attractive. they may come from the united states and end up as an engineer and drive a cab for a few years, but ultimately, you will get a

job that pays a lot more than the job you got in the country that you came from. immigration is one of the sources of our fresh talent. we are now struggling with the notion that we ought to be focused more on skilled immigration versus less skilled immigration. end, it is just not deemed fair in our system that people have to take a lower wage because they are immigrants, especially when they are illegal immigrants. host: a call from illinois, both she and her husband both out of work. this advice from a viewer who says, when i tell you you are overqualified, tell them you are looking to scale back. so that is the perfect fit for you. what about that technique? guest: whatever you do to get through the doors what you ought to do.

have studied unemployment for a long time. i know what it does to people. is devastating, all the happy talk about losing a job because another door will open up. at least in the data, it does not look like it is true. it is you, whatever have to do to get in the door, because you learn you can get all the education you want. but you have got to use that and whatever experience you have to get a ticket inside the economy and working to her once you're inside and working, you can then make your way by moving to one job -- from one job to the next. the key is to get to the door. last caller--host: is tom. good morning. caller: i want to ask your guest what he thought about the cost of college because college because colleges so important these days. any suggestions for possibly

changing the cost structure of college and improving the competition among colleges and maybe a new type of college that skillshts more the basic people need, instead of possible classes that may not be pertinent to earning a living in the future. thank you. the american post secondary training system, the broader name for college, it now includes a lot of different kinds of institutions and different kinds of words and degrees. there are 30 million americans now that have industry based certification that have nothing to do with college. those are high earning. the current system we built is untenable. we cannot afford it. we are now spending $400 billion a year on post secondary education and training. government has the money to

pay for that most of the government money is now moving toward retirees, people who look like me, and now we are under investing in our young people and workers in a dramatic way. part of the problem is we have built a college structure or education and training structure that has become way too expensive and very inefficient. you have to ask why you can get to the desk we are sitting at more than 30 miles from here, there are 40 anthropology programs. why are there not 10? there is a huge inefficiency here. what is happening unfortunately is our college education system is lighter and more affluent than it has ever been. there is more and more stratification in access to so that low income students, working-class students, poor kids, minorities especially hispanics and african-americans, more and more

go to community college is to get job training and more and more people who go to a four-year bachelor's degree institution, they get very strong general education and access to professions, there are more and more from affluent and white families. with anthony carnevale georgetown, thank you very much. we appreciate it. take a short break and turn our attention to the iran nuclear deal. the second democratic senator along with chuck schumer announcing a no vote for the deal. what does it mean for the president? we will get another perspective. last week, we had another .upporter of the nuclear deal later, the author of the untold story about the teen in women soldiers and special ops battlefield.

successfully completed school. we're back in moment. ♪ and nine,y, august 1 marks the 10th anniversary of hurricane katrina, one of the five deadliest storms in history. live monday 10:00 a.m. eastern and an all day event featuring authors and community leaders. more with a new orleans-based poet and activist, tuesday night of8:00, c-span's tour recovery efforts. and a 2005 house hearing featuring citizens describing their experiences during and after the storm. >> they told us we would be taken to shelters where we can get help.

they loaded us up on military trucks and then declared the city of new orleans a war zone and it did not sink in that we were the prisoners of war. >> c-span's 2006 tour on wednesday. >> that is your whole life gone. en left and sea m rubble. all your friends and family and everybody's gone. it is probably a year later and you do not see what you used to see. you do not forget it. you will never forget it the rest of your life. >> moderated by the then mayor. >> i know all of this is state level, federal level, and all

other levels. i voted for you to represent me on a local level. i do not know where else to go. i do not know what else to do. >> thursday night, more. and i :00, we will show you president obama's trip to the region and remarks on the recovery effort. efforts alltrina this week on c-span. washington journal continues. host: joining us from new york is omri ceren with the israel project serving as a senior advisor for strategy. as we focus on the debate, thank you for being with us. had aeek, we representative from a j street this nuclearort of

deal. you are opposing the deal why? >> the deal is staggeringly dangerous for us and our allies. does not do enough to stop 15ople from -- this is really a ear deal, more or less. there are plutonium pathways that open up again. over the course of those 15 nearly enough to prevent iranian cheating. the cost of the deal over the 15 years is staggering. it forces us to arm and fund iranians on the one side, and also a sickly to sponsor the nuclear program on the other. it is a deal that ushers them into the nuclear club. host: the president is returning .

they will make a pitch directly to jewish-american's. what more do you expect him to say? >> that is the question. thatresident made his case there is no alternative to the ,eal, even if it is a bad deal after congressional hearings that also isn't particularly true. his deal, as we learn more and more about it, the deal is so good for iran that even if the u.s. walked away, the erring as we have every incentive to continue to implement it so they can get european -- they might try to bolster the alternative argument because the last argument the administration has is one that seems increasingly untenable. host: you have been hearing from supporters of the group, and i

just want to share with you what he said in terms how americans view disagreement and get your reaction. >> 50% of working american juice for this deal and a growing sick -- consensus in the israeli sentiment, soity different than some of the politicians in israel, but in terms of broad support among the american judge community and the establishment, i think support is strong. yes, you will is to give this reaction to a colleague, but it is just not true. we are talking about two different things. the first's support among american jewelry. everyld be really strange poll that has come out recently,

the last poll that came out, it showed a 5030 split among americans give or take. americans mores find out about the deal, they find a trend in the polls over and over and over again. pull.as a strange the way to describe the deal. agrees never to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for limited sanctions release. that is not what the deal does. they know that is a popular way of describing the deal that increases numbers. this is a deal it temporarily forces iran to give some of its

nuclear if a then give it that to them. when american find that out, you see what you see in all the other polls, not the ones j lopsidedok, disapproval. as far as the establishment is concerned, there is a particular fact sheet the administration and validated as have been distributing to the judge community, and that lists some retired israeli security officials. what they actually said was, we have got to assume the americans are going to implement the deal, that it is a done deal and we will have to move on to the next level. israels almost nobody in that said this is a good deal. you saw him at the end, and this is the last point i will make on this because it is insidery, but you sought the end where the j street spokesman said it is true

among the security establishment. that would be a very strange think or do what he is referencing is the entire israeli political spectrum all the way to the government to say nothing of something like 80% think it is a bad deal. that is the way the political system works. vacation,re going on the president made among his arguments the fact that we have made deals with the soviet union, clearly an enemy, and this is among the save want -- the same lines, that you have to make deals with enemies to move ahead and bring these countries to the fold. how do you respond? --st: no one is against this diplomacy with iran. the point is not do not make deals. it is, do not make bad deals.

