disapproval resolution with representative david price. send the debate over gay the debate over gay marriage and the rule of law. ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, september 9. both chambers, a resolution disapproving of the iran nuclear deal. the house will begin 11 hours of debate today with a vote expected on friday. the senate could also hold a vote that day. with debate kicking off, we want to get your thoughts on what your message to congress is on the iran nuclear deal. if you supported, (202) 748-8000 . if you are opposed, (202)

784-8001. e-mail or find us on facebook or twitter. phone lines are open. what is your message to congress on this iran nuclear deal? obama secures 41 votes in inport of iran nuclear deal "politico." while the accord will survive, republican attempts to derail it , the senate faces a bitter fight on how the democrats will stymie the gop. democrats argue that a presidential veto and the weeks

eat,ditional debate would could hurt the united states' international standing. what is your message? district heights, maryland. tony is in support. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i do support this agreement or deal, whatever you want to call it. i believe the alternative is war and i believe that is what the republican party wants to do -- send this country into another war.

there will not be an agreement that will satisfy them. if iran is months away from getting a nuclear weapon now they are 15 years away with this agreement in place. i don't know why they would be against it unless they just want to go to war no matter what. there will not be an agreement that will satisfy them. their alternative is war. host: can i ask you -- we heard what you are saying -- can i you about procedure in washington? decide ifhave yet to they will even allow it to come to the floor, this disapproval resolution. they say, when it comes to a final vote, they are for the deal, they would vote against disapproving of it. some democrats are saying, they are not sure whether or not they should let it come to the floor.

some think they should because they don't want to be seen as filibustering a key foreign-policy vote. what do you think? caller: that is agnostic to me, ma'am. the republican party, regarding this deal, will try to shut it and by any means necessary they will make it look worse than it is. it is not bad to begin with. they did not even read it when they were against it. i can't see them being for any part of it. the reason why they were against it is because they want to go to war. .e need a bogeyman all the time let me tell you this, ma'am, the jewish lobby, they are very powerful and congress. the democratic party and the republican party are both controlled by the israeli lobby. host: what is your evidence of that control? caller: i just know it.

i worked there. i know it. i see it. host: that is tony in district heights, maryland. "politico" reports that despite the opportunity to take a victory lap, democratic leaders are still working their members in preparation for a decisive wednesday party lunch that will determine whether the senate minority is prepared to mount a historic filibuster of the resolution. we will find out more later today. asked all 100l senators to be in the chamber

today when the senate moves to take up this and begin this disapproval of the iran nuclear deal. whether or not all will be sitting in their seats, we will find out. they will break for their weekly lunches for both sides and they will be talking behind closed doors. we are getting your thoughts on this. what is your message to congress? bob in florida. you opposed the deal. caller: good morning. i oppose it because i think we are giving away the store and we need to stand tough. we were doing fine before this negotiation even started. we need to backup israel. thatare our best friend in area and we need to give them our support. if we don't and the nuclear development continues, i think israel is likely to attack, just

to destroy those nuclear facilities, and that could trigger a serious situation. i think we need to stand up to it and back our friends. host: julienne in laurel, maryland. you support it. because isupport it keep hearing, there could be a better deal. i believe we should also prepare for our future now, not 10 or 15 years from now. i don't believe in fear because i used to serve in the military. i know what our military can do. is about nuclear proliferation in the middle east. it is not about a particular country or supporting some other country or whatever. it is about nuclear .roliferation the non-development of nuclear weapons in the middle east.

only one country still develops nuclear weapons in the middle east that is not a signatory and that is israel. no one has said what is better than this deal. host: take a look at the "new york times." ads taken out by j street. group that is in favor of the deal. they say support for the iran agreement is overwhelming. then they say, 60% of american jews and the majority of the jewish members of congress support this agreement. the debate kicks off in the house and senate today.

it is also taking place off of the floors, outside of the capital. there will be a rally led by senator ted cruz and donald trump against the rally. deal.inst the c-span will have coverage of the house floor. c-span 2, the senate will be doubling in -- gaveling in. over on c-span 3, we will show you that rally, as well. north las vegas, nevada. you oppose it. why? caller: just like with russia invading crimea, taking that, syria -- the president has not stood up any time for what he believes, for this nation.

nobody that is really threatened by iran is in support of it. jordan, saudi arabia, egypt, israel. everybody that is close is scared. there is a reason. i think we should feel the same fear. and it is a treaty. being a treaty, there is a reason they need to support it. don't think anybody can claim it's not a treaty when it deals with nuclear weapons. host: jim, you support it. caller: i neither support nor oppose. but i hope the supporters are right because if they are wrong, the worst-case scenario will happen and that worst-case is that iran develops a bomb and ran -- te terror

hran immediately after they have one. host: here is what harry reid said yesterday. the private: negotiation that brought us to this point has been going on for years. review of the agreement has been going on for months. during that long period, president obama and secretary kerry were clear in their goals, above all, that the united states will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. would not signes any agreement that takes iran at its word or relies on trust iran has not earned. at the most difficult crossroads of this time, president obama and secretary kerry made clear that the hard choices belong to iran. now it is our turn.

now the united states has a choice to make. we can enforce an agreement that forces iran to walk away for many nuclear weapons program or we can walk away from the agreement and assume responsibility for the consequences. we can take the strongest step effort to locking you ran -- iran from getting a nuclear bomb or block the agreement and all but ensure that they will have the material they need to make a bomb. in a matter of months, they would be able to do that. but we cannot have it both ways. , blocking thee bomb and locking fee agreement are two distinct choices. host: senator reid laying out the argument for supporting this deal. right now, there are 58 senators who support a disapproval resolution of the deal. that is all 54 republicans, including senator susan collins,

along with four democrats. senator ben cardin, senator bob ,enendez, and senator manchin and senator schumer. at what the top democrat of the foreign relations committee had to say yesterday. it puts iran in a position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break out a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement. being legal, they can get to that point. at that point, they have already gotten sanctions relief, so they are in a much better financial situation to withstand pressures. we know they want to become a nuclear weapons state. they have tried in the past.

it is well documented. we have no reason to believe they are going to change their intentions. if they want to become a nuclear weapons state and the make the calculation that we don't have a sanction way to stop them because sanctions take too long to really take effect, it would not be an effect of deterrent -- effective deterrent to erase the breakdown. here is the key point of concern to me. and i acknowledge that i don't know what is going to happen in the future. this is a close call. but i think there is a higher risk of potential military operation if we go forward with this agreement because we don't have effective sanctions once they have been removed. host: senator ben cardin on the floor yesterday. hillary clinton will be weighing in on this today in washington at the brookings institution

talking about the iran nuclear agreement. we will have coverage of that at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2 head of the senate gaveling in later today. also, donald trump weighing in on this in "usa today." he says it is amateur hour with the iran deal. demonstrating to the world the total incompetence of our president and politicians. he goes on to say this. we will use all the tools of power available, hopefully avoiding direct action.

donald trump in the pages of "usa today." we are getting your thoughts. what is your message to congress on this iran nuclear deal? the president securing 42 supporters yesterday. no republicans, 40 democrats, two independents. notes thatton post the announcements were made by senator richard blumenthal comer maria cantwell, ron wyden. it is a margin that would deprive washington republicans of the 60 votes necessary to debate disapproval legislation. mario. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i oppose the deal. i don't think it is going to make a difference.

war is coming because the shiites and the sunnis are going to go at it. you are going to have a nuclear race, there is no doubt about it . every time there was a great war, there was always a great treaty signed. i think this is just a next use to say that we are trying to prevent the war, but if anything, this is going to lead us to war. it is not going to stop the shiites and sunnis from fighting. we have the petrodollar. targeting saudi arabia because that is the biggest blow to america. war is going to come no matter what. i'm sure they want to kill the

what, we arematter going into war. to pretend that this treaty is going to prevent war, history shows that that is not going to happen. host: ok. beverly is in michigan. support. michigan.silanti, i'm 74 years old. i've been watching c-span for a long time. i do know every time we went to the u.n., sometimes we were the only one who would vote for israel for something. there was no other country who would do so. we would veto because of israel. ok? we have done it for 74 years because i have been watching. sometimes, there is the old expression with slavery that

said we love to the master more than the master loved himself. i'm afraid that some americans are looking out more for israel than they are for the american interests. we cannot be the only country to support israel and nobody else do it. they all could not be wrong. that is why i'm supporting this. host: cedar rapids, iowa. craig opposes the deal. caller: you better read your bible. if you bless israel you will be blessed, if you curse israel, you will be cursed. that is at the national level or the personal level. according to a congressmen, if there are is to -- if there is two thirds of a vote against ,his deal, then the president constitutionally, cannot veto that vote. just because we say some entity is pro-israeli, that does not

mean that they are. these people do not think the way we do, especially if they follow the koran and they are not lead the way we are. they cannot be trusted. we are playing with fire. we need to protect the whole world and quit doing things for power, money, and vote. ,e need to reason together getting the best decisions for the people of this world and we are not doing it. it is all about power, money, and votes. host: jessica in louisville, kentucky. you are undecided. tell us why. caller: i haven't been able to hear much about what exactly was in the deal. i think that america has a right to know. i was frustrated that obama just does what he wants and i

definitely think that we should always agree with israel. thank you. host: on your point of not knowing what was in the deal, this is from the "washington post." in the house, the supposedly straightforward progress to vote was interrupted yesterday when a republican from illinois introduced a measure to slow theress's assessment of iran deal. he alleged that the 60 day clock has not started because the administration has not let congress see confidential side agreements.

if the resolution to declare the whole 60-data liberation window noland void passes, the onus will be on john boehner to determine how to proceed. the speaker could still hold a vote soon, which would be politically difficult to do, or decide to delay the vote while congress looks into issues laid roskam'spresentative resolution. banners office declined -- declined tofice comment. a final vote will land on friday, the anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks. from the "wall street journal," this is the front page -- a

story on hillary clinton when she was secretary of state. in her last month, she helped open the door to a dramatic shift in u.s. policy toward iran. so, the "wall street journal" saying that hillary clinton laid the groundwork and she will be talking about this today in washington at the brookings institution, talking about the iran nuclear agreement. that is taking place on c-span

2. in other news, want to let you know what else is happening on capitol hill. this is from the "washington times." pro-life groups plan to rally on capitol hill today is the first congressional hearings begin into land parenthood policies on fetal tissue. that is before the house judiciary committee. we will have coverage of that on c-span 3 this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern. are still trying to decide how they are going to deal with funding for planned parenthood, while trying to avoid a government shutdown over

the spending. that is an "politico" this morning. strategy toto plot avoid a shutdown." they are going to have listening sessions this whole week with their rank-and-file to try to figure out and quell an uprising over the funding. many in the republican party want to attach defunding planned parenthood to any sort of continuing resolution to fund the government. also, "financial times" this morning. the fed is being urged to hold its fire on a rate hike or risk sparking an emerging market panic. that is coming from the chief economist at the world bank yesterday. that follows is a warning from the international monetary and recently -- monetary fund

recently, as well. the cadillac health tax expected to go in place in 2016. fight is health tax heating up." could prompt employers to eliminate flexible spending account. we will see what congress plans to do on this issue. also, many of you are aware of the migrant situation in europe. here is from the "washington times" this morning. you one warns of coming wave -- the u.n. warns of a coming wave of 42,000 migrants. times," "asw york migrant crisis grows, the u.s. is considering taking in more syrians."

the white house spokesman said the united states has provided $4 billion to help improve european migrant camps, making america the biggest donor to that situation. the u.s. senate and its allies are focusing on the islamic state in syria. poised. and france are to join coalition airstrikes. this is on the front page of the "washington post." baltimore has reached an agreement with freddie gray's family. million. $2.8 million would be paid to his family this fiscal year and

