to expand access to community colleges. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] host: good morning and welcome to the journal on this thursday, september 10th. after pull a vote republicans once again to try to move orward on rejecting the agreement. democrats appear to stand united 41 votes to filibuster consideration of the disapproval resolution. meanwhile in the crisis in yesterday warning that 22 member nations must 160,000 dy to take

migrants. to get your thoughts on this. what do you think should the iraqi and more syrian refugee. 202-748-8000 and republicans and 202-748-8002. join the conversation at or e-mail m/c-span us. we'll get to your thoughts in just a minute. the phone is matthew diplomatic writer with the associated press. whatadministration say yesterday refugees ining more this country? >> good morning. o secretary of state kerry and the top u.s. diplomat for migration issue went up

to the hill to outline what to do and what they're going to do is increase worldwide total number of refugees that the u.s. ill accept in the next fiscal ear which would be october 1st from 70,000 to 75,000. increase. but secretary kerry left open back with a come higher number that could rise by thousands. refugee is recommended for resetlment around the states accepted they're

rigorous background check because there are competing interests here desired but also legitimate concerns. the any talk of simplify vetting process, the resetlment faster?to make it >> there has been and there has been for some time. notably we saw this after he iraq war, during and after the iraq war when there was u.s. to ls for the ccept more refugees from iraq fa aster, but there has been resistance to that and the intelligence is concerned about of radical ity hiding within the refugee population and getting this country to commit some

kind of crime or terrorism. there is resistance among the and ligence community it and at o simplify the same time there is pushback to do more.. needs refugees accept right now from syria and iraq? >> the total right to you that been accepted since the beginning of the syrian war is about 1500. they're hoping by the end of go up to 17, y'll 1800. there is a cap but it's moveable refugees that f

he mid east will accept at 33,000. hen they send up their new proposal that 33,000 is likely to o up as is the 70,000 75,000. thesewhat about money for refugees? how much does the united states contribute? out the lping neighboring counties around with their aq refugee situation? >> the u.s. has been for many, the largestears now u.n. refugee to the they have also given help the illion to

kin statesn the ball to the u.n. to deal with the refugees and to these countries that are not as rich resourceshave as much as countries in western europe. host: talk a little bit more the qualifications for getting into the united states refugee and refugee status resetlment. and the first refugee is s a aspiring in the united states hey have to recommend you for resetlment in the united states. for recommend people resetlment based on family members. they don't just recommend for the united states but recommend as well.ther countries

so once you have been for resetlment then this very ugh expensive back ground check where people from the state and homeland security nd others essentially vet your background, your family -- your history to determine whether you or are not a threat. can take upes -- it to three years to do. that ncern is that great hiding be extremists amongst innocent people fleeing. who pays for this expensive vetting process? does.e taxpayer do.ll

i don't believe that there is a because it varies so much. ome people might get approved within a year or less than two years. others it may take longer. depends on the interview rocess and how easy it is to vet the family. so the cost varies widely. the refugee is accepted and settles in the nited states, what does the taxpayer provide? amount. not a huge there is money that they are arrive.hen they and there's sponsoring communities that have come up social services to help integrate these families into new communities. gain, that varies widely

depending on where exactly it is help these people will require. host: with all of that on the thank you very much. diplomatic writer with the press.ated what do you think about this? accepting u.s. be these refugees? eric, good morning? caller: yes. three points to make. is about information as we need totaxpayers, information. if corporations pay for it will want.s what we host: how is that related to the refugees? as far as the immigrants we're weary of illegals coming across the border, but in

us hiring illegals draw them across the border. lot of people from the chamber of commerce, g.o.p. -- about these cally refugees from syria and iraq, hould the u.s. be accepting more? caller: see the thing is -- host: i'm going to move on. republican.io, good morning, mark. caller: good morning. do you think, mark? caller: i don't think he should take in anymore people. a lot of ady taken in people from mexico and south merica and we're not taking care of our vets correctly and are of these people who from syria maybe actually terrorists. our leaders and their agencies people em to vet properly and it's just too much of a chance right now. have enough on our plates. host: mark, take a look at the

refugees fleeing from syria and iraq. his is from amnesty international and put together these statistics. syria are in om countries turkey, lebanon, jordan, iraq and egypt. lebanon 1.2 and jordan 650,000 hich amounts 10% of the population, turkey hosts 1.9 and ore than any other country 3 ld wide and iraq where million people have been 250,000 host close to refugees and egypt hosting about 133,000. is 40% humanitarian funded. refugees hat most a day and t $13.50

more than 80 of syrian refugees the localliving below poverty level. hat put together by amnesty international and u.n. refugee agency with this tweet, new data syrian neighbors are buckling under the strain other part ies must play their in the refugee crisis. you can see there the eighboring countries of with n, jordan and turkey taking on the most of these syrian refugees. are your thoughts on these? good morning, mark. notice on am, i television a lot of these syrian they seem e men and to be around military age. come of them may be carrying a child just to get guy. few women and children. our country had civil wars.

don't these 4 million plus people just revolt against their government and have a civil war? they can't become a burden on of the world. when they get inside a country or city like they did in france, have a lot of muslim communities there, and when they get inside a community, it a muslim community to non-muslim here the inviting country can't even go their areas. i don't want to see that happening to america and on top ma'am, i'm a disabled american and i'm living 130% poverty level. so if i could do it, they can do it. you're in texas. texas is one of the states that the years has accepted refugees from all over the world. o you know any refugee families? your area? muslim no, but i've seen

people here and there, you know. do i have to personally know ma'am? dy, i see a lot of poor people. don't know what their nationalities might be or where africa.ht be from or host: no, not at all. just wondering if you had any personal experience to share. to daniel in d.c. democrat. you. morning to caller: good morning. that i wn thinking is think united states should accept the refugees. of he first level approximation i would start with children, so i'm glad that you up the human rights organization but there are a umber of them working to a lot of children have been orphaned by the conditions. sometimes the west and the united states and in armies we r invading don't recognize our responsibilities to these areas once we leave.

have rights so much in that regard as we have responsibilities. for the radicalization, a lot of these children who were left orphaned are young and need the and the attention and i think the united states owes and they they're not terrorists and not just human being who need help and aid and a lot doing.was from our host: leslie, your thoughts. aller: my thoughts are we got according to ann coaller at east 30 million illegals already. we're on the way becoming a third world country and i don't a way out. when they're coming into europe they'll collapse their economy italy and greece. greece is already a basket case now. on top of that i watched a show that showed a muslim coming through a terminal and he drew his finger across

he was going to cut somebody's throat. i know there are radicals coming in. can't afford to open our borders anymore. e're on our way to being a third world right now. people are desperate in this country. people 90 million hunting for jobs. perfect storm. an : take a look, this was economic study for cleveland, ohio. 2013.october of but just gives you an idea of of refugees ic impact of coming into communities in the united states. this is from the executive this, y and they say approximately 600 refugees were and total of 012 4500 from 2000 to 2012. arriving of refugees per year declined after 2011. economies once refugees have i adjusted after resetlment they can provide

contributions to the workforce in economic development in the long run at level.ional study also goes on to say this, hat studies in the united states found that the refugees received government not aburdenhey were after they i adjusted. they ininvestigated the labor three results in sighteds, human, texas, miami florida and sacramento, california. the studies found that refugee mployment rates were high especially in houston and miami two years rage rates and 55% ry were 73, 77 respectively. not refugees work in jobs covered the unemployment record

uch as domestic work and landscaping services. that was donetudy here for cleveland put together as well showing city of impact on the cleveland showed that there was an increase in tax revenue in to the area from these folks paying taxes, sales et cetera and that many of them were able to get jobs, self-employed, starting businesses et cetera. that's one study just to give you an idea. but this issue of whether or not should be states accepting more refugees from the question was we posed here yesterday on the "washington journal" to senator republican of wisconsin and chairman of the homeland security and here's his response. >> i would want to see exactly what is put in place in terms of everybody we vet properly. that would be the first thing.