americans believe i read got the better of four to one and they are right. the iraniansal, get basically the entire sanctions infrastructure gets shredded. in thet the u.s. position where, for the next 10 to 15 years, they are disabled from responding to the conventional mischief. they put the u.s. in a position where for the next 10 or 15 years, they are disabled from the able to leverage either economic sanctions or military pressure. they will be in their attempt to perfect it.

there is a section in their that parties,e3 and other against nuclear sabotage. the answer is the iranians will have a nuclear program that after the tooth -- after the year 2015 is unlimited. in you wanted to be safe? on the one hand, you do appear to on the other hand, secretary kerry was asked in an open session, if the israelis decide they need a cyber attack, the iranian centrifuges, for instance, does this put us on the side of the iranians? does it obligate us to take sides in favor of the iranian nuclear program against those who would seek to undermine it? kerry's's answer was, you know it will never come to that so do not worry about it. that is not compelling. a lot of think it will exact a come to that.

the idea that we would be sponsoring the nuclear infrastructure, that we would be forced to stand by as they march across the region, those are terrible, terrible borderline catastrophic consequences of the nuclear deal. no one is against making deals and known as against making deals with the enemies. they are against making bad deals. if you support the nuclear agreement with iran, the number to call is -- if you oppose -- also a cnn poll showing that six in 10 americans oppose the agreement, saying congress should not support it. you can read the poll information online. it tol be able to show you, most americans want congress to reject the iran deal. a couple of tweets from ron says, what is the best deal for israel? how do you respond? it is the same that is

the best deal for united states, a deal that genuinely prevents the iranians from having the ability to make a nuclear weapon. the deal does not do that. the deal is effectively a bribe not to marchns across the finish line. they no longer have to dash across. they can slowly take the time. for 10 to 15t years. what is the alternative? that is the overarching question. skeptics being intellectually honest will say this is very late in the game. game.very late in the most of the bad things about the deal, many of the bad things, will occurut many, on an international level and have nothing to do with the united states. the united nations arms embargo will end.

to the unitedwent nations and that is locked in. will it be greatly reduced? in embassy today are no doubt heard what needs to be emphasized this that there is an entire range of, again, without how'd -- without hyperbole, catastrophic consequences that could be avoided merely if the united states keeps its names off of the deal. we two big once again are avoid having to be tied down to the deal and being invest in the avoid becoming a recent -- a sponsor of the nuclear program. we avoid having to side with the iranians over the next 10 years, rather than those who are tempted to obstruct the iranians. what is the alternative?

the first element is, keep the united states off the deal and avoid catastrophic consequences. the second is, in this much is we will have a reading room, negotiate a better deal now. the administration's is there is no chance of a better deal and the iranians will medially walk away. that is a difficult argument to the other core argument the administration makes, which is at the international unity will be able to make this deal. the deal is it is so good for the iranians, they get russian assistance at the underground bunker, they get to join again so they can swap their dollars out in the europe -- they get with the french and the germans and the brits. the deal is so good for them that they will not walk away if the united states decides to

keep its name off of it. we're talking with omri ceren. we will get your calls in just a moment. we should you and add which opposes this nuclear agreement 10 we want to show you an ad from the j street group, which supports the deal. >> negotiated a nuclear deal with the union -- soviet union, trust but verify. we do not need to trust iran to honor a nuclear agreement. nuclear is the toughest program in history, an electronic monitor that all of iranian nuclear sites. this deal present death prevents iran from a nuclear weapon. it is good for america, good for israel, and makes both countries safer and more secure. let's go to doug joining

us from massachusetts. why do you support it? caller: it is less to do with weapons program and more to do with the approach between iran and the united states. a soon as the deal is concluded, the focus will shift to israel's treatment of palestinians and will probably affect israel's thermonuclear devices that they claim not to have. i think that is where the conflict lies. thank you. guest: on the merits of what the caller said, i do not think there is much there. the idea that the peace process will suddenly pick up at the time when, for instance, amy --

has resigned from the committee, it is i think not a tenable read of what is going on in the nation. underlying issue, which is, is this the deal or is it about a greater approach between the united states and iran. there is a real debate over this, whether or not the obama administration is pursuing a kind of realignment in the region. the administration will tell you, no it isn't. and something specific, that they intend to push back. main talkingf the points. they said it over and over again on the hill. what they said is, do not worry that this puts us on the side of iranians. there is unlikely to be the opening of the american embassy in iran, or at least most people i think think that is a step too far. what on a crucial issue of will the united states be in a

position to disrupt iran over that is 10 to 15 years, an area in between the administration talking points that says that they are going to double down and push back. said,at the caller just that it is a bad place for the u.s. to be. for the next 10 to 15 years, the united states will not be able to for instance, respond iranian ventures in iraq. this is a real debate here we can either respond militarily or -- let's say the iranians decide to double down on their efforts to oppose germany over iraq. one of the options u.s. policymakers have? , one hand, there is no appetite for that and the iranians have the ability to say do not do

that or we will walk away. essentially, a gun to the head of the united states because the united states will become invested in -- invested in the deal. line ofally the last the jcp l.a., says iran -- iran will interpret any partial or complete -- of sanctions as permission for them to walk away from the agreement. the u.s. joining the deal does not instantly put the u.s. on the side of iran as a caller said. what it does do is create a worse situation where america and iran remain antagonists inasmuch as they have conflicting interests in the region, but the u.s. is disarmed economically and militarily from being able to push back against iran. west virginia, do you

oppose the agreement or why? caller: i have been the korean war and i am a veteran to it we had a big outing in west virginia with all veterans and everything. all of veterans i spoke to an everybody who was there was strictly against the deal. listen to mr. trump on tv, he is saying the right words. the people in washington, d.c., are the stupidest people they can be. this deal, why did they stick to their guns right from the beginning? no deal, if you don't want to walk away from it. look at what is happening with north korea. didn't they learn a lesson from that deal? that is a democratic deal also are i'm a conservative democrat and i am ashamed of my party. give ourrying to country awake at what are they doing? our countries less than a third world country. he is trying to make is even

lower than the third world country? can you people see behind your noses question mark open your eyes and ears and listen to what is going on and talk to the people in the country. host: george, thanks for the call. guest: 30 is really an undercurrent of frustration and anger with the deal throughout the country. gesturedfrom something in the ad you played earlier. iran has less than 10% favorability immunized. why? do you people, why oppose the iranians? why do you think the -- why to think the united states should stand in opposition to iran? they give all kinds of answers. iran supports terrorism, they killed americans, they have the blood of hundreds on their hands, they bombed our barracks. all kinds of reasons. human rights.