$3.6 million in the fiscal year that begins in july. the front page of "usa today." the county clerk in kentucky was freed from jail yesterday. mike huckabee there to support her, along with senator ted cruz. holding an event outside of the jail with kim davis. the papers note that some of -- one aide from the huckabee camp was seen not allowing senator ted cruz to get close to the event, but ted cruz talking to the cameras in that area outside of the event. he also met with kim davis in jail yesterday. that is some of the headlines in the paper this morning. politics news, hillary clinton taking to facebook apologizing for the

e-mails. in an interview with abc, an exclusive, talked about it as well. [video clip] i'm confidentn: that people will know they can trust me and i will be on their side and will fight for them and their families. i do think i could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier, as i look back on it now. even though what was allowed, i should have used two accounts, one for personal and one for work related e-mails. that was a mistake. i'm sorry about that. i take responsibility. i'm trying to be as transparent as i possibly can. i'm looking forward to finally testifying before congress. >> as you sit here, did you make a mistake? hillary clinton: i did. i did. as a set, it was allowed. there was no hiding it.

everybody in the government i communicated with new i was using a personal e-mail, but i'm sorry that it has raised all of these questions. i do take responsibility for having made what is clearly not the best decision. times reporting on this e-mail story this morning that two senators are considering immunity for clinton's aides in exchange for their testimony. they are seeking a trade in the e-mail probe. they propose a session where the aid would let them know what he knows in an off the record setting and then all sides could decide what they would take. senator ron johnson is coming up on "washington journal." that is our conversation with all of you. james in richmond, washington. you support it. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: yes, i think that it is

a good deal. what theyn tout believe to be is a better deal, but it is the deal you have in hand right now. either way, they are going to receive a big pile of money. they are going to get $50 million or $100 million. host: to your point about these other countries that negotiated this deal with the united states, the papers note that the other countries say they are not willing to go back to the negotiating table with iran. tom in arizona, you oppose. good morning. tom you are on the air. caller: yeah, i completely oppose.

it makes no sense. if you have bad credit, you go to the bank to buy a house, you don't get it because your actions have proven you're not responsible enough. exceptthis any different there are many lives that count on this decision? host: ginger in minnesota. you support. caller: good morning. yes, i do support this. i have been through three presidents, i'm an old lady. they have been wringing our hands about iran not getting a nuclear. and finally we've got a deal and everybody is falling apart on the deal. that's silly. we've got a deal, let's use the deal. remember this. we did a nuclear deal with russia. there is mutually -- what are they call that? destruction.

nuclearever used iran off we would wipe the face of the map. host: david in texas. you oppose. caller: this is david. host: you are on the air. caller: and i definitely oppose it because what would we rather have? a conventional war or a nuclear war? that is the end of my comment. thank you much, c-span. a-woo! host: jay in florida. you oppose. caller: i've never heard so many uninformed people in my life. who say they can agree with the deal because they don't know what the deal is. there are so much hidden in the deal. there should not even be a process to this.

is unrealistic to think they billion to iran and they will not use it to give weapons to someone. everybody needs to think about this one issue. if the president allows one dollar to go to iran and one of those dollars kills an american, does that make him responsible for that and isn't that considered treason or tyranny? host: thank you. marysville, washington. you support the deal. what is your message to congress? caller: i think we should go ahead and pass it without any further fanfare. rather keep my friends close and my enemies closer, as well. iran is going to be a superpower in the middle east, and is and this -- i understand this.

let them go ahead and make nuclear bombs at the present rate or slow them down. i think it is better to slow them down now and the ahead of them. making materials is one thing and making bombs is entirely different and delivering it is an entirely different stage. i think people are getting hysterical, especially republicans. all republicans are against this thing and i don't get that. host: all right. in other 2016 news, jeb bush was appearing on stephen colbert's debut on "the late night show" last night. he is also writing about his tax plan. his overhaul to unleash 4% growth. he writes that he would have three income tax rates. rate and% corporate

immediate expensing on new investment. the former florida governor will be talking more about his tax plan today on the campaign trail. yesterday, in new york, hillary clinton taping an interview with nlan the generous, -- elele degeneres. her appearance comes amid unfavorable polls. that will be airing on thursday. yesterday, the former vice president, dick cheney, was in washington at the american enterprise institute.

here is what he had to say about the deal with iran. [video clip] dick cheney: it will not prevent a nuclear iran along with a pathway to a nuclear arsenal. president obama's agreement will provide iran with funds and weapons that the regime will use for the support of terror, dominance of the middle east, and the furtherance to destroy israel and prevent the united states from defending our allies and our interests in the persian gulf and beyond. with the removal of restrictions on iran's ballistic missile program, this agreement will give them the means to launch a nuclear attack on the u.s. homeland. a week before the deal was announced, president obama's own secretary of defense declared this should not happen. i in icbm stands for

intercontinental and we don't want that." that was a week for he knew what was in the agreement. i know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of it -- of another nation. what president obama is asking the united states congress to do is unique, historically and dangerously. the results could well be catastrophic. "the washington post" calls with the former vice president had to say yesterday "mr. cheney's lecture. " he said supporters of the iran deal are probably more grateful that applauding cheney from the was dr. paul wolfowitz

. senator tom cotton in the second row, were michele bachmann and scooter libby. surely, those who would look to see congress under the nuclear agreement would expect to see rolling out cheney would save the cause. the former vice president wouldn't seem to have the best track record. house, before mr. cheney spoke, putting together a video to make that point. [video clip] you that hereshow in just a second when we get that ready. in the meantime, we are asking your message to congress on the iran nuclear deal. chris in safford, arizona. you oppose. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe this deal is terrible. they are putting nuclear weapons

in the hands of people known to be working with terrorists. a feeling president obama is wrong, congress should not let this happen. they are going to be feeling the bottle that is feeding people. nationse a lot of other and other countries could be really affected by this deal. it is not a good idea. it scares me. honestly, it does. i really hope that they don't put this through. host: now, let me show you what the white house put together right before the former vice president spoke in washington yesterday, making the point that daniel milbank makes in his column today, that his lecture in iran recalled iraq. [video clip] ♪ people say dick cheney was wrong about iraq, why should they listen to you about iran? >> because i was right about iraq.

do you think the american people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with a significant american casualties? >> i don't think it is likely to unfold that way. i do believe we will be greeted as liberators. saddam hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. there is no doubt. i don't think we got it so wrong. we thought he had weapons of mass destruction, he didn't. we thought we would be greeted with open arms and we weren't. >> i don't look at it as we got it so wrong. i think we got a big part of it wrong. >> we were not greeted as liberators. >> i think we have been by most iraqis. >> most americans say it is not worth fighting. >> so?

host: the video put together by the administration. give us your message to congress on this debate kicking off in washington this week in the house and the senate. they will spend the full week talking about this iran nuclear deal. a disapproval resolution is on the floor and a vote is likely in the house on friday. it is looking like the senate could follow suit with a vote on friday. that is still up in the air because some of those 42 in favor have said they might let debate go forward. they would not filibuster, and other words, the debate of this disapproval resolution. then, in the end, they will vote against disapproving of it. ianne in mount pleasant,

south carolina. caller: i supported for various reasons. we need our coordinates. the last administration, they were not communicating and we had no idea what was going on. at least this way, we can put our bugs in to try to give us the head start. whatever they have, they've got it anyway, in my opinion. as far as cheney, tell us what happened to the tractor-trailer full of hundred dollar bills. we've got to protect our country. blame oncey going to obama leaves? have a good day. host: andrew is opposed. new jersey. caller: good morning, c-span. first of all, we have enough problems in this country. we have a failing infrastructure

. we have people out of jobs. you were going to throw $100 million down a rat hole? i trained with these people when i was in the air force. i had iraqis and iranians. theynessed firsthand how were getting paid by their own government and our government. they were making $1000 per month in 1977, 1978 when our own troops, myself included, were only making about $400 or $500 per month. breakould purposefully equipment that would set the instructors off and they would say laugh, laugh, laugh, we are going to pull the wool over your eyes. there has got to be transparency. thank you. host: this conversation rolls on after a short rake. when we come back we are going to talk with senator ron johnson, republican from wisconsin. deal.oses the

we will ask him why and then later we will hear from congressman david price, a supporter of the deal. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. new the end of september, we are in new york or the brooklyn book festival. in early october, it is the southern festival of books in nashville. then the texas book festival.

we will be covering two book festivals. the wisconsin book festival and the boston book festival. at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon ck,wardstock -- for wordsto followed by the national book awards in new york city. then we are in miami, florida for the miami book fair international. >> lew and herbert hoover came to the white house as the claimed geologists and world travelers. months into hoover's term, the financial market crashed. first lady lou hoover advocated volunteerism and charity. as the great depression deepened, their one term ended amid overwhelming public restoration. lou hoover, this sunday night on

"first ladies: influence and image." the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back with the chairman of the homeland security committee, senator ron johnson, republican, wisconsin, also a member of the foreign relations committee. you said you will oppose the iran deal and you call it awful and a dangerous agreement. why? guest: good morning. host: good morning. guest: we are going to allow the largest state sponsor of terror to receive hundreds of billions of dollars in their economy and the military of the largest

state sponsor of terror and we are expecting no behavior modification whatsoever. i think they will continue to be on a path to becoming a nuclear power. i think our ability to address that militarily will be weakened. russia said it will supply more sophisticated surface to air missiles. i think this makes it more dangerous place in the world. host: the breakout time for iran to get a nuclear time is two months. with this agreement, they say it is a year. does that give the united states and its allies time to react? why is no deal better than that? guest: because we are really strengthening iran. refuses too just soften its position and continues to chant "death to america, death to israel." i don't see why you would want to strengthen your enemy's hand in any way, shape, or form. thehould have strengthened

sanctions. we should have come with a strong hand and demanded that they dismantle their nuclear program. obama acknowledged iran's right to enrich uranium. that signal to the world that this was going to happen. everybody starts hopping on board and they start looking to the dollars that they can make on iranian oilfields. from my standpoint, this negotiation was lost before it even began. here is another point. i believe this is such a significant deal, so consequential. it should has been treated as a treaty. president obama is treating it as a executive agreement. that is pretty low level. this should have had the approval of the american people

and their duly elected representatives. it strengthens my hand when my negotiating partner realized i had to answer to a board of directors. realized thata the american people would not agree to this. he would have strengthened his hand and i think we would have that wouldetter deal have modified iran's behavior and forced them to give up their enrichment programs and made the world is safer place. it is going to be an awful deal. host: explain for those that don't know the procedure if it would have been a treaty. guest: the senate would have had to prove it with two thirds voting for it. so much misinformation about what is happening in congress right now. this is not a vote to approve the deal.