hat is the vetting process because we found we don't do a good job of that. we have a completely broken system here and we need to fix it. 'm happy to take a look at that. the real solution is we have got hopefullyadership and this will be a wake-up call to europe because they've been standing back on this situation and they realize that the smart thing to do is develop and go in and stabilize syria. t's not going to be risk free but take a look at the alternative. take a look at these displaced and quite honestly that level of refugee flow to surrounding states that starts stabilizing other countries as well. a dangerous spillover effect. concerns for about other countries and also for the united states.

he was echoing comments made by mccall d security mike who said that the fbi has testified that we don't have the these databases on individuals to let them pass and allowing that t errorists come into the country. morning d earlier this is the vetting process quite rigorous and could take up three years for approved.o be caller: to start. 150, 160 states has

billion people working. just like the illegals, they say hey're not giving them any benefits. whether the other day they're americans are getting 38% of the benefits and we're sick of these people our jobs and benefits and everything. i've got kids out of work and get jobs for them and i'm kerry's daughter had high ies with iranian class officials in iran. does that have anything to do with that. they're going to get all these benefits. know them and ho they get all kinds of benefits the united states. do you think? t caller: how are you today? host: doing just fine. caller: i've been blind since

birth and i'll tell you, i don't we should let anymore refugees. done tphf already? host: 1500 from syria? listen, you well, and that's going to be way more than we can handle. little t me tell you a bit about what the white house indicated yesterday. here's from "usa today". faces no easy answers to syrian kracrisis. allowing 5,000 more refugees in the u.s. per year. the obama administration is increase a modest telling congressional committee it would raise the number of 5,000 a year beginning october 1st. germany has proposed admitting than 500,000 and refugee

would like to take 65,000. even if obama lifts the ceiling capped at 70,000 a year and wide it takes years sometimes decades for displaced family to work their way through the background checks. relief groups say the administration should do more to streamline that process. there are relief groups that want the united states to take 65. is looking at year. more refugees per so the cap is 70 worldwide and raise it to ng to 75 so the next fiscal year. let me add this. this is from the "houston chronicle" this morning. this is about spending bills. congress is working on spending bills for each of the federal from rachel this is aid for ts that u.s. refugees has big cuts under the

even as a globe by the exodus by millions of people. senate's fiscal 2015 foreign reduce by 14%.ld which currently is funded at under $3 billion. let's go to mike. republican. mike. you are on the air. good morning. >> good morning. for taking my call. i think that this problem with we have to be very careful. agree with senator johnson that these people have to be vetted very carefully if they're going to come into this country i don't think i would take ny muslims, young men who have e potential of being terrorists. we have too much of a threat of

those already. i also think -- but i do think that we should have more christians who andin dire trouble in syria are being massacred because of a ir faith and do not pose threat to us. ost: we spoke with congressman david price democrat of north care care yesterday. here's what he had to say about refugees.more >> it's a horrible tragedy syrian war that never ends and that we by the have any kind of diplomatic potential with iran and with other partners we need get that syrian conflict under control. these meantime there are thousands of refugees. yes the u.s. should do its part

proper vetting and controls. careful about security threats. but the european countries need as well.p and we reaching history of out in war torn situations and we got to be part of that. 65,000 host: caller: i don't have a number right now. we have look at the overall numbers and look at what europe's capable of. the u.s.omething where does have a history that calls on us i think to respond. host: david price on the show alking about the refugee crisis. the administration says they're raise the cap. johnny, democrat. johnny. caller: hello. what they should do is from the come over ign up to to the u.s., the arabs, whoever

should first fort braggs or fort hood or wherever and be trained. all themuslims -- that going into territory generalized statements. good morning. caller: thanks. say that theing to whole immigration crisis in problem is entire hypocritical because they were in the bombing syria first place making it a problem to ave to leave and come europe. host: who is responsible? us.er: host: okay. the united states.

hi, ne, hickory, kentucky, eugene. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: we're in a dire here. we wouldn't ave this problem if we had taken care of business in iraq. history, would check -- we have ind away leaving the job. haven't learned. is echoed sentiment in the opinion page of the "wall street journal". chairman. new york based human rights foundation has this piece. rewards of the obama

doctrine. from the unceasing violence to syrian refugees streaming into europe it's clear inaction can have terrible consequences. it's likely to have far reaching in every case of mr. procrastination the response to criticism amounts to this, it could have been worse. looking at the wreckage of the middle east it takes great things ion to see how would be worse today if the u.s. obama's red mr. line threat and moved against defied.ter moscow's over heated nuclear would to think ukraine be worse off if they moved immediately to secure the border as far as putin invaded crimea in 2014 and then the "washington post" this morning on russia.

it has ow acknowledging assad.s aiding syria's haved caller: i don't think that the should be es accepting anymore refugees.

i've been out to the midwest here they have a somalia population and they don't seem to be assimilating and they've away the pledge of the allegiance. but i think st it we should take military action just like ron johnson said with the u.n. or the european union. think. what i caller: good morning. 'm calling because i see a lot of callers are resistant towards

refugees. these but maybe they should realize doctrine inthe bush the new world order that led to place oblem in the first and we should do more than our assimilate or ey not. they're refugees of war plus our nation a that's it. host: loretta, ohio. good morning. caller: i think we've got all and immigration and everything we can handle. united states is almost a third country now. and we're becoming a muslim i'm against and taking it the -- the christians no more muslims. host: how do you know all phuz terrorists caller: because i just heard where isis has already planned them in with the refugees. host: why would that make all

be -- s want caller: well, they won't all be terrorists but there will be to change our way f living and it will be another -- and i don't agree that they don't get any social services. they get all the social services they need. what else can they do after they here. they have to keep them. ost: loretta mentioned immigration on the southern border. front page of the washington less than half of mexican border secure. is a quote from the committee. one out of every five has a record. this from the chief of border control agents. that to congress yesterday when detailing violence that increasingly international

boundary. this to the chairman and the of the oversight committee. talking about the refugees trying to make their way to europe. to share another headline. investigating hillary clinton's top aid for embezzlement. investigating the top aid for embezzlement after vacation she took a and maturity time without they are formal leave. so if you're interested in that ou can read more from the washington times this morning on that story. gardendale, alabama, republican. good morning to you, chris.

refugees? caller: absolutely not. want to talk about the report hat you held up earlier about the refugees after they settled in. got jobs. they were contributing to our society. report said.our another way to say that those people displaced americans and jobs from people here. proves not what they want, that their turnout as an asset but they turn out as a drain for america. who paid for that cotten picking report. i thought it had a spanish sur name on the report. is that recollect? i don't know about that. it looked like it was done -- there it is on your screen so out more you can

go. that was just to give you an idea. my point.ck to verifies proves and that what's happening is these guys are coming here and taking and that's s something we don't need and for he 50% that don't find a job, what do you think they're doing to get by? they're sucking up american payiers s that tax provide. chris.all right, the chairman of the armed service committee came to the to talk about the situation with the refugees. here's what he had to say. photo, this photo, which was taken shortly after the dead body was washed ashore has pened the world's eyes of the devastating crisis. people across the world began to using a on social media arabic.in this image has haunted the

world. what should haunt is more than the horror unfolding the hought that the united states will continue to do nothing meaningful about it. conflicts in syria, iraq, lebanon, yemen and elsewhere in middle east have taken the other f countless refugees not only a threat to a crisis of but conscience. they challenge the moral fabric our nation and the foundation of global leadership. let's be clear, the current migrant fore us is a issue and not migrants. igrants leave for economic reasons. it's not. refugees s exodus of who are fleeing conflicts that refused nistration has to address for years. host: on that point the