iran stones for adultery and they stoned rate victims for adultery could all of these things come up. what is underneath all of that, when you really begin to look at the data? i am now speaking at somebody who works in the communication space. it is an issue of trust. when you slice the data, it is an issue of trust. americans just do not trust iran. you see thisy weird phrase and it comes up in administration messaging, like you saw in the ad, people who are administration validator's in the, the reason you see them saying over and over again, the steel is not built on trust, it is because they know if americans conclude the deal is built on trust, you would see the spike of frustration that we just heard from the caller. the problem the administration has is a policy one, which is that this deal is built on

trust, in two ways. , when we began these negotiations, and the caller we just had referenced this, when we began the negotiations, we said, we do not trust the iranians not to attempt to march across the finish line so we will force them to dismantle the infrastructure and shut down their facilities. iran will have to dismantle centrifuges and not just cut them as they do under the current deal. there is no excuse to have a heavy water reactor except to produce weapons grade plutonium. by the end of negotiations, there will be no dismantling of centrifuges p or four to will have to stay open and so on. is, if we catch

them using that infrastructure snap illicit way, we will back sanctions or the snapback will come wait for there is reason to think it will not happen because we will be too invested in the deal and we will want to preserve it. that is almost by definition example of iran keeping up its .nd of the bargain we just confirmed this week that we are trusting iranians. for certain military facilities, where they are known to have conducted experiments relevant to the detonation of nuclear warheads. that there is a secret side agreement between the un's iaea and iranians that stipulates that instead of the iaea

inspecting this facility as they have been demanding for years, and as american lawmakers -- as toldcan can administration congress over and over again what happened, instead of that, -- instead of them inspecting it, the iranians will be conducting their own inspections. "the new york times" wrote this up yesterday under headlined of stop inspections and now it is feeling opposition. -- whyilling opposition is it fueling opposition? it is not only absurd that expecting the iranians to go duck and expect themselves but it is politically toxic for the administration because it shows this deal is built on trusting the iranians. host: you can follow omri ceren at israel project on twitter and the website is theis raelproject.or.g g. your views on this agreement in maryland? caller: i approve the agreement.

i am for the agreement. the gentleman, i cannot pronounce his name from the israel project, he is talking about "we." this is about the united states. this has nothing to do with israel. i am a little sick and tired of israel inserting themselves into our foreign policy with no invitation. israel is not in on this agreement. the security council voted on the agreement. john kerry voted for it, so whoever is the senate or house or at israel approves the agreement or not, it is going to be implemented. -- the foreign minister of iran was in moscow two weeks ago, so iran is going to buy by the agreement -- is going to abide by the agreement. they are going to implement it and if the united states wants to be on the outside looking in, that would define. host: media, thank you.

we will get a response. an israelis not organization. we working washington, d.c. on issues related to the middle east, israel, iran, turkey, jordan and egypt. by the way, all countries that are terrified of this agreement and hopefully we can get a chance to talk about that but she brought up a good point that it is the administration's point. this deal will likely be implemented in parts, even if the united states walks away, which is another way of saying that iranians are plenty of incentive to continue implementing this deal, even if the united states walks away, which is another way of saying that this is not going to follow congress decides to keep our name off of this agreement. but if they do decide to do that, then we avoid a whole host of problems. we have talked about the two big ones which is that it disables us from opposing iran's conventional military

adventurism and it puts us in the position of sponsoring their nuclear program. there are other ones. their federalism issues at stake and there is a paragraph in the acp a way that says -- jcpo that says it we attempt to -- which is to say there are divestment resolutions based on terrorism in places like illinois, california, florida, is states attempt to pursue the, the u.s. government is obligated to attempt to stop them from doing so. that is a real concern. it is a subtle conservator federalism issues of disabling us from opposing the iranian conventional march across the middle east and putting a sponsorship for the nuclear program. those things are avoided the congress chooses to keep running off of this agreement, but the idea that iranians would then rush to a nuclear weapon, which is really the administration's new alternative argument, right?

their argument is that if the u.s. keeps their name off of iran will brush to a bomb, that will not happen because iran has plenty of i sent it to continue implementing its part of the deal for the next six months till year and so they get all the good stuff they are hoping for. britain, france, germany, as your caller said, will continue implementing. it is not necessarily to that all of them well, the french have indicated that they will go along with congress's decision, but certainly, the iranians will have enough of an incentive to give us a 6-1 year window in order to renegotiate this deal decisively because of what your caller said. let me jump in. quick reply to this treat -- please ask your guest to a knowledge that iranian inspections preclude them from building a nuke in secret. your response? guest: so you also saw this them

up in the ad that there will be respect and's -- inspections upon the queer sites. that means there will be inspections upon known nuclear sites, but iranians were not cheap and build a bomb in their nuclear sites because we have cameras there. cheat, theynians will cheat and small, undisclosed facilities. what the commercial left out and what are twitter user left out is that for those facilities, and iranians can jam up the iaea at least for 24 days and probably for much longer and perhaps indefinitely. let me explain why. thathe iaea i says building or facility over there is not a declared nuclear facility, but we are pretty sure you're conducting nuclear work over there. the iranians then say, no, we are not come a provide us evidence. the iaea done has to provide evidence and then the iranians have another chance to negotiate. that period can go on

indefinitely. eventually, it stops. the ieee will get fed up and say, no more negotiation and we want access, we want to go in. that begins another 24 day what isthat involves called the resolution committee. +1 and they eu look at the evidence both sides present and then they say yes, or know if the iaea deserves axis. at the end of that 24 days, the iranians, if the committee says so, would be obligated to let in the iaea at some point in the future. the administration says immediately, there are arguments that they could take months and months and months. 24 days,e at least perhaps indefinite, process to get into the undeclared nuclear facilities where cheating is less likely to happen.