it is not even a vote on the deal. all this is is when congress passed the sanctions against iran, president obama opposed to them, but he credited the sanctions we passed in congress with ringing iran to the table to make the deal possible. when those sanctions were passed , congress also granted president obama waiver authority for the purposes of national security. in hindsight, we wish we had not done that. the only thing we are talking about now is if we pass a vote of disapproval, have the president veto it, and be able to override it. the waiver authority would be taken away and one part of the agreement would not go into .ffect the congressionally imposed sanctions would not be lifted. obama isrge, president going right to the security council, getting them to approve

the lifting of the u.n. sanctions. this is pretty much a done deal. we are kind of arguing over a little point, i hate to say. this is not a good deal for world peace or regional peace. host: do you think the vote should even take place than because president obama has potentially 41 senators who could stop you from even bringing to the floor a disapproval resolution? if not all 41 hang together and some say let's have a debate, they are going to vote against it on final passage and then he has enough support to override anything that congress does. guest: first of all, it is an incredibly important debate to have. mitch mcconnell will have all united states senators sitting in their seats. i think this is such an important agreement, so consequential, at a minimum, that is what we should be doing. from my standpoint, i think this

rises to the level of the treaty. reviewdment during the would have deemed this a treaty, but that did not pass this a senate. i did not even get a vote that would have required both houses seeking a majority vote to approve the deal. don't you think that is the minimum threshold of a ruble on part of the american people, that their elected representatives will approve the deal? as opposed to the review of disapproval. why we end up with such a bad deal. host: we will see how this all plays out today when the senate gavels in for their session. they have their weekly lunches. both parties chat behind closed doors. then it looks like they will

come to the senate floor. mitch mcconnell has asked all 100 senators to be at their desks in the chamber when the debate kicks off. 2 to watchc-span that debate. senator ron johnson is here to take your questions and comments. tom is in maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning, senator johnson. can you hear me? guest: loud and clear. caller: it seems that your argument is to keep iran in a subservient position in perpetuity. you can do that. a great nation. ,t may be a terrorist nation but what iran is trying to do as far as its community is concerned and terroristic activities, our argument is about the nuclear deal. we have to do something.

otherwise, iran is going to continue to produce nuclear material and we will have no leverage except for war. as far as just trying to prevent them from getting money, you can't stop a great nation from progressing with its people. these people want the same things we want. but if we can prevent them from getting a new air weapon -- nuclear weapon. guest: i have a great deal of sympathy for the long-suffering people of iran, but they have this regime in charge of them and they don't have freedom. as a result, the last thing i want to do is strengthen the largest state sponsor of terrorism. why would you want to strengthen your enemy without any behavior modification whatsoever? by the way, any time any where inspections did not exactly turn out that way. we are not exactly sure how the samples are going to be collect did -- collected. anywhere.t anytime,

i don't think the deal will be verifiable. i don't think we will be able to hold iran accountable. trustworthyexactly from the standpoint of adhering to any agreement. this is just a bad deal. why would we want to strengthen the hands of our enemy? host: susan is next. an independent in florida. you are on the air. caller: thank you to c-span and thank you for taking my call. i am for the nuclear deal with iran because we can always turn backward. i think that piece needs to be a word that is not being used. i also think people should understand that we are not the only country who is part of this. always promises made by the hawks who prefer a over diplomatic solution or some type of peace talks.

it is frustrating to see that. almighty dollar that comes into play, i think. host: i'm going to jump in, at that point. both callers bringing up the alternative is war. guest: i believe that is the case. you cannot always turn back the clock. this makes it far more likely for them to become a nuclear power. you are not going to be able to turn back the clock. we were not able to turn it back on north korea. look at the events happening in syria. you can't look at the middle east and say, that will never affect us. it will affect us. my bottom line is pretty simple. look at all the details and the deal, but why would you try to strengthen the hand of your enemy? i think it is a crazy thing to do. host: is it realistic to think you can go back to the negotiating table?

our allies are saying, no. this president has made matters so much worse and so many different areas, domestically and internationally. we had a stronger hand when the sanctions brought iran to the table. one of the first words out of not goingh was we are to dismantle our nuclear program and we should have walked away from the table and strengthened toctions to leverage iran dismantle their program. that is a false choice. it was not this deal or war. it is this deal and what could have been a far better deal, but i will be the first to concede that president obama has frittered away so much of our leverage, strengthened iran's hands. we are the world leader. to happen.s going

they saw how desperate president obama and secretary of state andy were to make this deal they hopped on board. they at least wanted their commercial interests in there. russia is saying, we might as well supply the surface to air missile system. there are definitely commercial place which shows what a lie snapback sanctions are. are liftednctions and the dollars start flowing in, have you snapped that back? it took six i can eight years before the sanctions were able to take effect and president obama frittered those away. it is a real shame. it is depressing to realizing the weakening of our hand under this president. host: mary is in south carolina and a republican. good morning. caller: senator? guest: hello, mary.

caller: i hope that mitch mcconnell will have the gumption to stand up to this and make a whole bill be read out in congress congress for the amerin people to find out what is in there. there will be such an uprising among the people, democrats and republicans, that a lot more democrats will go against the bill. this is putting the world at risk. you get those people all those hundreds of billions of dollars, they will start flying missiles into israel again. host: so let's talk about what it -- knowing what is in this bill. guest: we do know what is on the written page, but we don't know these side arrangements of the art -- that iran has with the iaea. we had been told that the administrative officials sort of had that letter passed in front of them. certainly congress is not getting that, which by the way

was part of the iranian arrangement review act. the administrative and said we would get every annexed security -- it was very explicit. we have not seen this total deal. there are a lot of people arguing, i can't disagree with them, that we should not even be going after this until we have all of this. we don't have all of the agreements. what our guest yesterday -- he offered legislation on this saying of the 60 day clock should never have been started. it is null and void because congress has not seen everything. guest: it is a very valid point. i'm not sure how the votes are going to unfold. that will be unfolding on the floor of the senate and the house, in terms of how bad a deal as is. i am not sure i agree with mary that we want to read the entire deal. that would be a snoozer. going tortainly are

highlight all of the key point of why this is such a bad deal. host: have you read the whole deal? guest: absolutely. i read it all the way. recommendy would not reading that on the floor of the senate. these things are complex. you read the contract, but really you have to take a look at what are the key points, and as i said, i step back from all the details. my bottom line is a why would we want to strengthen the hand of our enemy? that is why i oppose this deal. the hand of the largest state sponsor of terrorism, who we know is destabilizing yemen and syria. look at the events in europe right now. that is just the tip of the iceberg, half a million your -- has a million refugees now flowing into europe. williams displaced externally and internally in syria. these things have real consequences. host: do you disagree with the

notion -- and if so tell us why -- that under this agreement this gives the united states and to allies political time convince iran to not act the way that they are acting? guest: iran has been emboldened by these. they completely one these negotiations. this has been a total capitulation by the u.s.. iran got everything it wants. it still has centrifuges spinning. they were originally talking about, let's just enrich some. now they have 6000. they continue to make more demands. us reallylooks at with contempt. they hate our guts, he wants to destroy us, and they just beat us badly in negotiation. why would they change their behavior? want to talk about the enrichment part, because that is something you focused on in the hearing. according to the u.s. nuclear iran hasn commission,

agreed to lower what they had at 20% right now all the way down to 3.7%. why is that not good enough? guest: again, they will remain on a path to become a nuclear power. and those things can be improved in 10 to 15 years. they will be welcomed into it. they will have a robust, industrial-strength uranium enrichment program, they will be able to bump up very quickly at that point in time. that -- bet.mic it is a very dangerous gamble. what we should have been looking for in his negotiations is forcing behavior modification. uranium iran have an enrichment program? it just drove me nuts. theadministrative -- administration kept saying, we are going to ensure this is a

peaceful nuclear program. there is no such thing. if they wanted peaceful nuclear power they could have easily just purchased a material on the outside market like other nations do. the only reason they enrich uranium is they want the blackmail of having a nuclear weapon. it is just obvious. it is the only reason they put up all the sanctions. they watch that nuclear blackmail. that is basically what they are being handed on a silver platter with this deal. host: we go next to to johnny and now many, georgia, democrat. caller: hi. i wanted to comment because i put 23 years in the army. indian,r was a cherokee and i am glad this is a deal because if this was a treaty we all know what happened in oklahoma. oklahoma should be a reservation for the cherokee indians, but oklahoma is now a state because the treaty was taken back. americanseaties,

don't do so good. we all know what happens with treaties and america. this is a deal. the deal might last. that is why i was calling in. host: ok. johnny, first of all, thank you for your service to this nation. the reason we want to view this as a treaty and so the american people, through their elected representatives, would have some say whether or not this was a good deal or a bad deal. that is the way we have treated treaties in the past, it is the example, the for , it is fuel agreements just the way to do something that is so important and consequential. just treating this as an executive agreement, i think, drastically reduced president obama's negotiating leverage, which is why we ended up with such a bad deal. , california,ach

darrell is watching out there. an independent. caller: good morning. the thing that is interesting to me is, why don't you just have the supreme court come in and make a decision. that is how it seems the country goes now. you guys in the senate and the congress, you let the court take a thousand your background and by the way. -- and why did away. , not one of our representatives went to the 70 year parade there in china, they lost 20 million people in world war ii. we did not even reach the 500,000 mark. this nation has been given all these gifts, and look at you guys. you are setting there worried about some nation making a firecracker, and russia has megaton hydrogen bonds. i don't understand why you are talking about enemies and this and that. get the supreme court in there to make the decision, because that is how this world is going right now with the congress and

the senate. have a good day, buddy. guest: not quite sure how to respond to that. codeusly we have to treat we will bridges of government. i don't think the supreme court to have a role in deciding the effect of treaties. obviously i'm concerned about china, i am concerned about russia, i am concerned about all kinds of things. host: mobile, alabama, gone is next, a republican. caller: yes, good morning. you are doing a good job. i can't believe that congress is sitting there thinking they want to take a vote on this, when the corker bill went through, and they said if these agreements are not lived up to and we don't have all of what is written down in the law that it is going to be no and void. -- it is going to be no and void -- null and void. if you even take a vote, you are

going to say that the corker bill agreements were all agreed to and fulfilled, and therefore deemed valid. if you don't even think about -- take a vote and just say the it is invalid because you did not the fill your part, the republicans can just walk away. there is no agreement at all. guest: that's just not accurate. the agreement, because president obama deemed it an executive agreement, is going forward whether we are involved whatsoever. bill got usardin involved to a very limited extent, that if we could voice his approval president obama's waiver authority would be taken away. that is what the 60 day deadline was about. we can quibble over that deal -- detail, but this deal is going forward. all the sections have been lifted by the u.n., we are going to have this debate, but this is not -- we do not have the power

to stop this deal, by and large. all we would ever have the power to do -- the only thing democrats would approve of is to take away president obama's waiver authority. have is thatg they this deal does not lift the sanctions. they will still be sitting there. we are trying with the grand leader, ayatollah commodity, -- he is -- ayatollah -- ayatollah kamani. this thing is already falling apart. host: so the vote is taken place this week is a vote to disapprove of the iran nuclear deal. has 42sident though supporters, which means republican do not have the 60 votes they likely need -- this will be a 60 vote threshold, anyway they cut it, for them to get this disapproval past and sent to the president's desk. guest: i have to point out, even

if we get a vote of disapproval, the deal does not get taken away. that is all. that is the only involvement this administration would agree to. we had to get his agreement. .his is pretty weak tea i was not nuts about this corker cardin bill. i voted for it because it was better than nothing. based on the confusion it is ing, i am- it is sew kind of scratching my head. guest: so all went -- host: so all 100 senators will potentially be at their desks. outside the chamber, 1:00 p.m. eastern time here in washington, there will be a rally to oppose this deal. senator ted cruz will be there, donald trump will be there. will you be there for? guest: you can see it in my schedule. host: let's take the more calls, michael, tulsa oklahoma.