"washington post" says this in the papers this morning over the month the daily averages of people crossing into hungary how to ed up from two more than 3,000 according to fficials from the u.n. high commission. on wednesday there were syrians iraqis and and nigerians are going to cross the next days.er escaping what officials crisis entering into another crisis abroad. mark in massachusetts, an independent. you're on the air, mark. good morning. caller: good morning. i t struck me yesterday really didn't pay that much attention to the -- i know about in the gee crisis but "new york times" they covered a iraqis, it ng men, was like a stop in germany i the police. by as far as i was concerned i was

of like, iraq has tons problems and why aren't these uys in their own country helping defeat -- regardless of there.ey got that was my first point. my second point was many of these callers i heard in the i understand a lot of them specifically republicans the gentleman from bama and ohio i think i heard displaced americans with regards jobs. well there,'s a reason why all middle eastern migrants and passing germany greece, the h mexico are there are jobs.

these people that complain about lazy who probably suck off the system and want to blame immigrants for their problems. germany's unemployment rate is low. welcoming many of these people into their economy to 800,000. they could take 500,000 to 800,000. o that is the ultimate destination for many of these refugees. in lutherville, maryland. go ahead, logan. -- nice of you to take my call. very much. i just wanted to let you know, i'll fully in support of increasing the number of refugees that we get. a firm believer in the ideals upon which the done its tes has immigration throughout its

history. wonderful on that poem, give me your tired and huddled masses yearning to be free. they are fleeing a regime that themeen cracking do not on and fleeing a war. let us not forget these people illegal immigrants. immigration legal into our country. they're not coming here illegally. they're vetted so i think that a perfect opportunity to show at the very least a little of good will towards that portion of the world, that can't hurt. is always the opportunity or possibility that some people be radicalized or such things like that, but if we live contact fear the extremists won. already

as we told you at the top the house will once again try to disapproving of this iran nuclear deal that the administration has brokered along with five other countries up a ey are switching it little bit. yesterday they were supposed to today ove of it and they'll put something forward significant whether or not congress aproves of it. "washington post". starts at the senate side. appeared resolved to maintain opposition and legislation from passing the hamber and advancing to president obama's desk and g.o.p. inside with horror and fascination. that will say this --

start today so tune into c-span gavel coverage of the house floor. politico reporting hat the vermont independent senator bernie sanders overtakes iowa. could win iowa and new hampshire. there is this with the look at and it is tic race democrats, some officials clinton's swoon consider a big name.

what? vice president al gore. joe kerry or vice president biden. macon, missouri, an independent. gary, good morning. what are your thoughts on accepting more refugees? that the eems to me european countries and this country get together maybe maybe, could stage these people because they're all young people that i see and most like they're men, stage them somewhere and make an goy out of them and let them become and take these countries back. i mean, where's common sense. will not fight for their own countries why would you want here?ng them right.all to our moral obligation refugees.

to do that.ed if we didn't have the ever we wouldn't be in this situation. obama has ed if enforced his red line. isis would not be where it is. and libya d in libya was destroyed by america and the french. is libya better today? what has happened in america. have lower the u.s. census by 200050. will be more hispanic than

any other race. ight now i have to learn spanish to get a second job. is hispanic adapting to an america? we have a weak leader who is he can't enforce the border. that's why i'll vote for trump. is a petition for the white house calling on the accept more n to refugees into the united states. we're asking to pledge to resetl least 65,000 by 2016. pledge put forth by the you can see a 61,000.over william, republican.

hi, william. dgood morning. first thing we have to recognize here is that refugee movement to go away. this is going to continue for quite some time. been a complete breakdown in the social and ultural structure of the mid east. the mid east is going through a now.endous change right it will be yet to be seen whether it's going to go positive or totally negative. but things like this have happened in history before. there's things we have to consider. our u.s. constitution guarantees immigration for political or economic purposes to the united states. honored that for what is it 237 years now. okay, we should have a cutoff of how many we take though from syria and libya. in other words establish a number that the public can it's 10,000, ther

20,000, so the public in our country has an idea what's going to happen. host: i'm going to leave it this. because we got to run. want to show you a quick headline on politics. onald trump the latest poll surging to 32%. so, breaking ahead of the rest of the field there according to cnn poll. we'll take a break. when we come back, turn our iran nuclear his deal along with other issues before congress. with democrat kwaecuellar.enry recently chatted with role call editor and columnist about murder of congressman leo massacrethe jones town

in 1978. >> so leo ryan was a congressman san mateo in california and wereber of his constituent tied with this people's temp which was led by jim jones and had established jonestown in guyana. who had come e down to visit and there was a of concern and he was prepared to sort of go down there and find out and had the pre and he mission to do so. he was a member of the committee from the house and originally had another member going with him because from ould have a member both parties. attend.idn't some sources said he didn't need to come. down and he brought a he er of media with him and

thrown brought jacky spear. and s met by the temple there is video footage of him saying he can see why people on a it here. they put show for him and he said it was really lovely. a rock singing and band. as he was ready to leave someone slipped a note to don harris who was one of the reporters with him saying we want to go with you. the floodeally opened gates and more people wanted to jones who had been paranoid he didn't want people waso back and say jonestown a failure. so when they were going to the this to board and these -- wasn't an airport. they were going to an air strip. part of the country which is already a remote country as is because we're south america here. so they're going to the plane and they're getting people someone starts shooting. and three he ryan

reporters and wound many others including congresswoman spear laid on the tarmac for 22 help came and jim jones went back with with 900 of is followers they did a mass suicide which is also called a because a lot of these followers had no choice. were drinking cyanide in a juice. did not have much of a here. this did change travel. any delegation had a military partnering with the department of defense on where they're going. leo ryan did going by fairly which was a dangerous area, it couldn't have there would because have been much more precautions when both protect

the congressman and media and the staff. "washington journal" continues. we are back with congressman cuellar. >> thank you so much and it's a seeing you again. greta. hope you had a great summer. well.you as now we're back to business. iran. >> i went through the classified documents a couple of days ago. talking because folks are still calling and i've seen people in person. decision l make a either later today or first thing in the morning. will make you say yes, you approve of what the administration has done. administration is only part. there were other world powers involved. the u.n. did security counsel it 15-0.ve

one of the main things i'm looking at is this, is there a alternative and i'm still waiting for folks to tell me what the at terpb active is. was in europe and we did talk to some of the foreign leaders they're basically -- when we were there we were talking about ending economic delegations over there. so the question is, can we get germany andain, the france and england and china, is it justk again or the u.s.? can we get a better deal and at.'s what we're looking host: those countries say no. they would not go back to the negotiating table. want to give everybody the benefit of a doubt. it's a very passionate situation been listening to different folks and as a member appropriation i always look at what assistance we give to countries. do have to say from 2009 to of all the finance military

that we have given military help give in the world, more than half has gone to israel. more than half, about 20 .$5 2009.n since i think president obama through to do about a ng and plusions agreement we're in the process of doing a ten year agreement on the finance. a member of the appropriations i always look at hat sort of assistance we give countries. over half of the military to the whole ven world. over half has gone to israel. ally of very good ours. host: do you believe them because of that israel is and safe and it's -- iran does not pose a threat to them? >> no, no, no. where we ook at

provide assistance and can we do more? yes. more? going to do i'll tell you when we do this ten year agreement there will be we ably an increase of what do. we got to continue to working with israel. to look at making sure hat it's not only israel but also the area of our allies that we also work with them. iran, member -- remember the deal deals only with the of it. part the other terrorism and the other things, we got to make sure we understand that we don't those sanctions. we're only talking about part of it. that we t to make sure continue making sure that iran been t do what they've doing. is this agreement based on trust? i don't think none of us are nay ev we are.n to say you have the government and then the people of iran. but the government of the people