that is for facilities where they are doing work on actual nuclear material. there is another class of facilities that have to do with where they would do work that is relevant to building nuclear weapons that does not have anything to do with radioactive isotopes. that third category, so it categories the rehab? closely inspections, we have unknown facilities where they know they have more than enough time to destroy the evidence because they have at least 24 days. and then the third category of places where they are not nuclear places. a veteran of the iaea who render verification shop toward the end of his career, literally, was the guy who stats on top of verification was asked in congress, could you break the third category?

the category about whether we will catch them doing things like computer modeling on a scale of one to 10 and he said, i would give it a zero. not even a one. there is no chance of catching that kind of work. in the middle, we have facilities where they will be doing nuclear work or they will have more than enough time to destroy the evidence after the , at leastfor access 24 days, but realistically, months and months and months. and then we have this third category where we will never catch them at all. host: our guest is omri ceren with the israel project from new york. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio heard coast-to-coast and streamed on the web at c-span.org. it is also carried every sunday on xm channel 124. us channel. bob is next on bethlehem, pennsylvania. you oppose it, why? oppose it. good morning, gentlemen. i have to ask you a question. to have electricity, we

have a lot of our electricity coming from nuclear reactors and have you seen any towers that can deliver electricity to other parts of the country? if you look at the weather map, 1, 6, 0 160 degrees -- down in the southern part of that country. in the northern part, they had 130 degrees where there are a conditioners. heaven forbid, how hot mess to get before they really start using that in the constructive way to help the iranian people? i'm sorry. i just cannot understand it. how much heat as they need? take care and have a good day. that is a legitimate

question. what are the iranians using their nuclear structure for? not even iranians claim they're using a for electricity nor will they in the near term have any thing was simply a nuclear civilian program that could be useful for electricity. their excuse is often that they make medical isotopes. that has been the traditional argument that the reason they need these facilities are for medical isotopes, but the international community and the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog has lifted the number 12, to surely, of questions that the iranians would be required to answer. this is actually a very significant part of the debate. years,rs and years and there was a list of 12 questions that the un's nuclear watchdog had about the iranian nuclear program. as your caller said, they do not appear to have been using it for electricity purposes. a list of 12 questions that had

to with organization that traveled under the banner of possible pmd's. the reason why you need to resolve the pmd issue is straightforward. the iaea is not going to be charged with confirming that the iranians gave up what they are supposed to give up under the jcp0a. in order to confirm that the iranians are giving up what they are supposed to give up, the iaea need to know what they did. this is a way of baselining the program, resolving possible military dimensions with 12 questions. it was supposed to be a way of baselining the iranian program. there are all kinds of reasons why that is necessary. for instance, it is widely suspected, certainly the iaea suspects, that iranians had not just a weaponization program, but an entire parallel program that their military was nuclear.

so there were civilian uranium mills and military uranium mills. there were civilian centrifuge facilities and military centrifuge facilities, so an entire program, soup to nuts kind of thing, from the top to the bottom. iaea needs insight into what the military silo looks like in order to confirm that iranians have stopped doing it. there is a military official and there is a quote that the "new york times" brand that was widely disputed and confirmed which is -- has been a point in the last 15 years with iranians -- illicitd enlisted nuclear facilities. forget which is they like the caller said, but facilities off the map, so this pmd issue, the idea of giving that iaea insight into how close iranians got to a bomb, into how extensive the military aspects of their nuclear program were and so on, they she was always supposed to be resolved. if you go back to the earliest

testimony, after iran talks began in 2013, undersecretary sherman, who ran point on that iran negotiations, was telling congress, of course the pmd's will get resolved. same thing which testified 2014. in 2015, and then a spokesman women for the state department said -- she said sarcastically response to a journalist question -- that the u.s. of a decision would find it very difficult to accept a deal that did not include access to parching. in april, the secretary of state told an interviewer that pmd is about to be resolved in the phrase uses, it will be done or there would be no deal. what we found out subsequently is that the joint conference of plan of action in fact collapses on the requirement that iranians come clean on their past weapons work. there were documents submitted, first, to congress by the administration pursuant to the corporate legislation.

so they had to submit a number of documents that the "wall street journal" revealed that the second and third documents andbasically an assertion excavation is classified as to why it turns out the united states does not really care about pmd's. so it is not just, it is not just that they do not use their facilities for electricity. it is that it is widely suspected they use their facilities for weapons more and administration when it negotiate the final agreement in, collapsed on the requirement that the iaea get the kind of access to that weaponization work and get the answers that in order toat were verify this deal. it is another way in which this deal does in fact rely on trusting iranians because we are no longer resolving the things that we distrusted the iranians about. host: congressman jerry now there, democrat from new york, announcing his support for the

agreement this past week. two democratic senators announcing the opposition, including senator bob menendez, a democrat from new jersey. we have been talking with omri ceren with the israel project from new york. the debate will continue into mid-september and the house and the senate with live coverage on the c-span networks. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. host: 20 come back, the author of "ashley's war," will be isning us and the guest telling the untold story of a team of women soldiers on the special ops battlefield and what is next for women in the military. you are watching and listening to c-span "washington journal." we are back in a moment. ♪ monday night on "the communicators," this summer marks the 25th anniversary of digital television. "uthor of "television areas

talks about the development of the medium in the early 1990's. of 1990's, almost exactly 25 years ago, cbs convinced us we should submit to the fcc for consideration as the next generation u.s. restoril broadcast standard. we were quite sure we wanted to do that because we were satellite and cable gods and do not have a whole lot to do with the terrestrial broadcast network business but we ended up doing that so all of a sudden in june of 1990, our cover was born weres blown on what we doing and at first, they said it was impossible what we were claiming, but a year or so later, all of our competitors were essentially following us and it became a real race. at 8:00 eastern on "communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the book is called "hashes

war," the untold story of a team of women soldiers. gayle tzemach lemmon joins us from aspen, colorado. the author of the book and also a senior fellow at the council on formulations. thank you for being with us. guest: great to join you. host: let's talk about your book that also about these into army rangers who completed the rigorous program making history in the military. guest: it has been an incredible week. alongside served rangers in war, they have died alongside rangers in war, and now they have been able to earn the ranger tab in their own rights. it is really big for west point women and it has been an incredible women. i think for women in the military, my phone was buzzing all week with women who are in the special operations community, women who are outside this peschel operations community, really talking about what the moment this is. host: the question is, will they be able to serve on the front