want to say, they don't want to read the whole bill on the floor because they don't want everyone to know what is in it. he is telling a lie right now and he can see what bush and cheney got us into. he did not care what the american people thought then. thank you. guest: obviously the deal has been out there for everyone to read. i recommend they do read it. bring up another topic here for you to respond to. frontpage of "the washington times," senators consider immunity for clinton aides testimony. areself, chuck grassley considering giving immunity for the aides who set up the e-mail server. why would you do that? guest: first of all, we would not be granting the immunity ourselves. we have to take a vote and request that from the federal court. i think this is pretty important. obviously center grassley has

jurist -- senator grassley has jurisdiction. this is our response ability, to get to the bottom of what is happening. what happened in the state department. this is very serious business. how do we know the classified, top-secret information was contained in some way, shape, and form on that server? it was very unsecure. we need to find out how unsecure. we need to be pushing the state department to find out exactly what was on the service, because our enemies have some pretty sophisticated capabilities of hacking into systems. ithink we have to sit -- think we have to assume, from a national security standpoint, that anything that was top secret might be in the hands of our enemies. how could that, my security? how could that compromise people's lives? there thatgents out if their cover is blown, they are in jeopardy.

this was a stunning dereliction of duty by the former secretary of state. people need to understand how serious that their election of duty was. it is our responsibility to find out what is happening within this administration where this is condoned. anybody that got an e-mail from secretary clinton realized she was not using the state government server. that should have been setting up all kinds of lime bells. this was not the only agency or department where we are seeing this type of thing. heads of departments, secretaries, are setting up their own private e-mail accounts to basically circumvent requests. they can do all kinds of things behind the scenes and that is not what you can do within the executive branch in terms of running government. you have to have these things transparent for the american people understand what you are working public servants in the administration, the executive branch. host: the paper says what you are considering is an off the record's discussion with the staffer that you can know what

he knows, and then you would decide to proceed after that. what does that mean? guest: i think that is what is called a proper session. i'm not in it -- a proffer session. you get him in, you find out information he has, if we find out it is so important that it should be revealed to congress and the american public -- i'm not particularly interesting and cross -- particularly interested in prosecuting this guy. we go to the judge and say this is important for congress to have in its oversight responsibility, and we are asking for a grant of immunity on this specific testimony. host: i also want to ask you are -- as you are the head of the homeland security panel, about this migrant situation in europe. the united states is thinking that maybe this country takes in more of these syrian and iraqi refugees? what do you think about that? what sort of risk does that posed to the united states? guest: you have to be very

careful in terms of getting any individual we bring in as a refugee. we are a very compassionate country. we are a nation of immigrants. but these are different times. the threats from islamic terrorism are real and growing. we do not have islamic terrorists on the run. it is a metastasizing, growing threat. of -- the lack of resolve of this president as it relates to syria, and i think a lot of us were warning him, but the president, if you don't take action, forceful action, if you don't develop a coalition to stabilize things in syria, it is going to stable -- spin out of control. it has spun out of control. you have millions of syrians outside. that is just the tip of the iceberg. hopefully this is a wake-up call and people realize that you cannot confine the problems to

the middle east. it is going to have spillover effects. it not only affects their lives but it affects our lives as well. host: would you agree to raising the number of syrians that are allowed to come here right now? it is 1500 year. would you agree to raising that? i would want to see exactly what is put in place to make sure we bet everyone possible -- properly. what is the vetting process? i have seen in the past that we do not do a very good job of that. we have a completely broken immigration system and we need to fix it. i am happy to take a look at that. the real solution is we have got to take leadership and hopefully this will be a wake-up call to europe because they have been standing back on this situation and they realize the smart thing to do is to develop a coalition and go in and stabilize syria. it is going to be messy. it is not going to be risk-free. take a look at the alternative. look at these displaced

individuals, and that level of refugee low to the surrounding states and europe, that starts destabilizing other countries as well. this is a very dangerous spillover and we ignore it at our peril. journal"e wall street this morning have a headline on that. allies focus on islamic state in syria, the united states and france are now poised to join coalition airstrikes. take: i am afraid it will more than airstrikes. we have to have a plan, a strategy to stabilize that region. history,ing back in but you have to take a look at the mistakes that were made and the fact that we did not leave a sufficient stabilizing force behind in iraq. we won iraq, we lost it, we wondered again, we lost it again. wholehough that hope -- coalition of sunni, shia, and good, it was only

america that was going to be destabilizing force. don't think we should be allowing flights from iran into syria. is of the reason syria spinning so out of control is because iran. now we are going to do a deal with them and allow hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into that regime? you have to take a look at what has happened in the past. i don't believe america is in the position where we can be the world's policeman, -- but when is it -- -- when it is in our national security interests, we have the capability of stabilizing a region -- i think we should be setting up a base inside the kurdish region. it is largely stable. i have proven themselves to be good allies. let's make sure they are not threatened by isis. where we can stabilize the situation, we should. thanks in syria will continue to spin out of control until it is stabilized. we need the world's to come to the realization, and we need

american leadership. under american leadership these things do not happen. hasident obama's strategy been a miserable failure. i is here to peace -- i adhere to peace through strength. this is a dangerous world, the dangers are growing. they are real. we better make sure we do not hollow out our military. if we withdraw, very bad things happen. host: robert is next in nashville, tennessee, independent. good morning. caller: i would just like to say the republicans have a credibility problem, as they lied to the country about the war in iraq. i would also like to say that that $100 billion is not us giving $100 billion to them, it is iran's money that was frozen because of the sanctions. i would also like to say that the embargo was lifted during

the republican years, during the bush administration, and republicans act like they are so tough on iran. the embargo happened during the clinton and obama administration. one last thing. sir, you are a united states senator, not an israeli senator. the people in this country are changing their mind, and you all need to get wise to the fact that people are changing their mind to what the israelis are in israel,e non-jews palestine -- host: robert, hold on. he is making an accusation that you are demonstrating support for israel. guest: first of all, obviously i support the state of israel. awas an accountant running manufacturing plant when all of these treaties were made. coming from a manufacturing background, i know how to solve

problems. it starts as recognizing reality. the reality of the situation now is not pleasant. i am looking at this thing -- i was not part of the decisions that brought us to this place. but you have to take a look at the reality of the situation. you have to respond to it. take a look at the reality that when we withdrew -- forget whether we ever should have gone in. we can stabilize the situation. president obama had a stable iraq. itn we withdrew, destabilized again, and now all these events have unfolded and spun out of control as a result of as not staying there and providing that stabilizing force. i am just looking at the reality of the situation. from my standpoint there is no partisanship in this whatsoever. i am just looking at what has not worked, what we are going to have to do. this is not isolated to the middle east. we are seeing the events in the middle east do not stay isolated. let's face it. we have buried our head in the

sand. al qaeda declared war on america and we just refused to accept it. we slaughtered 3000 americans in 9/11. we ignore the threats at our own peril, as much as we would like to not face the reality, we have to face reality. host: by the way, support for dealdisapproval of this has 58 senators that wants to disapprove of it, and that includes for democrats. senators cardin, menendez, schumer, and joe manchin of west virginia who just announced his opposition yesterday. caller from west virginia, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would like to thank c-span for the opportunity to take my call. i would just like to say for all of the americans out there, i personally have been dealing 1983.ran since 83,

i know quite a bit about these folks. excuse me. i'm sorry. i am just a little upset. host: that's ok. what do you want the senator to know? caller: i just want him to know that the iranian people them selves are not bad. guest: it's the regime. and i know that. the vast majority of iranians are actually western leaning. they would like freedom and liberation that really is part of western democracy. but they are captured by this regime, this apocalyptic view of the world. they are sponsoring terrorism, destabilizing the entire region, and the entire world if we give them the strength to do so. that is why i opposed this deal. why would you want to strengthen

the economy, the military of our enemy? it makes no sense whatsoever. it comes down to that basic simple premise. democrats,r line for mason in dayton, ohio. caller: good morning. little bitalk a about the spin being put on the deal today. i think it is very disingenuous the way the gop and the right wing media have spun the iran deal. for starters, and i think that is where the opposition people are coming from, from that misinformation. the iranians are going to have to get rid of 98% of their nuclear material. reactors,ey had 5000 centrifuges, excuse me. 98% of that. in, with have to fill cement, their locations where they were developing nuclear capabilities. all that baseline step has to be met first, before the sanctions lifted. withll, with the 20% in --

access, the undeclared sites are when we have to go through the process of getting access. unlike any other deal there is a block on that. you only have 22 -- 24 days to meet that. it is insane to me that you ,ould not support the iaea because they are an entity that is well respected in the international community. the same setup of how they are going to be the ones inspecting, that is how they do it with every other country. that is not unusual. we don't have this, if we don't agree to stand with the rest of the world, we're going to end up standing alone. we tried that before with iraq. it did not work. it really hurt us. i am going to jump in because our time is short. guest: i disagree. across the board.

these are not anytime, anywhere saying -- instant -- inspections. what about the undeclared sites? goodll not have inspection, because that is part of the secret deal with the iaea. we are told that they will not even be collecting samples themselves, the iranians will be giving them samples. that is absurd. this is not a verifiable agreement. we will not be able to hold iran accountable. i will keep going back to my point. why would we want to pump billions of dollars -- i know it is their money, but right now it is frozen -- why would we give them access to their money to strengthen their economy? host: $150 billion, is that right? guest: probably in some way, shape, or form. you will have hundreds of billions over the next two years flowing in there. host: what is your reaction to the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning jacket -- this morning?

saying that hillary clinton met with diplomats in 2012 and they made no progress on iran's nuclear program, and over the six months that the secretary of state and the white house were in talks, they concluded that they might have to let iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels, if the diplomacy had any hope of succeeding. guest: listen. i don't mind taking into dramatic approach. i think you need to be careful to elevate some of that diplomacy. you don't want to give them that status, but i think you have to talk to your enemies, but you have to be realistic in your assessment of them. when you see no behavior modification, when they continue to chance death to america, , you areisrael, again taking a cosmic that -- cosmic bet. it just is not strategy.

what this of ministration has shown is weakness and they have been completely taken advantage by the iranians. way, hillary clinton talking at the brookings institute on this agreement. we will cover that on c-span two this morning ahead of the senate. by the way, planned parenthood, the funding them. where do you stand on that? all, nobody is talking about reducing funding for women's health care. we all support that. i don't like to play shutdown politics. i think the federal government has enough harm on our economy, creating so much uncertainty that people are unwilling to invest. no. i don't want to play shutdown politics. that debate is taking place before the house judiciary committee this morning, c-span3, 10:30. look for our coverage. senator, thank you very much for your time. guest: have a good day. host: we will get on the other

side of this debate coming up when we talk to congressman david price, north carolina. he is hoping to convince his colleagues to support the president. and then later the frontline magazine series continues with the online magazine "the federalist." we will talk about that situation in kentucky with the clerk and same-sex marriage licenses. we will be right back. >> middle school and high school students and their teachers. we are happy to launch the announce of c-span's 2015 documentary competition. with 2016 being a presidential election year, we are really excited about this year's theme, the road to the white house. what is the issue you most want candidates to discuss during the