we know that they are not our best friends out there. so it's one of those things that at.ave to look the other thing is that i look military about the part of it. even some of our military folks said that even with the military strike if we go that and there will be damage. we got to look at that again. it doesn't eliminate it but at what's t to look available out there right now. host: this is what donald trump yesterday when he was up on capitol hill at the rally.tion >> never, ever, ever in my life i seen any transaction so as our ently negotiated deal with iran. and i mean never. now ted and everybody else have gone through all of the details

we can talk about the 24 day ridiculous and the $150 billion which by the way is get even if the deal approved. they get it just for going to the table. about four wonderful people over there and frankly backre never going to come with this group. i'll say this, if i win the i guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in country before i ever take that.e, i guarantee host: do you agree with donald trump? >> no, i don't. keep in mind that this deal was other world th of rs and i met secretary energy, i think he's a pretty mart guy and talked to other folks across the world that were involved or countries that were

negotiations this and he also did say that if he would president that he not tear up the deal. he said another time he would not tear it down but just make enforce it and that's the oversight that congress plays if this deal goes through. christine hear from up first from illinois. hello, you're on the air with congressman cuellar. aller: i don't understand why we would make deals with countries that have such rights human violations. t it was -- and then they're just going to whip them and they're to -- i don't understand why when we get into and these th china horrible countries it's just denigrates our whole society and i don't trust them and i think we're foolish to think that

lie to us going to like they have in the past and 'm really sorry we didn't get the four hostages back. i don't understand. don't.ly that should have been number one goal. host: congressman? one goal the number was to deal with the nuclear issue. to keep in mind iran is about two months away from nuclear weapon. they're a threshold state right now. no ifs or buts about it. number one. number two, what are we looking at? one is the nuclear making sure they don't get a nuclear weapon. the re two months away and other part is of course the take.ns that they so here we're only dealing with the nuclear part. we're not dealing with the rest. the other sanctions or whatever need to do to go after iran that's another thing. got nk when ronald reagan an agreement with the russians,

same thing. we don't trust them but we need to verify. naive tohink anybody's believe that we trust the time,ns but at the same time -- let's say this deal does go through, not only do we have inspectors there -- and i have sat down personally with the international atomic energy agency folks, number one, but we still have our intelligence and other countries have their intelligence and i have seen the classified documents on this. not only do we have inspectors there, but we still have our -- our technology, our military technology, our surveillance, our satellite, everything else is still available. we don't take that away. what is different also is with the russians, we limited some of our military options. anyhis one, we don't limit of our military actions at all. an independent

caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: ok. i think obama is the most realistic of all the presidents because he realized that these countries are seven countries. and when they negotiate, they are great and it -- they are going to try to get the best deal. everybody, like donald trump says. israel is never ever going to agree with anything we do towards iran. they want iran humiliated. and unless that happens, they are not going to be satisfied. with allprovide israel the military deterrent. and these congressmen, they go over -- and senators -- and they

talk to israel. they never talk about israel's treatment of the palestinians. and nobody is thinking about these poor palestinians whose homes are being demolished. they need to be refugees here, too. host: congressman, what do you think? guest: she does make some points about the extreme sectors of israel, how they treated -- even the prime minister has come out on that. she does make some good points about this, but the other point he makes also is that we are all countries and we have to look at our best national security interests. we did that as a country. europe, germany, france, england, china, russia, everybody -- to protect our national interests. again, those sort of things that we have to look at, and as we look at this, going back to your original question or your point

is is there a best alternative? i have seen the commercials were they say, oh, reject the deal, come back and get a better deal. but i have talked to some of those folks and they say they thenot coming back to table. i have a couple more of people i want to talk to in person and by phone and will have a vote tomorrow. host: let me ask you about another news headline this morning, the "washington times" -- less than half the mexican border is secure. this is something the oversight committee learned yesterday from the labor union -- chief of border patrol's labor union. you said you were there. what did you learn? guest: it is interesting. the chairman is a good friend of mine. we have talked. there are a couple of issues that originally was supposed to be brought up, and there were different issues. one, his question was should we

close some of the conflict in mexico? two, what is the construction for not onlyssies mexico, but in other parts of the world? and the other thing he also brought up was the danger -- [indiscernible] i agree with them on construction costs. i have seen some of those construction costs. i think they are a little expensive. sometimes i think companies charge the federal government a certain amount of money just because we are the federal government. i understand they talk about security and that raises up the costs, but not in the money i have seen. host: constructions of what -- construction of what? guest: embassies and -- [indiscernible] we do need to look at those costs. the second thing is about closing conflicts. it just doesn't make sense. for example, everyday there is $1.3 billion of trade between

the u.s. and mexico. my home town of laredo carries about 40% of all the trading from the u.s. and mexico. there are 6 million american jobs here in the u.s. because of the trade we have with mexico. just to give you through an idea -- give you an idea through my howtown, if you look at much it carries, if you put all those 18 wheelers that crossed her laredo and one year, it will go -- that cross through laredo in one year, it will go around the world twice. finally, the last point i want to make on issues like this because i do want to talk about security is that if an import comes in from china, it will have about 4% american parts in it. if it comes in from canada, it will have a 25% american part. but it is something. if an import comes in from mexico, it will have a 40% american product. so it shows how our economies

are so interrelated. when we talk about security -- and i live on the border. i don't just go in for an afternoon or a day or whatever the case may be. i live there, my family lives there. have things gotten better? yes. do they still need more work? yes. but i will tell you this, credit, if you look at the murder rates -- greta, if you look at the murder rate, assault, the murder rate actor was 1.5 murders are 100,000. if you look at washington dc where we are at right now, the murder rate per 100,000 is 15.9 murders. almost 60 murders per 100,000. -- 16 murders per 100,000. the border crime late -- rate is lower than the national crime rate. host: the article, though, says that one out of every five

illegal immigrants caught in this area of the border has a criminal record. guest: yes. and again, i believe in immigration reform. i will be the first what to say that we need to -- we need to deport and get out anybody with a criminal record. there are people that come in because they are trying to get a job and we did have some sort of plan that is sufficient and sensible. we need to have sensible border security. a fence is a 14th century solution to a 21st-century problem. and the other part is if we are able to -- the people that want to come work under our guestworker plan, that is something. if somebody has a record, then i think we need to deport those as soon as we can. host: kathy is waiting in montgomery, texas, a republican. caller: yes, good morning. ok, this is crazy. our government can't secure our own borders. how in the world are you going ?o monitor iran

honestly, you cannot trust these people. this government has never, ever -- the iranian government has never, ever done what they were supposed to do. obama has set a dangerous precedent and you guys are allowing this to happen. sir, our americans are in trouble and you are helping obama cause chaos throughout the middle east. look at europe. we can't take these people, by the way. we have enough problems of our own. and by the way, sir, you have got to vote no. the texans do not want this iran deal. you must say no. thank you. guest: thank you so much. it is always good to hear from my coming, texas. -- from montgomery, texas. this is not a partisan issue. we have to decide this not on a motion, not on emotion, but on what facts are. and the decision i will be making on this tomorrow will be

based on facts. i understand people are very passionate. as i mentioned -- i think i voted with israel probably 100% of the time since i have been here as a member of congress. and again, as a member of the appropriations, i always look at how much money we provide. we talk about -- she mentioned two things. i mentioned the billions of dollars we provided to israel. over half of everything we provide a military finance goes to one country, israel. every year, we provide over $3.1 billion of assistance to israel. but if you look at securing and working with the -- our neighbors to the south, and i mentioned how important they are to our trade, before we did the plan to help fight the drug cartels of mexico, we were giving mexico, a number three trading partner, $36 million.