lines? that is a question that ash carter got this past week. what is your view on this? have. they already that's the thing. i don't know if america realizes that women have been out on range of nitrates, they have been out on seal missions. the whole story of "ashley's war" was about a team of women who were recruited, trained, and deployed in 2011 while the combat was very much in place the blood special operations missions. combat operations in afghanistan in 2011 and they were really seen the kind of combat experienced by less than 5% of the entire united states military. the question now really is whether they will be allowed to be rangers and seals in their own rights. secretary carter and all the service chiefs are looking at this question right now. by october, we will know if people ask for exceptions to what is supposed to be a january one opening of all roles in

combat to women. host: according to the u.s. army, here are some of the basic requirements to qualify for rangers school. you have to have a minimum score on the army fitness test and in addition, you have to complete six chin-ups, a five mile run in 40 minutes or less, and a 12 mile foot march in three hours or less caring about 35 pounds in your back sack. -- backpack. guest: that's right. and for the women in this oliver, the women who are trying to go to ranger school, a lot of them found it was not the physical that was kicking them out. it was the experienced patrolling, the fact that they had not done some of the more infantry-based tactics, so i think you have seen a lot of women prove themselves physically this week. 19 women started ranger school and eight made it through what is called the first physical test. so women made it through at a rate of about 42% and men made it through at about the rate of

48%, said there was not a huge difference. i think the physical thing was in some ways less of an issue than the experiences they had had in terms of infantry tactics. host: let me get your reaction to what secretary ash carter said about when asked about the question we have been talking about. onwhat i will receive october 1 is from the services that continue to have positions that are not available or open to women, a justification for any, if there are any, exceptions that will remain in place after that point and there will be successive classes of rangers. i presume that they will includes successive classes of females and if some of them, in the future, which to become rangers, -- wish to become rangers, then this process that will come to conclusion in just a few months is going to be very, very important. >> these people, by the way,

talking to them, these are and i'mapable people pretty mbs. it is lots of things, physical, leadership, it is a lot and the standards were not changed in any way with this particular training cycle and it is a pretty impressive achievement. , yourgayle tzemach lemmon reaction? guest: it is fascinating because i have been covering this now forseveral months and donna bending, florida, and the thing that people always talk to about is that we did not change the standards. from the folks running at fort benning to rangers running rangers go, they will really talk to you at length about how the standards have not been changed and the women were really adamant about the fact that there could be nothing worse for women who wanted to or specialngers forces in their own right one day or simply a conventional army leader, to then have the

standards changed. i think we really have seen army leadership talk extensively about how these women met the ranger standard. not the woman standard but the ranger standard. that really changes the conversation. i wrote a piece recently about how the conversation has gone almost overnight from if they can meet the standards to let them eat the standard. you can see some of the folks around navy leaders saying, if they can meet the seal standard, why would not we have them -- why wouldn't we have the most seals/ thereally do start to see conversation and relationship that happen very quickly the moment these two women earned ranger tab. --t: who was actually white ashley white? guest: an incredibly special young woman who was at the heart of a band of sisters who served on the special operations battlefield in 2011.

they were recruited, trained and diploid because they were need to fill a security gap that was spotted by some of the most tested leaders in special operations. this was a band implemented came from alabama to alaska, south korea-based to south carolina, and they really answered the call to serve because they wanted to do a mission that mattered alongside the best of the best at the heart of america's efforts in afghanistan. they were fit and fears and incredibly funny, cinnamon -- feminine and very warm and intensely devoted to their work group of women. one of the young woman was an army officer who had been in bosnia, served in intel, and always wanted to be an infantry and could not. when she saw this recruiting poster that said, the mouse soldiers, become part of history, -- c mouse soldiers, become part of this j, she signed up. there were two west pointers in the group who were very

committed to being as close to the front lines as they possibly could and one was a track star ran without socks and had shoes that proved it. another was a young woman who played high school football all four years and actually wanted to quit after the second year, but when she thought about what little girls were saying and the girls would come up at football games, she felt like she could never give up because she was such an example for them. and then there was ashley white who is this incredibly humble, quiet young woman who would never tell you how good she was but with them walk up to the rope hanging from the ceiling in front of a bunch of army rangers and climb up and back, 18 feet, using only her arms. she was this wild mix. a mix of go through martha stewart and g.i. jane. she loved to cook enough for her husband, a real love story at

the center of this story, and she also was the bread maker in the office and kevin hart. then shall he go to the gym and bust out 25 or 30 pull-ups from a dead hank, climb a rope in full kit and go out on nitrates alongside army rangers and make a difference in combat operations. host: what happened? guest: she was the first young woman in this cultural support team that was recruited to serve with rangers and seals and other operation teams to be killed on a night raid in october of 2011 alongside sergeant first class christopher and private first class christopher horns. 2011 really was tossed in the public spotlight. a program that have been built for special operation shadows and there was a real concern at the moment of her death on what would america think that a young woman, while a combat band was

in place, died alongside to rangers on nighttime operations? the truth was that america barely noticed because we are so disconnected from this war in afghanistan. the fact that be a woman died did not send shockwaves through america as so many have talked about, right? it was one more tragic loss along so many others. what was fascinating was that at the head of army special operations went to her funeral and gave this incredibly moving speech that is in "ashley's war ," saying make no mistake about it, they are warriors and they have written a new chapter on what it means to be a female in the united states army. later, when the combat than was lifted, ashley and her teammates are referred to by special operations leaders who said their performance was "may well have laid the foundation for ultimate integration." i think it is really a story of friendship and service and

sacrifice and people who laid the groundwork or this incredible history that we are seeing today. chuck williams from the "george inquired ledger" wrote the column recently. host: a book by gayle tzemach lemmon joining us from aspen, colorado. it is titled "ashley's war," and as it indicates, it is unprecedented access to her papers, her family's papers, her background story all outlined in the untold story of a team of women soldiers on the special ops battlefield. let's get to our listener calls. charles joins us from abilene, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is that this whole discussion seems to revolve around these individuals instead of making it a policy decision. the question is, what should our policy be? it seems to me that you could find two men who are 50 years old who could pass rangers school, that is a cost-effective for us to allow in the 50-year-old man to apply to