2016 presidential campaign? our camp paid -- competition is open to all high school students and we are awarding $100,000 in cash prizes. students, you can work alone or you can join a group of up to three. your goal be to produce a five to seven minute documentary and you will need to include some c-span programming and also some opinions other than your own. the $100,000 cash prize will be shared between 150 students and 53 teachers, and the grand prize of $5,000 goes to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20, 2016. our winners will be announced on march 9. join us this year. be a student documentarian. you will find lots more information on our website. studentcam.orh

host: back at our table, congressman price, democrat, north carolina. tell our viewers why you support this nuclear deal. what you think it is a good idea? guest: it is a very good idea and an opportunity we have to seize. the reason has to do with the substance of the deal and also the lack of any viable alternative that the objectors have pointed to. host: talk about the substance. guest: this goes beyond any nuclear deal in history. think about destroying 98% of the stockpile, including all weapons grade uranium. think about disabling the plutonium reactor and shipping shipping out all the so-called heavy water. think about removing and storing all of the centrifuges, and

terminating all recent activity. i defy anybody to tell me what military strike or strikes could produce anything like that. that is a remarkable degrading of the nuclear program. it is not freezing, it is degrading. it is very strong, as the inspection and surveillance procedures are unprecedented. secondly, what are the alternatives? this deal is the result of years of painstaking the dramatic work . it is an amazing achievement to keep that coalition together, to keep those sites is in place. to bring i ran to the negotiating table. now if congress scuttles the deal and the u.s., therefore, is trashing allrty in these years of work, that is a disaster for our country and i think it is a disaster for iran's nuclear program, because

iran is then free to resume the program just as it has for years now. awayare just a few months from breakup. we have to do something about this. within a shortk break of time. we also, i think, lose our credibility. we lose the sanctions. there is no way that we are going to put the sanctions back in place. the international community is agreed on this deal. we have the worst of both worlds if we scuttled the deal. we have no sanctions left to bring iran to the table. they are free to continue their program. as the notion is just fanciful. somehow under those circumstances iran comes back to the table and began a better deal. the deal is already that are -- very strong. it is not perfect, but any negotiated deal will fall short of perfection. we already do how to compensate for the shortfalls.

talking to colleagues and people who are lobbying against this deal, i think many of them notice. the situation in the congress is where people want to vote no, but really don't want to see the deal go down, or it will go down. i think this is one of those situations. people know very well that the consequences would be dire if we rejected this. respond to the two points that we just heard from our previous guest, senator ron johnson. the first point being, why would ?ou strengthen your enemy iran is the bad actor in yemen, and other places around the world. why would you strengthen them with your -- with this deal? many believe you do, by giving them the money and allowing them to not suffer under the sanctions that have been in place. guest: well, is degrading the program to the extent i just described is strengthening iran, i don't know what weakening iran would look like. give me a break. this is unprecedented, this kind

downgrading of their nuclear capacity. what about the sanctions relief? yes, that gives them some money, some of these reserves. it is their money that is held overseas that would come back to them. that is what i presume is what they're talking about. it is not $150 billion, it is morally $50 billion. that is because 20 billion of that is already spoken for by the chinese. a lot of the other money is never going to be there for iran , it is basically debt that will be defaulted on. we're talking $50 billion. there has to be something in this for iran in order for them to agree to this degrading of their program and to agree to these intrusive inspections. that theer assumed negotiations would produce no benefits for iran.

but i think the benefits are minimal. this $50 billion, believe me, is open for. i can't guarantee they are not going to spend a dime of them on various things, and i certainly don't disagree with the premise that they are up to no good in the region. of course they are up to no good. that will remain on the international agenda. by the way, those u.s. patients remain in place because they are those u.s. sanctions remain in place because they are tied to human rights. iran will be doing very little business with the u.s.. have energy needs, they have infrastructure needs, have overdue pensions for their military, their civil servant. believe me, there are plenty of claims on that money. i think the notion that iranians are going to be spending that money willy-nilly on bad things, we have to watch that. we have to be careful. i think this -- those claims are exaggerated. host: i want you to respond to

what senator ben carson -- ben cardin had to say. he opposed this deal and took to the senate floor to explain why. [video clip] it puts irann -- in a position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break out to a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement. being legal they can get to that point. at that point they arty have sanctioned relief so they are in a much better financial position to be able to withstand any pressures that could be put on iran. and then we know that they want to become a nuclear weapons state. they have tried and failed. that has pretty well been documented. we had no reason to believe that they are going to change their intentions. if they wants to become a nuclear weapons state, and they make the calculation that we really don't have a sanctioned way to stop them, because at that point their economic strength is strong enough that

it would take too long for them to really take effect. anwould not be an effect -- effective deterrent to erase the breakout. and here is the key point of concern to me. i've knowledge to all my colleagues but i do not know what is going to happen in the future. this is a close call. high riskk there is a of potential military operations if we go forward with this agreement. they don't have effective sanctions once they have been removed. host: congressman, your response? i agreeirst of all, with my colleagues that we cannot foretell the future. whatever is done with this agreement is going to require constant vigilance, and possibly a snap back of sanctions, a return to the sanctions regime by the u.s. and the international community. there is no question that is a possible outcome, and an outcome

that is anticipated in the deal. those provisions received a lot of time and a lot of attention. but as might -- as i hear my colleague speaking, it seems to me the application is that sanctions relief is totally off the table. if that is often table than the deal is off the table, and if that is off the table than we are right back within three months of and without options. i respectfully disagree. the question about the extent to which iran can rebuild its program -- first of all, they are going to have to mothball two thirds of their centrifuges, including all of the modern centrifuges. i think what senator cardin is referring to is that after 10 years they are permitted to bring back online a certain number of the center features, including some of the more advanced ones for research purposes. we of course will be suspicious of that, we will watch it very carefully. think, thereit i

is a grain of truth here. there is going to be a capacity to bring up the centrifuges capacity in the last five years of the deal. the 15 year ban on enriching , orium to weapons grade holding that kind of uranium, is something it contains. one could wish the agreement lasted forever, in fact the ban on nuclear weapons that last forever. theay very well -- international community may well have to face this 15 years from now. i can't foretell that either. i hope we don't have to, but if we do we will. at the end of that 15 years, we are a good deal better off with respect to iran's capacity than we are now. host: you have been helping to convince your colleagues to support the president on this. when the book comes up -- looking like friday in the house, how many democrats will be backing the president on this deal? guest: i can't foretell the

future either, but i can assure you that we will have a good number of democrats, well over the number that signed our pro-diplomacy letter months ago. we have worked on this since 2012, trying to push for tough, serious diplomacy on this question. where we worked got 151 colleagues, we signatures for that letter. we will easily exceed that number, and that will be the result of months of soul-searching and careful work. i have been working on this all , and i ame recess impressed with how seriously people have taken it. people have understood that this is a vote of conscience, but it is also a vote on the facts. house will kick off 11

hours of debate today after the house rules committee met yesterday to close the rules. they will be going forward with a vote probably this friday, the anniversary of the seven -- september 11 attacks. and a democrat from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: how are you this morning jacket -- how are you this morning? guest: all right. caller: i was on hold a couple times. i am a democrat. everything you said so far, i agree with. the thing i have not seen except for perhaps two people is this is the p5+1. it is not just america. this is something the world is agreeing to. breakup time of three months we have 10 to 15 years now. the republicans have not offered any other option. as far as i can see for reducing , it justes, the iaea

seems to be an agreement that is the best that we can do. ok, so she agrees with you, but one thing senator johnson said is where are the anywhere anytime inspections that were initially thought to be -- or were going to be in this agreement? guest: well, anywhere anytime inspections are applied to the declared sites. we go in there on very short notice or no notice. all of the sites that we know, past or present are problematic, that may have been involved in nuclear research. sites, the ones about which we might learn later, or where trouble may develop, there we do have a process for going in. we can go in. we will have to consult with our allies. we will have to have an affirmative decision to go in. but the outside limit is 24 days for getting access to the sites.

any trace of nuclear activity is not going to go away in 24 days. aspects andsitive there are convocations that come with working with a coalition, as our caller said. this is a coalition. it would never have worked as a u.s. effort alone, no matter what we did. this has required international cooperation to maintain the sanctions regime, an negotiate a workable deal. the flip side of that is that when trouble develops and you may need to go to an undesired sites,, and undeclared you may have to undertake a certain amount of consultation. the procedures are streamlined. and she did not ask this, but i will say. the snap back of sanctions is even worse -- even more streamlined. we can do that unilaterally.

there is a remarkable ability of the u.s., not just to monitor this, but to act quickly. host: mike, columbus, ohio, republican. good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was a democrat or at least thought i was a democrat for many years of my life. i am almost 68. i will never vote democrat again. there is a difference of night and between the two parties. i think this deal is a terrible deal. i think it is despicable of those for americans are still in present over there, that was not even brought up. i think there has been too much secrecy and too much under headedness. i am not sure why this treaty is there areeal, or why

side deals and secret deals. out of what itely think is good character. host: ok, so it is not a treaty. it has been called a deal, an executive deal, an agreement. guest: it is an agreement. if someone does not like the term deal they do not need to use it. that is shorthand. yes, the negotiations were secret. negotiations are always secret, but believe me, we know everything about this deal now. i have looked at the classified access, i think most members of congress have, as well as the main provisions of the agreement. there are accusations flying around about side agreements and so-called secret aspect. what that refers to, first of all, is focused on past iranian activity. that, not onsed on

ongoing things that might be happening, but past activity and the procedures for the iaea getting a full report. know about that activity. we have no questions that they were up to it. have further information about that. but there is no secret deal. there is no self inspection, as some people have certain -- have charged. the fact is that the iaea has a protocol with these of the countries where it is working as to how they will proceed and how the country will proceed. why can't congress and the american people know about a? -- know about it? guest: because these are in principle confidential between the inspectors and the country. there is nothing that they can , and our top diplomats have read this and do know about it. it is kind of a technical agreement that has to do with

the mechanics of the inspection process. , it is standard procedure think it has been blown up into some kind of conspiracy theory. first of all, there is no self inspection. that is a mischaracterization. and secondly, our intelligence and diplomatic roosevelt who need to have access to this do. host: anna senator on the floor yesterday saying congress does not know about these so-called side deals with the atomic agency has with iran, and that they should under legislation the senate passed that allows a 60 day review, deadline for that september 17, and allows this disapproval resolution to be even taken place. therefore he argued that the the 60 day clock, is null and void because congress has yet to receive that information. guest: i simply think that is wrong.

that is not part of the agreement. there are annexes, very complicated pieces to this agreement. some are classified, some are not. i have looked at all of those, i think most members have. this is some sort of standard, almost a logistical agreement between the investigating body and the host country as to the way the investigations will proceed. we have access to that. our top security personnel have access to that. there is nothing in that that modifies the deal one way or another. it is simply an understanding between people who have to cooperate in doing these inspections as to how those will take place. if any violation occurs, if there is any sign of trouble in new sites, in old sites, we are right on it. this is unprecedented, the knowledge we will have of this, and our ability to reemploy sanctions if we need to. our ability to reinspect -- to

inspect whatever we want to inspect. i don't know how the agreement could be more thorough in the provision it makes for surveillance and also for quick admittedly at is coalition of partners. host: representative peter rosten of illinois once a vote on the proposal that he put forward on the floor yesterday saying that the clock has not started on this today review. the leadership has not decided what they're going to do, how they are going to deal with that. guest: republican leadership. host: right. guest: they have shown very little interest. host: we go to tommy and tennessee. caller: good morning. know, just want you to that anybody who believes a country has all those centrifuges and not one atomic bomb is a bigger full then obama or kerry. i am just a country boy, and i

know that. all you have to do is look at up on the internet. please don't deceive the american people by supporting this deal, because the -- this is nothing but an excuse for iran to annihilate any country. thank you. guest: well, division is very frightening. it is frightening to me, it is frightening to israel, it is frightening to america. the notion that this country, with its foreign-policy and the hatred that it has exhibited for much of the rest of the world, the notion that the country should be nuclear arms is frightening and unacceptable. that is what this agreement is all about. we are frighteningly close to break out, and the idea is to use the sanctions -- you can't just impose sanctions indefinitely. it is not just to punish the country. andpoint of sanctions -- these have been a remarkably airtight bunch of sanctions --

the point is to change iran's behavior. this is what i have been about all along, getting a tough, verifiable agreement. by the way, the previous color, we did not talk about those americans who are held, including a constituent of a colleague of mine. of course we are concerned about these evil. we are concerned about iran as a bad actor in the region. would you rather have iran without nuclear weapons than with nuclear weapons doing these things? the israelis, lots of people over the years have urged us, focus like a loser been -- like a laser beam on the nuclear problem. everything else is worse if you witht agree with -- deal that. by the way, the sections for the other behavior remain in place. nobody in the u.s. is going to be doing business with iran. those sections remain. that wase is a tweet sent out by the supreme leader

of iran yesterday, 12:56 a.m.. after negotiations, they said they had no more concerns about iran for the next 25 years. i would say, you will not see the first 25 years. god willing there will be nothing as the zionist regime within 25 years. struggling morale will leavefor zionist. it's awful. you don't know what is for domestic consumption and what is just rhetoric, you don't want to take any chances when the leader of a major country expresses and mental like that. we must take them seriously. israel must take them seriously. the priority of making sure that such a country does not have a nuclear weapon is what we all have to import. we all have to aim toward.