and i can understand immigration. let me tell you one story about being a texan, why immigration is so important. there is the story about this officer, this immigration person that was complaining about people coming into texas. and they wrote a letter to the central government, hey, those people came over, they are taking our lands. it was interesting that that was written in 1836 in spanish by the mexicans who were complaining about americans crossing the red river, not the rio grande, but the red river and they were complaining. a war againsted mexico, took 55% of its territory, which included all of texas. so immigration, no matter what perspective, keep in mind there are certain folks were here before we were. host: sharon is next, indianapolis. caller: thank you for listening to me. my problem is making a deal with the devil.

and my question to him is, why would you want to make a deal with the devil? we give iran money, we give -- palestinian people money. we give mexico money. we give every country money from the united states' taxpayers. and i feel that you should definitely vote to know to this deal with the devil. host: ok, sharon. perhaps she meant israel. guest: yeah, we don't give money to iran. i think you are referring to the $20.5 billion we have given him military assistance to israel since 2009. the $3 billion for the protection plus some of the latest technology. even if you look at the plane that they will get next to her, they are getting the best technology. that doesn't even include the economic existence -- assistance we provide. there are five countries that i

call part of the $1 billion club. year, gets $3.1 billion a then you have egypt, pakistan, afghanistan, and jordan. and part of jordan is because of what has happened with syria. host: -- are getting aid for the refugees? guest: that is correct. those are what i call the five members of the $1 billion club. mexico, again, before we did the plan, which was about $1.4 billion that we did from 2008 and now, was only getting $36 million. i mention that as a reference because foreign aid is important. i have been supportive and i will continue to be a supporter of israel. but keep in mind that ronald reagan, when he did the agreement with the russians, they were calling the russians the, you know, the devil. the ones who wanted to destroy the united states.

not israel, but they wanted to destroy us. president reagan -- i think you did the right thing -- but keep in mind, they basically, the u.s. and russia said we are going to reduce our nuclear arsenal. so they both went down on what they could produce or half. and he said, don't trust the russians. it is not based on trust, but it is based on verification. the same thing here we are doing with the iranians, call it whatever you want to. i don't trust them. but we should do those type of agreements not with our friends, but with our enemies. that is the way history has always been between problems between two countries -- has always been with problems between two countries. has not given up anything militarily. anything militarily. so if we have to, like secretary ashton carter said, a military strike would be better, would be

more effective with this deal because we will have information , we still have our intelligence, we still have our technology to keep an eye on them, but it will be more concentrated because they will be reducing, you know, the nuclear things that they have right now. host: we will go to jay next in oklahoma, a republican. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, sir. caller: yes. first of all, i have a comment. my problem with this is that we are considering about giving a lot -- an awful lot of money to a country that just yesterday out to destroy israel. just yesterday. week, we arest going to give billions of dollars to a nation that continually throughout this process chance to kill america -- chants to kill america, to

kill americans. congress,pe that our our representatives and senators , would consider the fact that they do represent us and we do have a say. you talk about facts. the fact is that iran supports terrorism. that is a fact. you cannot deny that. the fact is they are killing christians and supporting isis that kills christians every day, and yet you never hear a thing about that in the news. host: let's have the congressman respond. guest: again, neighbor, oklahoma -texas, always a pleasure. look, the bottom line is he is correct. in the sense that, you know, they are doing certain activities. i know what they have been saying. i understand all of that. but there are two goals in my opinion that we are looking at. one is, how do we stop the

nuclear ambitions? i am talking about iran. and then you've got the other activities of terrorism. this deal doesn't do with anything, doesn't lift any sanctions and what they are doing with terrorism. that is something we need to do. and if this bill goes through, congress is going to go in and put more effort on this without a doubt. and we are going to work with israel. we are going to do that. this has to do with the nuclear. so let's look at this. one, they are a threshold nuclear state. that is a fact and no one can take that away from that. they are nuclear. let's say we walk away. then what happens? the europeans and the chinese and the russians are saying, they are not going to come back. it is only the u.s. and keep in mind this thing about when people talk about the money, we don't control that money. it is sanctioned that it is held

somewhere else. it is not the u.s. we don't have that money in our hands. host: it is also iranian money. guest: yes. it is not our money. we are not giving them a check. that is their money that is being held. and we don't have that control on that. and again, the u.n. already voted -- it is rare to get 15-0 on this. again, we have to do everything to keep working with israel. i can tell you this tenuous agreement that is about to -- this 10 year agreements that is about to expire, we are going to do a lot more to work with them on this. and this has nothing to do with politics. i will give you a example. i am a democrat, but according i amhe national journal -- probably more in the middle than anybody else. and i think what we are seeing

now, and on in this issue but in other issues, extreme right, extreme left, and people can't seem to get together and work things out in the middle. withis has nothing to do being a democrat or another thing, this is just based on the facts. host: let's go to our line for democrats, tom and michigan. -- in a michigan. good morning, you're on the air. all right, i have to move on. derek and pensacola, florida. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. don't -- is -- why [indiscernible] -- this is a world deal. this is a deal that the whole world made. not the u.s. you tell why don't people that iran is fighting with us against isis in iraq?

[indiscernible] why don't you emphasize that the iranians are fighting alongside us in iraq against isis? host: all right, derek. guest: that is a point. and i think i did say this at the very beginning that this is not just a deal with the u.s. and iran, it is dealt with -- you know, donald trump was saying that the administration has to be people and he called the secretary of energy -- i don't want is a smarter, but anyway, he is pretty smart. and keep in mind that we had nuclear scientists, we had all the folks who looked at this, republicans and democrats that feel that it is a good deal. thank you very mind that it was also other countries. it was not the u.s. and iran, it was the other world powers that were involved. so when this deal -- if we say

reject and walk away, then who will be left with the u.s.? and for anybody who thinks that the u.s. can change everything in the world, we just can't do that. we have to make sure we work with coalitions, and that includes germany, that includes england, that includes france and other allies we have in the world. host: maryjane is next, a republican. caller: hi. you seem like a pretty legitimate kind of guy. i really concerned that what you are therefore is to look after for is to look after the united states. you said that was the mission of all the countries. well, right now, if we were to back away from this deal, iran cannot deliver a nuclear device to the united states. if we wait for the 10 years and -- it seems to me that the final

end of this bargain -- final end of this bargain that they made is that iran is allowed to learn how to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to the united states. so if you are really after the interests of the united states, then you should vote no. i do represent the interests of the united states as one member of congress from south texas. and when you look at the interests of this, keep in mind -- and i will say this again -- iran is about two months away from developing a weapon, a nuclear weapon. keep in mind that it is not only putting them in a missile, keep in mind there is such things as dirty nuclear bombs where you can carry them and -- and take them not only through a -- there is different ways you can harm folks. so this agreement, again, as i

review this agreement, including the classified information that i saw a couple days ago, including the classified briefings i have had on this, and in talking to folks. supporters, like i said, i have been with them i think 100% of the time. but i think they respect me enough to say i will make this decision based on the facts. i know there is a lot of emotion. i saw the emotions on health care some years ago. i am saying that in immigration reform. and i'm certainly saying this right now. i understand we are all very passionate about things and i do have a passion about so many things, but at the same time i try to look at what the facts are, i look at things through my heart, i look at x through my head, and i will make -- look at things through my head, and i will make the best decision i think is for the united states and our allies. host: you mentioned syria a

little bit ago and the refugee crisis there. we asked our viewers earlier this morning, should u.s. -- should the u.s. take it more refugees? -- should take 65,000. what do you think? guest: i don't know about that amount, i will be very honest withou. last summer, we saw thousands of unaccompanied kids that came in. i live on the border. there are still thousands of them that come in. and they have been cut in half in the number of people coming in, but you still see thousands that come every single month into the united states. so we are already taking folks every month into the united states. when? i noticed that a lot of countries around the peninsula over there have not taken any. and i think some of them need to take responsibility on that before we start saying this. but we have our own issue right now coming in.