ranger school? host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: a terrific point and one we heard often. areome ways, the policies only catching up with reality. "ashley's war" was about women who were out on these kinds of operations on the combat ban was officially united states policy. i think in a lot of way, the joint chief said in 2013, this is really regulation catching up with reality. school point question, it was interesting because i asked a couple people. i was talking to a ranger nco who told me it did not cost us money to run this extra ranger or add these women to rangers school, but cost us money when people get highly trained and leave after three years or four years and why are we not talking about that? i think this is a conversation we should be having about who fights america's wars and why? our next call is richard

from niagara falls, new york. good morning. caller: hello. host: the morning. caller: i am saying the women, when a man turns 18, he has to register for the draft or if there is such a draft, and they just want part of the cake that is best for them. there comes time for war and everything else, women should be drafted just like men if they want equal rights amendment. thank you. host: thank you, richard. guest: thank you for your point and that is when that came up in interviews with admiral olson, tested operation leader. i think what this story is about is about americans who volunteered to serve their country, not once to enter but want to be part of a pilot program and to go on to the special operations battlefield and fill a security gap because

men could not talk to women and we needed fema forces to be out there. with special operations leaders who asked them to go out there, and all they were were americans who were simply trying to serve their country in the most powerful, most importantly that they knew how. i think with ranger school, if you are talking about army leaders who simply wanted access to the best training the army had to offer and as colonel said, we are the had women out the, why would you not want the women next to tap access to the best leadership training the army has to offer? as far as the draft, i think service is incredibly important and we have had in all volunteer force for several decades, and i think if we were to go back to a draft, this is something that is definitely on the table as we have conversations about what happens come january 1. host: the book includes a photograph in section two of the book titled "the plumbing that

ashley white." greg joins us from plymouth, michigan. good morning. deployment of ashley white." great joins us from plymouth, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. we had women entering the navy that flew aircraft and it was never their physical or mental ability but what happened if they became a pow. in the schools command at the time, there was one commander who had been a pow for eight years. course, as a man, he of would never bear children but .omen could in the volunteer force, those women would be bearing children of people who did not volunteer to be in those circumstances and the competition of who the father would become a what would happen and what would happen to the children and how would the

family be kept together, etc., etc.? it has been a consideration given or, what would happen if women got pregnant as pows? host: thank you. we will get a response. another think this is one that has come up over years. the amazing thing of having the privilege of spending two years friday "ashley's war" and talking to leaders in this incredible group of young women who were teammates and became friends and family inside "ashley's work," is that you have these conversations and the answer was they are soldiers who understood they are taking that risk. aat could have happened in number of scenes and scenarios in which women have been in combat in the last decade. women have been in wars with no front lines since the post-9/11 wars began. i think what the response i hear often was men can also be sexually violated as pows and in

fact, for them, that is a risk that they understood they were taking. there were soldiers who wanted to serve their country and they would do everything they could to avoid being in that situation, but if they were, they understood what the risks were facing women in combat. host: we are talking with gayle tzemach lemmon a graduate of the university of missouri and internal master's from harvard, her mba and her book is called "ashley's war." she joins us from aspen, colorado and she worked for "daily beast" and abc news. bill joins us from ford on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and 2i-4 c-span. i wanted to ask -- and thank you for c-span. let me make one thing clear, the gender should matter probably two people, the ranger and the personal attending to the ranger. , youestion is -- why would

mentioned earlier that ashley died in battle next to two men and barely anybody noticed, in the interest of being treated equally, why should ashley's death matter more than a male ranger or any other ranger? thank you. guest: thank you for that question and it is one that i would be very happy to answer. it does not matter more. it is simply that ashley white 's death was a piece of history and i hope you read "ashes war" and see that it is a piece of ranger history. i spent a lot of time with rangers who have done 9, 10, 11 or 12 deployments in these post-9/11 wars and i cannot tell you the beautiful e-mail and the beautiful letters that we have received for rangers who said they served alongside these women and i want to make sure that people know that they were there. this is simply a slice of american history. both about ashley white and this incredible group of women and

the battle tested rangers who do not know enough about who has been out there night in and night out doing america's work with there a little of america noticing. i hope this is seen as a testament to courage and great and heart and a slice of history about a group of men, when they had never taken women not a combat operations, actually said, if you are a member of this team and you deliver on missions, you go on the objective and you make a difference, then you are part of our ranger team, i ranger platoon. that is what you saw. is a story, ashley's story, the team's story about a group of women who wanted to serve at the best of the best. and group of rangers who said this is 10 years into this war, we need solutions, you deliver, you find the kind of intel and information and people who we are seeking on these kinds of operations then you are a member

of this team. there was one night, in fact, when amber was out and realized that it was her account of how men, and children that lets the rangers realized they are missing a man they are talking to and that there is in fact a barricaded shooter lying in wait to ambush afghan and american forces when they entered the home. this is very much a story about rangers and of course about this team of women who was really so hungry and considered it a privilege to serve alongside them on the battlefield in 2011. host: "in the "new york times" earlier this month, a member of the marine corps seven from 2004 two 2008 at the following comment. i will show you a part of the quote saying, "commanders at coed units in no to well the added burdens of trying to juggle sexual dynamics, accommodations, relationships and much more while maintaining troop welfare and good order and discipline, let alone mission

accomplishment. these are liabilities that can result in mission failure and high casualties in the combat units. your response. was abouthley's war" the first navy seal to be head of special operations command, at roma craven who followed and joint special operations saying we need women making a anderence nine -- like in night out because we are missing huge amounts of information, we do not know what women are seeing and hearing every night and every day in their communities, and we need women soldiers to be out there on the battlefield, so this was not a social experiment, this was about the security gap. as far as the two women rangers, this is simply reality catching up with what has been going on with what has been happening on the battlefield since the post-9/11 wars. women are out there. war, women are

serving all kinds of roles now. in fact, with little training, they were serving to go out on combat operations and patrols. in iraq, the linus program that they had in afghanistan, the marines b will engagement teams before the cultural support teams, so this is simply an acknowledgment of what has already been happening, so that is the reality of the wars we are fighting and the fact is that the wars we are fighting are changing and so is the nature of who is fighting them. host: kristen is next from arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i've got quite an earful so fall. -- so far. the previous caller mentioned about the draft and talking about drafting women if there is a next draft, what is going on here is that the president is being set for women in combat, ok? is think i wanted to get to

that there is a difference between men and women. everybody knows the physical things, men have more upper body strength and all of this, but the thing that gets me is the psychological and the emotional differences between men and women. everything is like a big contradictory. a few months ago, they passed something about the violence against women's act and now, they are all pushing women in combat, that does not make sense. and what happens during that time of the month when the woman is on her. -- when a woman is on her period, she excluded on sick call? this is all -- we are trying to pass laws that contradict nature. host: we will get a response.