people don't like doing business with iran. i understand that. that is the weight diplomacy always is. there are always going to be people who say if you open the door to china, or the soviet union on arms control somehow you are rewarding that. that is not the point at all. you negotiate with your adversaries. you negotiate with countries with whom you have severe problems. you try to contain those problems and reduces problems, or make them go away. that is what this deal is about. without the deal, without the deal we are not only back to three months breakup time but we have no sanctions. we have no international regime to force iran to the table. it would be a disaster. i think a lot of people who are voting against the snow that. they want to vote no for various reasons, but they know without for this deal to go down would be a catastrophe for our country and our effort to contain iran's capacity. host: inside that building behind us the house and the

senate will be kicking off a debate on a disapproval resolution disapproving of this iran nuclear deal. outside of the chambers there will be an opposition rally taking place at 1:00 p.m. eastern time, full coverage of that on c-span3. senator cruz will be there along with his challenger, donald trump. a caller from texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran and i tried to get in when the republican was there but i could not get in. isst of all, the sanctions not hurting the leadership of iran. it is hurting the people of iran. most of the people in iran are not against us. they don't follow their leaders. by getting out of the sanctions and allowing the people to have the stuff they need, that is going to help them take their government back. -- theot going to help

main complaints the leaders have had is look how they treat you. you are not doing anything and we are keeping everything from you. that is one thing that is good about the sanctions. i think we need to lift them for that reason. host: let's take that point. guest: i think this color is right about who is hurt most by the sanctions, though i have to say these tensions are unprecedented in their scope and the degree to which the international community not just but india, china, that is why iran is at the table. i think the caller is right about the pressures that the leadership of iran is under to show some economic progress and to make lives better for iranians. i think that is what was behind the election of president 2013, and it is

why many of us joined together in urging diplomacy, tough diplomacy, on the ministration when he was elected. we don't know if this will work out. honestly, we still don't know what the character of the iranian regime is going to be rate we can hope that this agreement will create an environment that can create improvement. but we know we have to deal with this nuclear issue and the election of rouhani give us an old -- an opening to do that. finally, the pressures from the population of iran are important. whatever money iran will have freed up from its international accounts, those demands -- there are unpaid pensions for iran's military and civil servants. there are all kinds of infrastructure needs. there is going to be a lot of pressure in the country to show some success, to show some positive benefits from this

agreement. ,hat is reassuring to me because it tells me that they are going to have to pay some attention to their own people, and that is going to affect where they concentrate and also where they direct whatever resources they have. host: let's go to diane, a republican. caller: let me get this straight, mr. price. heree just supposed to sit as people being done, as you consider us, and we are supposed to believe that what you just told us is true. after all, we watched over the liars,ght years the irs, we watched benghazi. liars. we have watched hillary clinton -- which you are trying to put forth as the next president. do i have to go on and on? you just had a girl put in jail

host: i'm sorry, i thought you were finished their. guest: we have a lot we can talk about. if we want to have another session on the responsibility of duly appointed, duly elected public officials to serve all the public, then we can have a discussion. we can of discussions about all these things and i'm open to that. what i think we cannot do is to say because some things have gone wrong in one area, therefore we cannot achieve anything in another area. this is an imperfect world and we have a chance here do have a much better than usual agreement with an adversary, i toughen threatening adversary.

-- tough and threatening adversary. iran'ses for transgressions and a lot of the things the color mentioned -- mentioned. with the focus like a laser beam on this nuclear threat and agreement on whether the agreement is credible or not. i cannot imagine any military attack that would achieve the degrading of this program that will be achieved before any sections are lifted. that plus, what are the alternatives? i am all ears and have not heard from the opponents of this any answer to that question. what happens if the u.s. congress scuttles this agreement? how do we rebuild from their? -- there? host: hillary clinton, former secretary of state, 2016 contender, about to give a speech on the iran nuclear agreement.

cnn says she will back it and we have covered to that over on c-span2 for those interested in tuning in to see what she has to say about the agreement. stewart from georgia -- virginia. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with you, sir. i think you have to negotiate with whomever you negotiating with. i believe you have to negotiate from a position of strength. number one, you are in a strong position to demand right from the get-go release our prisoners and we will talk. number two, do you know all speak?idebar and lawyer all these side deals? congress does not even know about these sidebars. host: he talked about that a little bit before i go ahead. guest: i don't know of any side agreements. if there were any, i think we

would know i know. some people are saying that the logistical understanding between the investigating agency and the host country, which is done in every country they operate in, that amounts to a side deal. it does not. it does not amount to what some have accused -- self inspection. it's the kind of confidential understanding that the iaea will carry out its business. our top security personnel are well aware of that agreement. it has nothing to do with the that iran has to our capacity or by to snap back sanctions if they do not abide by it. or to good undeclared sites. or to deal with bad behavior in other realms. i have mentioned before prisoners. i mentioned gross human rights and religious freedom abuses in a run -- iran.

i have for years decried the support of hezbollah and terrorist activities are the reason. -- region. -- anwas not a helmet element of that behavior that is not worse if you're dealing with a nuclear armed state. the program degraded and inspectors all over the place and surveillance. we will watch this like a hawk. and israel will in the whole world will. we are better off giving with these other problems with the nuclear issue out of the way. i think so. i went to keep pressing on these fronts. and some ofctions the international sanctions with respect to the other behavior, that remains in place. reliefs going to be some for iran in terms of their overseas reserves and ability to

asbusiness in some areas they are part of the bargain with respect to degrading this program and keeping integrated. -- keeping it to graded. -- degraded. host: a previous color mentioned same-sex marriage and the county clerk in kentucky. we are discussing that in about 10 minutes with the online magazine "the federalist." part of our ongoing spotlight on magazine series. blue ridge, georgia. democrat. caller: good morning. i have been waiting to talk. i am so angry with some of the people that call in. the woman that call the irs and everyone liars. she has been listening to liars. i had two comments in a question. one comment is that the republicans are so against this just because this president.

they will destroy our country just to keep him from having any success. my main comment is we did not conquer iran. we have not been in war with iran. them in 1953. they have every reason not to like us but the main comment is -- foure been millennia, centuries. when our european ancestors were living in mud floor huts, they had architecture, literature, written language. rightlly don't have any to be bullies over what they do and what they don't do. of course we don't want them to have nuclear weapons but we did not want north carolina -- north dakota, i'm sorry. north korea to have nuclear

weapons. iran is an ancient civilization, no question about that. you are right about the troubled history of the u.s. and iran. ciah has to do with the facilitated over the other duly elected government in the 1950's. there is some considerable residue of that history and our troubled history. we over member the hostage crisis in the rest. -- we all remember the hostage crisis. focus on theed to present threat and getting that threat dealt with. i believe the disagreement does this in a remarkable way with international concurrence. that is not a small achievement. then going forward we can hope for a better relationship and do more than help. i think we should be reasonably open to whatever kind of

cooperation we can manage in the future about getting the bad behavior removed and having a different sort of relationship. this agreement is not count on that and does not depend on it. the agreement stands on its own. did comment you made about democratic versus republican presidents, i happen to think that if this agreement had been negotiated by a republican president having a very different -- we would be having a very different debate right now. we have to look at this on its merits and i think it's merits are very strong. host: brandy in south carolina, republican. caller: good morning. i have one question for you. how can anyone make a deal with murderers, people outside chanting "death to america" and destroying the mac and flagged? -- the american flag? guest: because we have to do it.

we wished back in the cold war that we were not having to worry about nuclear stockpiles with the soviet union. back when nixon made the opening with china, we wished we were not dealing with such a strong, assertive power. you have to deal with the world as it is and if that world is threatening you, and believe me iran is threatening us right now and israel and the middle east with a breakout time that is way too short towards a nuclear weapon, if you're facing that threat, you have to deal with it . it does not mean you are rewarding your adversary or you legitimating your adversary. you are trying to strike the toughest yield you can in order to deal with the problem. because otherwise the problem could become fatal and overwhelm us. that is what diplomacy is all about. if we have to go to war, we will in this country. the military option remains an

ifion for our vital interest that is the only option left. it is lots of unfreezing consequences. tough diplomacy will do the deal, let's try it. host: independent? caller: i believe you are doing a big mistake dealing with iran. they are nothing but murderers. we don't even get the hostages back and i think kerry is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. know.than even -- i don't hillary clinton is nothing but a liar. she is outrageous. i'm sorry, i do not like the idea and i think you are all crazy going along with it. host: ok linda. betty in birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. how are you?

i want you to answer this question but i wanted ask the question and make a comment and then i will take your answer off the air. first, i want you to let everyone in america know this is obama andresident secretary of state john kerry making this deal with iran. we have russia, china, the eu, they are altogether with this deal. we have to let people know because some people calling in and they are confused about this. i sound very biased but it is true. the democratic colors are up on their game. host: i will have the congress and respond to this idea. guest: it is not just the united states. that is why the sanctions have worked and why the deal ultimately can work, assuming we are all vigilant and very careful about enforcing it.

this is the world we live in. believe me, we've made those sanctions on our side as tough as they can be. the u.s. sanctions on iran doctors have to do with nuclear proliferation. they have to deal with human rights, holding prisoners, terrorist activity, all kinds of things. those sanctions are available to us and will remain in place. but, bringing iran around on this matter as required more than just the u.s.. fortunately our diplomacy have is -- has achieved that. yes, it is multilateral in bringing iran to the table and having the agreement once they are at the table. to the previous caller i would say we share a distaste for this regime and what it stands for.

let's just stipulate that. we simply cannot abide the notion of iran having a nuclear weapon with these attitudes towards us in towards the rest of the world. the question is how do we deal with that? are we just not going to deal with them or a pulse. -- repu lse. the way to deal with this is be as tough and persistent as we can in keeping the international community together and imposing a tough agreement on a run. host: alan in virginia. democrat. caller: good morning. first thing i would like to comment -- you had a lot of making calling in negative statements about the democratic party and them being liars and referring to benghazi and the irs.