and i have to throw this other point also that people talk about the border. we spent over $18 billion on border security in the u.s. every year. we provided mexico, through the assistance, through equipment, to help them secure the southern border with guatemala. there stopped14 -- and deported about 92,000 people from central america that were coming in. had not helpedco us do that, that would've been another 92,000. we would have been back at the same number of people. they have been cut, but mexico is helping us. and i'm saying that because we could of had a lot more people. we are still taking people from central and other parts coming in through the southern border in the thousands. in fact, in a couple hours, i

going over to sit down and see in immigration report -- an immigration report. again, they are coming in. we added times -- moneys to put another 55 immigration judges because right now the delays are too long. again, i understand what is happening in other parts, but we still have the problem of the people coming in from the southern border. thousands of them. the ones that have come over ask me, if they have had a court hearing already. host: what is the process for them to get refugee status to seek asylum here? how long does it take? guest: it some go -- some go a little faster, but it is about two to three years. the priority has been given to butkids that are coming in, we are getting thousands of them every single year. in fact, i think right now we

are at 3000 were so kids are coming in. they are asking us to take 60,000. keep in mind that just so far this your, we have tak over 30,000 kids and folks that are coming from central america. i understand. say we willably take some. the question is how much, but keep in mind what is happening on our southern border. and i know because i live there. host: the administration says they might raise the worldwide cap. they are thinking about raising it to 75,000 per year. so another 5000 per year worldwide, that is. not just from syria and iraq. we will go to luis next, a democrat. -- louise next, a democrat. caller: i would like to say i support the iran deal. we went years and years with

talks with the soviet union and we managed not to blow each other off the face of the earth. and this agreement -- i think we need to give this agreement a chance. i think it is shortsighted to think we are going to control everything. i would also like to say a word about the fugee situation, and all the immigration talk that has been going on. you know, i really believe that christianity is about charity. and i am so looking for two pope francis coming because hopefully he can say to appeal -- say to people, what you did -- [indiscernible] where is that in the evangelical movement? a light year is about -- is this bitterness. we have an obligation to share our god-given gift. thank you for letting me have my say. host: all right. guest: thank you. well, you know, again, we are

going to be looking at the issues of refugees. the obama administration was talking about going up 5000 more. we are going to listen to the pope. as a catholic, i am looking forward to being with them september 24. i look forward to being with them and listening to his message. and again, we live in a very, you know, a very difficult world. we know what the bible says. and, you know, it is just a very difficult world that we have. as members of congress, we are not sent appeared to take the easy positions. there are some very difficult, hard positions that we have to take. but again, we have to come here and base it on it not political affiliations because if you do that there are some people -- you can send any democrat, any republican. what is my party want to do? --unfortunately --

unfortunately, there are some folks who do that. that is the easy thing to do. i think we need to look at what the facts are, listen to the people, and then make the decision. we have to do what is in the best interests of our country. host: let me throw another issue out there, and that is the ban on exporting crude oil. 40 year ban. i know this is an issue you are focusing on. you have bipartisan support. what is the likelihood that this happened -- happens and why is it important tackle -- important? guest: it is going to happen. we are getting a bipartisan support on this. -- we are getting bipartisan support on this. the is a policy we had in 1970's when the oil embargo came in. a very different time. probably the democratic

president and the republican congress at that time saw it was the right thing to do at that time. things have changed. we are now producing a lot more oil. apple just had-- announcement yesterday. imagine we told apple you cannot export your apple phones, you have to give in to the u.s.. or the agriculture folks, you can't export cattle, corn, cotton, whatever it is. imagine we did that when 95% of all the customers we have are outside the u.s.. so, therefore, we should be able to export it. we just saw the recently the department of energy came out with a report that actually says that more jobs will be created -- and i know that because i represent [indiscernible] -- and they also said that actually by putting more gas up there, more oil out there, the price of gasoline will either

stay the same or even go down. this is, again, the department of energy under a democratic administration. so, i feel confident. there is a vote in the subcommittee i believe today. it should be a markup. and we hoping that sometime by the end of the year, we will vote on this. it is the right thing to do. it was probably the right thing to do in the 1970's. that policy is outdated. imagine if we tell a company your company cannot export to the consumers outside the u.s. it just doesn't make sense. host: one last call for you here , it comes from michael in miami. caller: yes, just a couple of questions. how did iran go from two months to getting a nuclear weapon when it just a few months ago there were several years -- they were several years away? if so, what is this agreement

going to come bush anyway? -- what is this agreement going to accomplish anyway? and the thing about the murders per capita being more in washington than mexico, maybe we should build a wall around washington dc instead of building went on in mexico. and the thing about the mexican war, wasn't texas a sovereign state before they became part of the united states? shouldre, once they did, they not expect us to go down there and protect them? or am i just missing history there? host: ok, michael. three points. guest: let me go back to texas. being a texan, i have to say this. i love the united states, i love texas, but keep in mind history is history. no matter how you look at it, this is something that texas was part of mexico. i do want to go into history, but that is the reality about history itself.

it was part of mexico. the,r two, let's go into you know, into the nuclear. pac folks,om my a everybody has said they are a threshold states. the israelis say that, other folks have said that. that is the bottom line. they are a nuclear state right now. so, therefore, under republicans and democratic's -- democrats, we have been trying to the sanctions to stop them from becoming nuclear1 -- becoming a nuclear threshold states. their economy has been crippled, without a doubt. we understand that and that is why they are at the table to negotiate. again, the negotiations were not between the u.s. and iran, it was iran versus all of the world powers that i have mentioned

before. and this is how we got here. again, i can understand this. people are always saying rejected, get a better deal. but please somebody tell me if our partners walk away, which they have said that already and i have been in europe and i have talked to them just a few months ago, if they walked away, then where are we in this deal? host: you have said throughout the program this morning you are undecided on how you are going to vote when the house votes tomorrow. but there is going to be three vote. tell us if you are yes or no are undecided. the first one is a resolution indicating that president obama did not meet his obligations to send all relevant documents to congress. guest: i don't know. host: a bill blocking obama from lifting sanctions against iran? i don't know. tomorrow, i will have my vote. host: the last one is a separate measure. which is expected to fail. congressman, appreciate your time this morning.

this conversation will continue next with representative martha mcsally. we will talk with her about the iran deal at homeland security challenges 14 years after the attacks on 9/11. and a look at the administration's -- before we get to those conversations, though, during the 60th anniversary of the rollcall, the "washington journal" has been sitting down onh journalists and editors how they have been covering the news over the past 60 years. -- to discuss the jonestown massacre of 1978 and the attack on the congressional delegation. >> -- she was from all accounts a very good staffer, but she was nervous about going on the trip to johnstown. she had updated her will, she

had spoken about the danger in going there, she had warned the congressman, with the kind of guy that ryan was and the kind of person he was described as was a person who is not scared of these things. the same congressmen who spent a week undercover at prison to learn about prison conditions. so ryan would not have been deterred. and it is possible that jim jones had been talking about mass suicide his entire career. sparkrhaps ryan was the or the fuel that ignited jones, but it is also possible that ryan was on a mission to find out what happened to these people and he really wanted to know and that jim jones was a madman and he was going to do whatever it took to preserve his legacy and the way he believed it should be. so she was shot five times. and i have been told that she still has two of those bullets still inside of her. runresting enough, she did

for ryan's seat in a special election right after he was killed. she did not win, but six years later, she ran for a seat in the state assembly and won that one. years later, after -- when he passed away in office, jackie spears seceded him and the -- succeeded him in the next election. she has spoken of this a number of times. this is something she talked about when she was elected to congress, it is prominent in her biography, she has given interviews on this and she does speak of this both in the spirit of what kind of person ryan was an admission that he went on and why he was so important. and also the way he was a mentor. on one account, he is described as a father figure to her. journal"ngton

continues. host: and we are back with congressman martha mcsally. she sits on the armed services and homeland security panel, serving her first term in 2014. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's start with this iran nuclear agreement. tell us how he will vote on this. the first one is a resolution indicating that president obama did not meet his obligations to send all relevant documents to congress. guest: so, i asked secretary kerry and a closed-door meeting whether he complied with all the elements of the law that president obama side, which included all of our agreement, all pending documents, all side deals, and they said, yes. but we have since discovered there are some side deals and documents between iran and the iaea that we have not seen in congress. so that is not complying with the law. this is a pretty straightforward vote. we believe they have not complied with the law comes i will be voting yes.