thank you, preston. guest: thank you for that. i think you will see, an early scene in "ashley's war" where you have female issues arise and we all joke about it because for the women, it was not a big deal. it was simply a problem to be fact, there may be something that you never see but they treated it like any other and everybody moved on within a moment. i think what is important in this conversation is to realize that women have party been out there. you have been out there because the country needed them. is a story about women who answered the recruiting poster that the head of special operations and their teams head up saying, female soldiers become part of history, joint special operations on the battlefield in afghanistan. and they went out there because their country ask them. once, what youme feel right about something so

controversial? i was really puzzled because what is controversial about a group of americans answering the call to serve to the best of their abilities alongside the most highly trained, best soldiers that america has brought to the war front and saying, yes, i raise my hand to be part of this special mission/ what they proved was that women could make a difference on the battlefield. pasted on the soldiers of all the women that would come before them who had been doing these kinds of roles for years in a very one, 2, 1 off way and they set the path for what we see today which is this historic army officerswo who wanted to get the best earning that they possibly could so that they could lead their soldiers in action and they happened to pass the test and to meet the standard. change is very hard and i understand that absolutely, but this was never a story that set out to do anything other than

capture a moment in history when a group of americans in uniform said, yes, i volunteer. i want to be out there making a difference every night because my country asked. our next call is joann from fort collins, colorado. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. c-span, so lette me say up front that i am a feminist. my problem with this situation is that men are culturally orgrammed instinctively culturally to protect women. this has been shown most run --y in the overall the aurora, colorado movie theater shooting when men threw themselves in front of their girlfriends or wives, etc. and this is my problem -- the male

soldier instinctively will protect women and i will get off the phone to listen to your response. thank you. guest: thank you for that. this was a question that also came up a lot. you talk to rangers, there was one other -- there was one of the -- range who did 13 deployments in the post-9/11 wars and that is the better part of four years of combat and he said look, when lieutenant ashley white died, her death was tragic, but we were out there the next night and she died alongside to a bar ranger brothers. sergeant first class christopher dumais and private first class christopher horn and they work also losses. we went out there because that is our job. there is a moment in "ashley's war" where tristan, another west pointer, one of the rangers comes up to her and says, look,

i cannot take another loss. are you sure you want to go back out there? be safe and stay in the back and she says, look, absolutely, but i am a soldier. this is what i signed up to do. you see rangers who have really remembered lieutenant ashley white, captain jennifer moreno who died two years later in on was the same district also alongside a number of rangers. asley white is remembered is captainrangers as marino, so these losses are tragic, but i think what you will see is that they are another tragic loss that america endures of its young treasure and i do not think that when you talk to rangers, you see them talking about how they were worse than losing any other teammate they loved. ist: gayle tzemach lemmon our guest from colorado and a senior fellow at the council on

foreign relations and we are talking about women in military combat. mike from arlington, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: thank you particular call. i am surprised to hear this chauvinistic and misogynist things being said. originally, i am from ethiopia and some 35 years ago, there was a rebel movement in the country who overthrew the military dictatorship and women were fully engaged in combat and lived in the mountains, so for the 17 years, these people were -- werehe military fighting the military dictatorship and 33% of the soldiers were women. very disciplined, equal pay, men, in a really hostile environment for years on end, and there were commanders in the highest of ranking of the rebel i am hearing this in america that people would question what women are capable

of, which is shocking to me because we are very behind, these women fought and nobody questioned them and what they were able to do. here in our country, it is completely absurd to me how these people call in and ask those kind of chauvinistic type of answers, but they probably should look into other parts of the world where women have made a lot more progress and equally were able to hold their own in a guerrilla fight which, as you know, is really growing, so -- is really ruling, so you are doing a great job and all women who are serving, i am proud of you. thank you for that. i do know a little bit about they feel be a example and women all over -- a little bit about the ethiopia example and recent example is women fighting in isis. we have done a lot of stories on

that. what is so fascinating about this story is that in "ashley's war" one of the ranger trainers is told, hey, you have to go train girls and his first reaction is, no, what am i supposed to do? he said, train them like anybody else. a whole chapter in "ashley's war" is about his journey because he goes into this room and he sees 19 people who care in the light which is a little more colorful than that, but you see that in the 19 people with heart and great who are americans who signed up to serve not once but twice, and when special operation and when the army said, we need you, they said, yes, we will be part of building this in mid flight. you see these rangers spent seven days or eight days with them and say, these women are going to make history. in fact, one ranger said they airmanl be our own monday because what they proved to him, personally, and to a number of rangers next to whom

they served and alongside him they were privileged to serve as that they were soldiers who are there to do a job and to make a difference night in and night out. one of the stories of "ashley's in ais when tristan is nighttime operation and the women are telling her that there are ied's between where they are in the compound and where they're going to next. she shares that information with the ranger and they take a different path and they find out that the people in whose house they are standing are very much thatof the insurgency, so is the kind of information that made a difference and proved themselves to the rangers. you want to talk about these two incredible women who just finished ranger school, i just sergeant one of the first class who was part of running ranger school and his b was that they change -- view was that they change our minds because they showed up every single day, they were there every night just proving and

doing the absolute best, being part of their team, trying to help your fellow rangers and showing the grit and heart and courage they brought to their job. i think it is so important to remember that not a single one of these people are there to prove a point. they are there to serve with her fist. sigh, -- sigh, it "ashley's war" is about patriotism, not politics. i just would to show this headline, two soldiers at new heights and those are lieutenant kristen griest and captain shaye who earned their ranger tab. this is from friday in fort benning, georgia, making history and we will get to brett who is joining us from virginia. good morning. good morning. i really just have a comment more than anything else. behink there should always