concerning iraq and all the lies republicans were saying. it amazes me people still believe republicans have a cornerstone on the truth. a lot bigger liza been and told him what was going on in benghazi. my question for you today is in regards to the side deal everyone keeps speaking on. i have seen several republicans try to spin it as if it is some kind of secretive thing. it is standard procedure is fars far asar watchdog -- as a nuclear watchdog is fars inspections and such. how are people able to tell bold lies like that? i've seen them on tv trying to spin it as something it is not. how are they still legally allowed to tell their constituents or the making people that it is something it is not? host: we will take the question. guest: we have a constitution in

this country and a tradition that allows for freewheeling political debate. that debate sometimes fears off -- veers off in one direction or another. the kind of blanket accusations that one party or whatever, and some of the is a liar. i don't think that contribute much to the debate. andy to keep the focus on what i hope congress can keep the focus on is the merits of this deal. i think the merits are very strong. integrates their nuclear program. -- it degrades the nuclear program. this is what i expect my colleagues. and what i think i have a right to expect. what happens of the u.s. scuttles the steel? -- this deal? i have not heard a convincing

answer. host: the situation in europe with the syrian and iraqis fleeing their country in migrating to europe. mark on twitter wants to know do allowing refugees fleeing syria into the u.s.? cnn reports there is calls to have 62united states 5000 refugees. -- 65,000 refugees. guest: it's a terrible tragedy and if we have any kind of diplomatic potential as a result of this agreement going forward with iran and other partners, we need to get that syria conflict under control. there are these thousands of refugees. yes, the u.s. should do its part with proper vetting and controls. you have to be careful about security threats. yes, the european countries need

to step up to the plate and we as well. we have a history of reaching out to people in war-torn situations where they simply have no options. we have got to be part of that. host: 65,000? guest: i don't have a number right now. we have to look at the overall numbers. this is something where the u.s. does have a history that calls on us to respond. host: we appreciate your time this morning talking to the viewers. guest: thank you. host: our spotlight on magazine series continues. we're talking with "the federalist" senior editor about the kentucky county clerk who is jailed for refusing decide marriage certificates for gay couples. we will talk of a that coming up after this short break. ♪

nazi.was a knotty -- aconcentration camp commandant and responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night on q&a, jennifer teege on the life altering discovery that hurt grandfather was a concentration camp commandant. be a tremendously cruel person. -- he was capable. he had two dogs.

he trained them to tear humans apart. i think that sums it up really good. -- there was a pleasure he felt when he killed people. this is something that when you are normal and don't have this aspect of your personality, it is very difficult to grasp here it -- grass. asp.r >>. spotlighting recent magazine articles. editorderalist" senior at our table this morning. law is only sacred when it furthers a liberal

value. you were talking about the debate in kentucky and what happened with kim davis, the county clerk. what do you mean? a complexis obviously situation down there because we have this new law that changes 200 years of marriage law in this country. the way the media react in the with people react and talking about the rule of law seems sort of hypocritical considering what goes on in this country generally when we ignore the rule of law. immigration law, gay marriage law before the supreme court ruling, and various other waves. especially when it coincides with religious liberty. in denver, the city council was to shut down a chick-fil-a because the ceo has a certain view of gay marriage. in colorado as well, and a server, a baker's forced to make cakes for gay weddings even -- he it is conscientious

is a conscientious objector in a sense. those attacks on liberty are just as important and just as bad. obviously there is a contempt of court order so it is a little bit sick -- different situation. hasannot pretend one party a monopoly on one of the rule of law to be furthered. and kim davis has somewhat of a case to make. we allow accommodations for religious liberty all the time. --north carolina the clerks some clerks do not have to issue gay marriage licenses. the maker in jail might've been a little bit of an overreaction. for thee supporters plaintiff, the aclu lawyers never wanted her to go to jail. they just wanted the judge to issue a fine against her. she is the county clerk and she has a duty to uphold the constitution, carry out the rule of the land that the court upheld. she has the responsibility to

follow the rules of the land. is she wrong in this case? guest: i personally think she is wrong here it if you're going to work for government, it is your duty to make sure the law is upheld. but if she has a case against this law and believes she should've had a religious accommodation made for her that the government was imposing something on her, take that according let it play out there. the same way that gavin newsom ignored prop eight loss. he did what he wanted for a while and did not have to go to jail. i think that is the position i'm trying to point out. host: do you disagree with what the court decided? guest: i am in favor of gay marriage but i think we are to be very careful that religious liberty. the first amendment is very clear on it. we have to take into consideration as a nation that this is something very new for a lot of people.

that it changes something that is been the same way for thousands of years, but at least 200 here. if there are legitimate religious reasons for not to want to engage in participation and a gay marriage, we should make accommodations for those people who do not want to have to do it. host: justice kennedy wrote "their hope is not to be condemned to life and loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations oldest institutions. they ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law and the constitution grants them that right." person's religious freedom right trump another person's right for equal treatment? hostguest: i think we have to fa balance. the problem with the kim davis situation issue works for the government. it is different from a florist or a baker that doesn't want to participate. my case was not that she was right, it was that we should treat her with dignity as well.

that she is a religious person. there are millions of people just like her who want to live life in the united states but don't want to participate in gay marriage. sure, there are some bigots and homophobes out there, but i do not think that is the case most of the time. there is a legitimate belief in traditional marriage. as people we can make accommodations for them. host: should there be a religious freedom exception when it comes to the same-sex marriage and the ruling they can down from the supreme court? guest: meaning in private practice for discrimination definitely.-- yes, i think they should be passed whenever possible. i believe in freedom of association. i am sort of a libertarian so i believe people should be able to exempt themselves from the sorts of things. it can be ugly sometimes but we have to balance discrimination and the first amendment. i think the supreme court tried to do that but it was inevitable and it has to be worked out at

the state level in some way. host: do you see this going to this report? -- supreme court? guest: i am not a lawyer but definitely. i think this will happen over and over. when you throw someone like kim davis in jail you make her a martyr. i think you are firing up religious people who say listen, i can given on taxes and all kinds of things but this is something i cannot given on. .- give in on their host: you have mike huckabee holding an event outside the jail yesterday and ted cruz wanted to be part of that event but on the sidelines talking to the media. guest: i think mike huckabee is looking for an issue. i don't think it will make much of a difference for the candidates. most of the republicans will be on the side of religious freedom. i think the person who may be comes up with a solution to help

this might move ahead. donald trump is leading in the polls so maybe solutions are not that important. host: what the republicans need to say who are running for president on this issue? guest: they have to say we need a religious freedom act, maybe a national one that clearly lays out how people can deal with these situations. and it respect religious freedom and gay marriage somehow. obviously it will be very difficult. i think a compelling case can be made that we've can work this out and live together as a big country. we have a lot of places to live and a lot of belief systems and italy to can be done. host: his piece for "the federalist" online. only --r, the lot tommy in augusta, georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning ladies in general and. i went to make a comment.

the first thing a separation of state and church. thank you. guest: yeah, i would like to separate the state and keep it of the business of people who care about church just as much as i would like the reverse. part ofbecause she is government, i think she should follow the law. we have a far larger religious liberty problem that people are not concerned about separating church and state. they are perfectly willing to let the state dictate what the church should be. host: another 2016 contender having something to say. chris christie saying kim davis should get another government job because you have to follow the law. robert in birmingham, alabama. independent. caller: good morning. i have a, to make and that is i hate to see the clerk be put in jail. that was not something i would like to see done.

but she is an agent of the government. everyone is saying the government is oppressing her religious liberty but she is an agent of the government. she has been repressing the liberty of the people she would not give licenses to. thank you. guest: well, i think that is right in a sense. we can become chances objectives and she can live with the consequences of that if she would like to make her case. that is part of the american tradition. people that26 other did not give licenses to gay couples from marriage. i think an accommodation could even made. she did not need to be thrown into jail. i do not think she is right. host: the judge asking for to take her name off of that and she did not agree at first annecy has agreed. -- and now she has agreed. there is usually a warning or two before a judge those you in

jail for contempt. did that happen? guest: i do not think there were warnings. there might've been. i think people get thrown into jail for contempt all the time actually. there are repercussions for your actions. she should known these might've been the repercussions. i think they were overdone but again you can be a conscientious objector but if you are for government can be thrown in jail. host: jim, republican. caller: i think enough of these applications come around here that this would somehow get this back to the supreme court so they would have to reargue it. i heard the gym and say he was gentlemen say he was for gay and lesbian marriage. i would have to ask would he support polygamy and polyamorous marriages. when you do this to marriage, do

change the rules altogether. guest: that's an interesting question. i think he is probably right about the religious freedom aspect of it being going back to the supreme court. i am not a lawyer. as a libertarian i think anyone should be allowed to have a relationship that they want and call it anything they want. in my fantasy world, marriages outside of government and people, get what they like. obviously it is to compensate it to achieve that. neither religious people nor gay marriage advocates because they want -- because they got their way. i have my own view of marriage and we should all have that view and believe that we believe. anyone -- this is america. you can live the life you want. host: waldorf, maryland. to david want to say that i agree with some of his statements.

people have a right to choose what type of life and how they want to live. with a lady in kentucky also has the right to voice her opinion. i agree with the fact she is working for the government and she has a responsibility to abide by the law of the land. thank you. host: thank you. guest: a smart woman that agrees of me on all points. [laughter] host: you tell liberals to stop or tending care about the rule of law. guest: do we really want to start supporting people even know that is the law? we are not that strict with the law all the time. it is more complicated in she was in contempt of court. generally speaking in a political debate, when gay marriage -- i'll give you a better example.

in colorado no one care that pot was illegal. federal law says it is illegal but people do what they want because they believe their value system is above this sort of thing and the rule of law. the difference is she works for government. i think that liberals and conservatives have their own values systems that they think are above the law. host: in a little bit more of a parallel, colorado passed its own law to make marijuana legal. it is still illegal at the federal level but in kentucky there is -- they do have a lawn the book that says marriage is between a man and a woman. host: the supreme court found that gay marriage in traditional marriages are not equal. -- are now equal. there was a religious freedom law in kentucky that she is relying on. take it to the courts and let it play out.

she can voice her opinion in this way and she is made a pretty big statement in fact. i don't think she is right. host: gordon in north carolina. caller: i would like to know some things. first, the president and all them other people sit there and take an oath when they go into office to uphold the law. ok? this lady, i feel sorry for her because she's being a patsy. she got arrested and thrown in jail for not giving up marriage licenses to gay people. what i am saying is what about all these people, politicians, including the president, breaking the laws. not following the laws that are on the books? they are not getting arrested? why not? i would like your answer. guest: i think it is a little

more consultative than that. i think the president when he doesn't like the law he just changes it through executive the ott. -- fiat. kim davis is not have the right to do that. lois lerner well in her own way corrupt freedom of speech by not allowing people to exercise it. she is protected by a gigantic organization and she is protected by the president. it is how powerful you are that matters. i think she is not powerful. she is more powerful now because she is in the news but we cannot start throwing everyone in jail for that. reaction on twitter. "americans get rights with marriage in america denying some of those constitutional rights is wrong and she's being is respectful and bigoted." mary says you can live the life you want an america but not make others live the life you want an

america. believe -- ii don't believe we should pass federal religious freedom loss. guest: i think for the first week that we don't have the right to live the rate -- the way we want take he. i think it is problematic. we do have religious freedom but sometimes we kneeled -- need to nail the point home and explain exactly how laws interact with each other. i think that is an problematic. host: lauren in alexandria. caller: good morning. where are the people's rights that are against this gay marriage? it seems like they don't have any rights. furthermore, i think the country is going to hell when they passed it. agrees to ban gay

marriage, why is it stupid that a federal goods be allowed to overturn it? where are the people's rights that are against it? it seems like we're losing our rights all the time and the federal government is not right all the time. they are wrong a lot of the time . thanks. guest: the big point is right. just because the federal government passes a law, and surely liberals talk about -- talking about the rule of law been it is always right. the defense of marriage act. i'm sure they did not like that. just because something passes week as majority wants it doesn't make it right or moral. we elect people who appoint judges. in the end with to come to some understanding on marriage which will be a federal issue in the end. host: mike from ohio. caller: good morning. he whoff, he said

without sin cast the first stone. i've been watching this quite often. i've been keeping up with this and from where i stand she is talking about her religious beliefs. but in the past she has been married four times and had children out of wedlock and she even had extra marital affairs. i have a couple of friends that are that way and they don't like gays. these same people have had extra marital affairs on their spouses. the hypocrisy of religion in this country is really becoming disheartening. people will say something and then they turn around and do something else or they have done something in the past but this person can't do it. whatan't pick and choose you like in the bible and what you don't like. guest: actually you can. it is despicable that people will go back and say things like

that on air when they don't even know if it is true that she has had extra marital affairs and maybe she did. one, she could've become a christian, a true christian just a week ago and that is a theological argument. i don't care about that. that is for people to argue in churches or elsewhere. this is about the law. i am not here to judge of religion. i'm talking about your freedom to practice it in any way you would like. as long as you're not in treating on others rights. kathy?st: caller: good morning. i'm so disheartened myself by the fact we are losing a lot of our rights to practice our religious beliefs. the caller that try to slander this person, that is so out of touch with what the real fact is