host: iaea says that is standard operating procedure that they never disclosed -- guest: but there is nothing standard about this agreement that we have had with the p5+1. the largest state sponsor of terror. aboutis nothing standard the way this whole thing went about. so to have this massive negotiation with the p5+1 in iran related to their nuclear capability and then somehow to still allow a side deal to .appen, it isn't like the uae it isn't like some other western country. this is a straight -- state sponsor of terror. and we need to mix of that we understand what their previous military capabilities are. those are what these ideals are related to. if we are going to start from a starting point that says, ok, we want to make sure that we have

very intrusive inspections, we want to make sure we know whether you have cheated or not, one of the most important things that have is a baseline of when the have cheated in the past. and we are pretty sure that they have cheated in the past. that they have had a military dimension to their nuclear program in the past. and both the intelligence community and the iaea have a list of scientists, documents, and sites that they have been trying to get access to. access to those sites and documents so that we know exactly what they have done in the past. as part of this negotiation, the iaea has worked out some deal with iran related to how they are going to crates that baseline, but we don't have access to that, we don't have oversight to that. i specifically asked secretary kerry in a closed-door meeting -- that we knew we wanted to get our intelligence

community and the iaea. how many sites have been removed from that list, how many documents have been removed from that list, and he said he really couldn't answer that question because he hasn't seen the final list. that is troubling to me. i think if we are great have some sort of deal that provides the transparency and the oversights and the inspections that this administration talks about, we at least have to have a clean state and understand how they have cheated in the past. so that is what these ideals are related to. -- what these side deals are related to. host: the administration has also said they have held closed or briefings with members of congress to let you know and tell you what is in these so-called side deals. guest: no. i have betting closed-door briefings with them. the last one, which was several hours long, they said they had not seen the side deals and they didn't know what was in the side deals.

since then, perhaps they have met with some of the chairman and others, but most members of congress -- the administration said they haven't seen them either. so we possibly asking to have the oversight and transparency of this whole deal to make sure that these possible military dimensions in the past are known so that we can know whether they are cheating in the future. i think that is a reasonable request. and in the law that we passed, it specifically lists that side deals need to be included in the documents that are submitted to congress in order to start the 60 day clock. and they haven't. host: and that is the first vote that will happen tomorrow. the second and third vote, april blocking obama lifting sanctions against iran and a second measure approving of the deal. guest: i will be voting for the president obama lifting the sanctions and i will be voting against the deal. host: and you are voting against the overall deal, why? guest: let me just get into a

few of them. look, i was in the military 26 years. i think the falls twice of it is either this deal or war that the administration has tried -- the of it is either this deal or war that the administration has tried to put out there is not true. the last people that want to have any military action are those in the military and those would have seen the horrors of war. that is really a false choice. you look at the -- the behavior of iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, that continues to export terror through hezbollah, hamas, other proxy capabilities. i was just over in israel a few years ago. i was seeing the impact that the rockets that come over from the gaza strip, going as far as tel aviv last summer, trying to murder innocent civilians, and

the capabilities that they have to try and deal with where individuals in israel have between 7 and 30 seconds to get the shelter. i mean, this is, like, normal life for them. you have to run to a bomb shelter because hamas, this terrorist organization that is funded by iran, is continuing to, you know, to conduct terrorist activities. and so, the money that will flow to iran through this agreement will continue to boost up iran's terrorist activities across the region. and even obama admitted himself a few weeks ago that some of the money they would get in this terrorist relief -- or in this sanctions relief, would actually flow to the organizations. it is going to put our strong ally, israel, at risk and conventional ways,. -- conventional ways, as well.

they are destabilizing the middle east against our national interests. i am very concerned about that element. look, i appreciate the diplomatic efforts that the administration has made. i do believe that when it comes to the known enrichment sites itt there are some strong, looks like, inspection and oversight elements of this agreement, so i appreciate the work that was put in to get to that, but we have is a patient path to the bomb. that if they comply with this agreement and to everything that it says they should do, then in about 13 years, they are going to have the ability to have unlimited number of centrifuges. unlimited. hey, if they want half a million or a million, they can have as many as they want in about 13 years. it may seem like a long time to some of the listeners here, but think about that. 13 years ago was actually after

9/11, which we are going to be more remembering this week. they have a patient path to the bomb if they don't cheat. the they could cheat, and have treated, and it is in their dna to cheat. if they do cheat and we think they are doing something at a location that is not one of the ones that are covered under the intrusive inspections, then they get 24 days to appeal any request for us to be able to go take a look and inspect. and we are not talking about areas that have a large footprint for enriching uranium, and the administration talks about how they should be able to test that even from the soil samples, we are talking about the third piece of how you get a nuclear weapon, which is the weaponization. you need the vehicle, the enrichment capability, and then the weaponization of it. that is much more challenging. if we sense something to the intelligence community, we have 24 days to slow role and appeal it.

-- slow roll and appeal it. this administration wanted it so bad that we sort of gave up some things, especially towards the end, and iran is a very skilled negotiator. the final weeks of the deal, it was a surprise to everybody this agreement -- administration agreed to lift the arms embargo on iran, which really shocked everybody. the week before that, he was testifying saying under no circumstances should we ever leave the pressure and the arms embargo. icbm, i stands for intercontinental, which means they want to hit america. and we are actually allowing them to develop that capability under this deal if they comply with the deal. host: ok, they are lining up. let's go to lloyd in washington, a democrat. caller: thank you.

given the nuclear powers essential to the argument with iran, could we not direct the whole nuclear program towards other nuclear fuels and reactor types? or what are called integral fast reactor's. -- reactors. guest: so, i am not a nuclear physicist myself, but i think there are plenty of other ways we could address making sure that there is appropriate level of power for the iranian people for civilian purposes. the caller suggests one of them, but they have the ability, under this deal, to very quickly, after the genius, breakout with a very significant nuclear infrastructure. challengesadditional is that, again, the administration said they wanted to administer the -- and initially -- what we are left his with a very significant nuclear infrastructure that if they the -- comply with the deal, they

actually could breakout with that infrastructure and much -- and much more sophisticated centrifuge capabilities and 13 years if they don't cheat. host: the white house is saying the have the ability to break out in two to three months under this deal. this was a tweet that was sent out by the white house. with the deal, all for pathways are blocked. -- four pathways are blocked. guest: what we have, again, under this deal is we -- i appreciate that they came to the table. let me just say that. i appreciate that the sanctions we have been putting on iran have brought them to the table. because of thean sanctions is cash-strapped right now. i think it is important for your theeners to understand that sanctions have really cranked up in the financial industry and the oil industry in the last 18 months. even though we feel like we may

have been talking about sanctions for several decades now on iran, the real sanctions that have been cranking up the pressure and putting them in a cash-strapped situation have only been enforced the last 18 months. if we use all elements of our national power, which includes diplomatic, plus our economic, keep the sanctions in place, as well as having, i mean, a serious, legitimate threat of military force -- i am not saying we should be using military force, but if somebody who spent over 34 years and national security, you can only deter somebody from taking certain action if they think there is a credible threat, and in this case the administration never had a credible threat. continueeve we need to using all elements of that national power. in order to get them to dismantle and get a better deal. host: jason is next. an independent. caller: yes, hello, thank you

for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: can you all hear me all right? host: we can. caller: i was just curious. respectfully- disagree with your comments, but i'm not going to get into the disagreement. i like to add to a question regarding the iran deal, and that is how do you think this will -- host: we are going to move on. crystal, a republican. caller: good morning, c-span. and thank you, representative mcsally, for standing up for america and for our safety and security. i find it very strange that it seems we have a party policy politics going on concerning the existence of america. i love israel. this is not just about israel. wants israel off the

map and america off the map. we have not done anything in this agreement to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. at all. , they willd, at best have the bomb and can very well use it. and for all of the people that continue to say, oh, well, we want to go to work, is this a war. wake up. you are going to have to go to war whether you like it or not. if somebody slaps you in the face, what are you going to say? i am not going to hit you back because i don't want to fight? host: congresswoman, you agree? guest: i think the false narrative the obama administration has created of it is either this deal or it is war, if you study the deal and you fast-forward to where this yearsend up in 10 to 13 if they comply, or sooner if they cheat, i mean, actually this guarantees potentially that we will have military action. it is almost like this deal at war.