zero distractions, regardless of what it pertains to. whether it is chevrolet, or happens to be drama in the combat place or a period. discussion, and any -- and any distraction, injury, death, and i do not understand why that risk should ever be put into question. host: we will get a response. thank you, sir. guest: sure, i mean "ashley's war" is a story about ahead of special operations saying we need women to help us win this war, and we are talking about soldiers. incredibly professional american soldiers who are there to do a job. women to be alongside them to help them fill the security gap and they were out there because america asked them to be. i think you talk about the there to do a job and by

the time this war that ashley white and her to meet showed up, and you will see that in the ," andof "ashley's war this was a look at how much more these men had fought and in fact that they were looking for solutions. you do your job, you contribute to your part of the team. one major who did 13 deployments in iraq, a retired first sergeant said to me, a job well done sticks out. it does not matter to me who is doing it. i think when we are talking about war and american efforts and soldiers who are there to do a job, and i agree that distractions would obviously be unwanted, but i do not think that having your fellow soldiers out there who happen to be women is considered a distraction by lot of these men who have fought onot of for -- a lot of wars america's behalf. one thing about rangers school, i was just that the air force

, very hot swamps of florida, and you could not tell who the fema was to the extent that reporters were like, wait, was that one of the women who is out there? we knew who it was after a while, and by the sound of her voice, but if you watched the press conference from fort benning the other day, if you are carrying hundreds of pounds, you are carrying a lot of weight. you are exhausted, you have not been, you are in the middle of exercising in the swamps, nobody cares if you are male or female. you care if you're ranger buddy delivers and whether the fellow ranger next to you is up to the job. , the women iomen have spent years covering your incredibly fierce, to the women in "ashley's war" and the women you see today, so many other women who are serving and i think in line to go to ranger school in november and

potentially beyond, is that they do not want the standard change. this and we want opportunity. host: we're looking at some of the "sea of the u.s. army. grueling and is resulted in training of two women. mary has this tweet that says they are two people who found a dream, found a path and diligently worked with courage and strength of character and work that path. tell us what you think at c-spanwj. kim is joining us from florida. kim, you with us? you are on the air. good morning. caller: i just think it is a totally bad idea. women are courageous and if we lost our borders, there is no doubt that women from kentucky to west virginia to take up arms and we would have a guerrilla warfare, but i can tell you that and so they have that birth cry, they cannot make that decision that they can continue to have

.hildren in the pow situation these are women who have no idea. a lot of the women who are signing up our son not because they do not have any other avenues. they want out of their towns and sending a care package to a in office, we, asked him, what would you like? they predominately wanted makeup. we sent mascara and cookies. i think men will always protect women. i would not want a woman with my son when he was in the explorers program and he did not even finish it because they had girls in their and they had to cut one down because her ponytail got caught in a training exercise as a teenager. he did not even pursue the career. host: we will get the response. thank you. guest: it is funny you up makeup. there is a scene in "ashley's war" where one of the young woman is in the ladies room and

she comes out and sees another one of her fellow soldiers who is about to go to combat and she says, oh, my god, i am so glad ,ou are makeup because she sd i am very blonde and if i do not pencil in my eyebrows i look scary. it is a very human moment in the middle of war, but nothing about wearing makeup makes you less effective when you put on body armor. i think that is what these women showed. talk to the rangers they served alongside. talk to the seals alongside whom they served, it is not that this was combined and all things wonderful, but it was that it was about getting a job done. i think these women proved that you can be incredibly feminine and incredibly peers and that cash incredibly fierce and be incredibly good at crossfit and that the may do less effective because you loved them both. these soldiers were there to do a job and to make a difference

for america. one america asked for people to serve, i think it is an incredibly valiant the that people answer their nation's call with courage and heart. "ashley's war" is the story of friendship. of women who had never been around women who were as driven and as fit and intense and also feminine and funny, so for them it was in many ways finding a home. are justnd women who like themselves. eusebius to rangers who just graduated and they are now leading the way for other young women. one ranger i talked to said is years if she six wants to join the army and goes to rangers go, you will be sure that i make certain she is prepared. i think you see a lot of that now, dads. we have gotten so many beautiful messages about "ashley's war"

from dad to say, this is my daughter. my daughter is an engineer or my and also prevent alongside whom these women have thatd to say, i am so glad they will be remembered in this way because they made a difference in my platoon. i wanted people to know about them, so i think change is challenging and it is in many ways ahead of where we are. what do think the decision will be come october by the defense department? guest: if i knew that, i think that you will see that the ranger tab achievement has helped to change the conversation. i just wrote a piece about how the competition with almost overnight from if they meet the standard to let them eat the standard. you see army leadership has been

very eloquent on this. washead of naval operations speaking about this the other day that there is this idea that there is a standard out there. meet the standard and you are part of the team. a lot more has to happen, but conversations have to be had. you start to see it shift in the discussion now. whether that shift will reach policy levels and actually lead to an opening january 1 of all combat roles, that remains to be seen, but i think we will see a very interesting set of conversations. i spoke recently to folks at special operations command who are right now are doing studies that other folks have done and having conversations with the services, so this is very much a wise discussion -- a live discussion, but there is no discussion that showing the two women earning the ranger tab is incredibly positive for the army in many ways. certainly it raises questions about all services in what roles

will open and it does change the tenor of the discussion. host: we will leave it there. gayle tzemach lemmon and the book is called "ashley's war" and it is about the untold story of a team of women on the special ops battlefield and the role of women on the front line of the military. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. among our guests, ed martin, the president of the eagle forum as he talks about the conservative the 2016and presidential campaign. and reverend barry lynn who is the executive director of americans united or the separation of church and state. his latest book "god and government." and dave jamieson will talk about the issue of unionization for college football players. topics tomorrow morning. you are for being with us on the sunday edition of "washington journal," and "newsmakers" is

coming up next. check our. -- online at any time on check our schedule online at any time at www.c-span.org. have a great weekend. ♪ >> here on c-span this money, "newsmakers" is next with national education association n cardent really eskelse seat and discussions on the lessons learned from hurricane katrina. later, former president jimmy carter holds a news conference to talk about his diagnosis with cancer and his future plans. >> joining us this week is clearly garcia, the president of the national association. guest: i am thrilled to be here. host: also joining