. we have an amended that is supposed to protect our religious freedom and yes, she is a government employee but she was working law came into effect. she did not have the opportunity to even have an opinion prior to this becoming a law. my point is that i'm getting justd that our country is not -- host: we lost her. guest: i think she was going to say she makes the country is falling apart and i think in some sense it is true. i am nervous about that as well. we should not overreact. we can follow all religious believes in religious freedom. i think this should be serious concerned that government is intruding on the belief of christians and others as well. muslims and jews don't believe in gay marriage either. i think this will affect many

religious -- religions and i think this should be a concern. host: you have been taking this poll for decades. 7-35%., 50 35%.% to given that, changing attitudes towards it, what you think republican status say? they are on the side of religious freedom with kim davis , but you have republicans that are in support of gay marriage and young republicans in particular. guest: i think it is a generational thing mostly. i think people come to terms with it. i have always supported it and i've always been a little bit worried about the religious freedom aspect. i think the republican state of gone with a plan to say we can all live together. gaysupreme court says marriage is here to stay and you have to come to terms of that and this is how we can all live

together. that is why i do not think mike huckabee is the future. someone who has more compelling to say on the issue is the future. maybe marco rubio or someone like that. host: 61% of round republicans favoring same-sex marriage. this poll taken recently. makes us a great country in many ways, is especially that we protect the rights of minorities. just because 61% of people want something doesn't mean whoever is left that their rights to matter anymore and they have to go away. frankly, polls change and things can happen. this switch happened very quickly. over a couple of years basically. i think it is worthwhile to mention that. aron saying religious people need to realize that not all people are religious. the government can't serve all

religions so they should serve none. guest: kim davis has a belief in traditional marriage and she is a conscientious objector. in the same way we can invert that and say you should not -- cannotbaker in colorado -- i don't have the light gay marriage. i just do except it exists. host: religion is not government, government is not religion. guest: i wish that was true. host: harry in north carolina. caller: hello. i just want to say that i'm a strong believer in religious freedom. however people should keep religion in their home and in their church. a very wise man once said that to the ignorant religion is true. into the educated religion is

false. into the politicians religion is a business opportunity. ofor 1 am getting very tired these religious nuts and posing their religion on everybody else. youryour religion in home and church. it is an easy concept to recognize. greta, we would appreciate if you let us do the question asking and you keep quiet for a while. guest: sounds like a pleasant man. that is ridiculous. we are allowed to expose ourselves in public and religion as part of that. people knock at my door and proselytize and have every right to do that. justice anyone has a right to express themselves in public. that is ridiculous. host: charles in oklahoma. caller: good morning. i like that comment about

politicians looking for business opportunities in religion. what i would like to say is that davis wasthat ms. misled by her lawyers. they were probably looking for a test case. it's a group that is well-known for trying to bring up evangelical religious points. .hey may have misled her i think they also -- they may have held a book geared in front of -- book deal in front of her. i will take your comments off-line. guest: there is no evidence i've seen of that and if it is true, so what? the unitedg cases in states ever decided by the supreme court were test cases as he says. that.t see any problem host: and my cut to be -- mike

huckabee taking advantage? guest: this is something he probably believes in strongly. i don't think it matters very much for him. i don't think he has much of a chance. caller: hi. i was saying before does anyone remember how beautiful this country was and how thankful people ware that the people settled here and every thing was peaceful? i'll be 80 years old this year and i've had a wonderful life but i'm bridge and countable and i give it all to god and thank him. it seems that politicians have taken the place. they think they are god and they can changes rules and that is not so. i hope and pray for them every that they will stop doing what they are doing.

eternity is much longer than life. i was born in for sales and i to get was that nice in the 70's. i think it's probably knife or -- nicer now for americans today . technology has made life better. i agree with her that politicians act by god in many ways and that is a big problem and threatens how good things have gotten. i know why she is scared. host: talk about the "federalist." guest: we are a magazine online and we deal with politics and culture and sports and all kinds of things because we think they are all interconnected. we have libertarian social conservatives and republicans debating issues of the day. we all kinds of viewpoints on most issues on our site. "remember the law is only sacred when it furthers a liberal value. stop pretending like you care about the rule of law."

referring to kentucky and that county clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates. chuck in indiana. caller: thank you for having me on. i think we have all these denominations and everybody believes in god. you should keep it in the church. you don't pay taxes, you get free taxes for all these things. then you went to go into politics and play politics. anddavis should do her job sir, you should look at this in a way for the gay people. they are on this earth just like everybody else. i know a lot of gay people and they are good people. thank you very much. guest: i am an atheist and i am pro-gay marriage so i think it people like everyone else, some are fine and some are less fine people. this idea that people don't pay taxes in the church. we all pay taxes, they just something extra taxes.

i don't understand why they should have less right to its rest themselves in a gay person or anyone else but it seems to be a pretty popular opinion. host: tom says no law presents -- prevents the free exercise of religion but there may be consequences of such exercise. buzz in maryland? caller: hi guys. great conversation. i am a conservative evangelical thestian who thinks that rule of law, they should be gay marriage. however, there are two things here. the religious liberty issue and the kentucky issue. the religious liberty issue can -- if yousolved by have a religious baker into homosexuals come in and say give me a cupcake, you have got to

serve them the cupcake or that its dissemination. then they come again and say that was one good cupcake, i want you to bake a cake for our wedding next week or next month. then the christian can say i appreciate it in quebec a time for cakes but a don't want to participate in that event as it goes against my beliefs. that should be the happy medium that everyone should be able to get around. respond.ill have david guest: that is exec right. -- exactly right. no one says listen, gay person just walked into my store and i cannot buy a cake. no one we are talking about has put up a sign that says no gays allowed. who wantave are people the baker to make a cake specifically for a ceremony he does not want to participate in. i think that is exactly the happy medium. the same way that greta cannot come up to me and tell me to

write something about something i do not believe. host: next, jane and san jose, california. caller: i am very interested in your topic. i will touch on a few things. from my standpoint liberalism is a religion, like my conservatism is a religion. it is a way of life. i live in california. our mayor broke our constitution and broke the law by allowing marriages for the gays. he did not go to jail. as a person of faith in someone who practices my faith i do not get a government job and lose my rights. i don't check my constitution at the door because i work for the government. and the church in the state is not in our documents. am i not right? it was just a

letter written and the gather at the letter was not even involved in the writing of our documents? guest: i think she is right in the sense that liberalism and conservatism -- liberalism because it values the functions of the state a lot more that it is treated like a religion sometimes. obviously we talked about prop 8 in california and some of the mayors ignore the law did not have to go to jail. as farce separation of church and state, it is comforted. definitely a's happy medium where we don't government instituting any sort of religious test and we have people living freely in the world practicing their religion. as the state grows and is more involved in things like health care, it will be more and more difficult to make those distinctions because the state is involved in your personal -- forns like foreseeing

seeing at pharmacist for contraception. nuns is something i would think is a fight against religious liberty. host: the previous caller that brought up the example of baking a cake for a gay marriage. this is from "the chicago tribune." a court rules against the baker. the baker violated colorado public accommodations law's when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. this was in mid august. "the colorado court of appeals ruling upheld previous decisions in favor charlie craig and davis mullins, who in 2012 visited masterpiece cupcake in lakewood, colorado but were refused by owner jack phillips." guest: i am not a lawyer but the ruling was terrible. the appeals court found that

they decided exactly when he following his faith and when he did and not. it is preposterous. i think that is the most pristine case of religious liberty being undermined. he did not ask these people if they were gay or not. he did not say you cannot buy anything and my store. he said he did not win to participate in a single event they were holding. host: he cites his christian beliefs as justification any lease having to create a cake would violate his right to free speech -- guest: if i'm a jewish baker and , ion't to make a nazi cake think that is important as well. host: rebecca, go ahead. caller: i am a christian and believe it or not i think i talked about -- talk more about this issue than anything else. [laughter]

guest: what does he say? i wondered what he said? caller: she. if ied him to forgive me can't help but love a lot of homosexuals that i know. thatve comes before because -- his love comes before that because i cannot change my feelings. molly, i can't think of her last name. she died a liberal writer that i just loved. ira number she wrote one time have the rightt

to lash out at people that did not do things that you liked. all you had to do was tolerate them. tolerance did not make you agreed. host: courtney in georgia? good morning to you. courtney in georgia? you are on the air/ all right, let me go on to tim in philadelphia. welcome to the conversation. caller: how are you guys doing? i'm 26 years old and a republican. a practicing christian. although i sympathize with miss davis, what i cannot understand is this is america. you are not forced to do anything you don't want to do. if her faith is that important to her, how come she could not find another job and put her faith over her job? there were thousands of people that were supporting her. i'm pretty sure they were business owners that would tap

-- happily take her on it probably pay her more money. guest: people are forced to do time,s country all the like bacon cake for a gay marriage or go to business. as far as i know she was an elected official that took the job before the supreme court ruling. i think that is why in some sense we should make accommodations for her. we don't caller said give up all religious freedoms because we work for government. they can't all give up religious freedom. but theree is wrong is a compelling case that she can make and she has made it. she dealt with the repercussions. i think that is why. and maybe that is what she one sitting in this is aussie can do. -- that is all she can do. licenses issuedage since friday were altered to remove kim davis' name.

toee licenses where altered remove the name of cam davis because of her opposition to same-sex marriage. the governor and others say they were valid even without her name on them. sheila in philadelphia. caller: i would just like to point out that i am a democrat and a christian. what christian means is to be christ-like. another thing. what people fail to realize is that the bible says that christians should follow the law and be good stewards of the law of the lands they live in. caesar --ender under unto caesar things that are caesar's." host: mary? argument isabee's

that the supreme court does not make law and there is no law regarding same-sex marriage. there was also no marriage making it legal for muslims and christians to marry. what would happen if there were issuer court case -- to isis is for christians and muslims to marry. i think christians are trying to impose their beliefs on other people. they are not losing rights as christians. people are expanding rights to people who should be allowed to marry host:. david, take that argument. guest: i agree with her. other than her point that religious people are -- their rights are growing. i think gay people can be married. there was no specific law made to the supreme court found they are equal the traditional couples. so i agree. whether or not they are imposing derbies and others am i think that is a different argument.

i don't think that is true. gay couples can go elsewhere and get married. of,e is one clerk i know there might be one more in oregon or something. host: you can read more if you go to thefederalist.com. continues. obviously thank you for your time this morning. that does it for "washington journal." the house is about to gavel and further morning session to kick off a 11 hours a debate over the iran nuclear agreement. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 9, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable carlos curbelo to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to e