,nd for our israeli partners again, when we were over there talking to them across the board, politically, to include netanyahu and the opposition leader who wakes up everyday trying to replace netanyahu, they are in agreement that this is a bad deal because of an axis i still -- because of an existential threat to israel. all ofir response to this is we are already at work, what are you even talking about? would have hezbollah who are stockpiling rockets on the northern border with lebanon. again, proxy war funded by iran. let me talk about this man for a second because he is head of their external operations at exporting terror around the region. we have 500 american soldiers at least who were killed in iraq because of these improvised

explosive devices that were exported from iran with the sole purpose to kill americans. we have 500 americans who no longer have their loved ones because of the force and iran killing americans, wounding americans. this is blood on their hands. he comes this deal, off the sanctions list. i mean, this is ridiculous. while he is continuing running their terrorist organization overseas. according to israel, war is already going on around them and it is only going to become more to stabilize -- more destabilized. that is a significant amount of cash for them to be continuing to increase their capabilities to these proxy organizations, like hamas and hezbollah, but also building their conventional capabilities. with the releasing of the arms

embargo and the influx of cash they have, iran is going to be able to now import more conventional arms to increase their air defenses, increase their capabilities and naval forces, and should we have to later take some sort of military option in order to go after their nuclear capability, it is going to be far more dangerous for americans because of their air defense capabilities, it is going to be far more dangerous. so we actually have them exactly where we want them right now because they are cash-strapped. we have intelligence that shows they are bickering over, you know, which money should go where. we need to continue to crank up that pressure. and we need to ensure we get a better deal that does simple things like provides the possible military dimensions so that we know exactly what they have done to cheat. dismantle their nuclear infrastructure. and certainly do not released the arms embargo. host: is that realistic when it

looks like obama has the numbers he needs and the senate to filibuster, and even if it goes forward, he can veto it? guest: i think it is incredibly unfortunate that democrats in the senate are not even going to allow a debate. you hear the callers coming and i both sides. we were back in our districts over the months of august, people are dialed in on both sides. americans deserve a debate on this issue before the vote and the fact that they would use a procedural tool when we know we have a majority of the senate who want to speak on the path -- on behalf of the american people, use a political tool to stop it from going to debate, i think that is really bad leadership. host: -- came out in support of the iran nuclear deal, but she did not take a military option off the table. [video clip]

>> if we were to reject this agreement, iran would be poised to give -- get everything at once without giving up a thing. no restrictions on their nuclear program. no real warning if tehran suddenly rushes towards a bomb. so no more economic consequences for iran, either. those of us who have been out there and be the -- on the diplomatic front lines know that diplomacy is not the pursuit of perfection, it is the balancing of risk. and on balance, the far riskier course right now would be to walk away. junk powers can't just agreements and expect the rest of the world to go along with us. reachable and consistent and we need to keep our word, especially when we are trying to lead a coalition. that is how we will make this and future deals work.

but it is not enough just to say, yes, to this deal. of course it isn't. and yes wesay yes will and vigilance. yes and we will embed it in a broader strategy to confront iran's bad behavior in the region. yes and we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon, not during the term of the agreement, not after, not ever. host: congresswoman, your reaction. guest: again, diplomacy is one element of our national power that we need to be using in the think the idea that she mentioned that we are walking away, we are not walking away. i think it is important for people to be reminded of history. over 200 times in our history when the administration has negotiated some sort of agreement, whether it was a treaty or some sort of

international agreement, and congress -- has said, you know what, we are ok with these parts of the agreement, but we have some issues with the other parts and we are asking you to add the following restrictions, changes, updates and we want you to go back to the table and we will support this agreement under the following conditions. that has happened 200 times in our history. and often in multilateral negotiations -- one of the other treaties related to chemical weapons was 87 members. so we can do this. america is the one that is supposed to lead. the fact that we are hearing, oh, we can't go back to the table. it has happened 200 times in our history. we are simply saying don't walk away. but as a branch of the government, we are going to is a it good agreement and in america, using its diplomacy, it needs to

lead with iran and in the partners with the negotiation. it needs to say that ok, this is where we are at. are withthat where we all of the negotiations crumbling, it is not true. our european partners are going to have to choose. are demands to sweeten the deal, they will have to choose whether they want to do this with iran or america. when it comes to the banking system and the oil industry, and they will make that choice. we have had meetings with some of them and have said it would be difficult choices, but in the end they would choose to stick with america. russia and china are going to do what they are going to do. host: we are going to darrell. caller: good morning. i have three points.

first, we have been doing exchanges in iran, so that we can get them for the tables and now we have a treaty and hand. that brings up to problems. having is ad up north korea in the middle east. ok? i would like to say that this treaty will slow down two countries. but it slow down iran will also slow down israel. they are the ones that have 100 plus nuclear weapons and they cannot allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, it even more. i think this treaty is important and it is good, and it must be passed. guest: i think you are

perceptive, and you keep calling it a treaty, the administration is not calling it a treaty. if it were a treaty, they would need 2/3 of the senate to approve it. in this case, it moved directly to the security council without congress tor the have an up-and-down vote on it. like the allies won't let that happen in the senate. if it looks like a treaty, we might want to treat it like a treaty. to a potential arms race in the middle east, this is a concern with other countries in the middle east. there is a deepening shia, sunni divide that is happening, this the century long battle, fishers are getting deeper at the stakes are getting higher. when you see some of the sunni this desirehey see

, that ismon from iran desiring to be more powerful and will have an influx of cash and the potential for nuclear capability, they are not going to want to see that happen without having counterbalance. you can expect to potentially see an arms race going on in the middle east. whether it is saudi arabia, turkey and others feeling like they need to get their own back, and some of our allies have said that they feel like in the past america had out -- had their back and they don't feel like that anymore. host: we go to new york, a republican. hello, i was a democrat. i have changed to be a democrat -- a republican.

say thank you for what is so obvious to everyone. i want to thank you for your service. you are smart, we need people like you to speak out against this iran deal. if they get their sanctions released, and that is all they really want, they want the money to fund hezbollah. they have always wanted this for years. and i want to thank you for coming out and so eloquently trying to defend some normalcy here. i am 100% not in favor of the deal because of all the things that you have said. dora, i want to give the congresswoman a chance to tell

others about your background. guest: i was in the military for 26 years. for asent to harvard masters straight out of the air force academy, and i went to pilot training. congress repealed the law that restricted women from being fighter pilots. i was the first woman to fight -- to fly a plane in combat. and retiredt hours as a kernel. i have had six to appointments to the middle east. i know the area very well. i now have a second masters degree and my last assignment, i was running counterterrorism assignments only continent of africa.

then i was serving as a professor for national security which is verymany important, it was set up after the collapse to help partner nations transfer to democracy. i have been doing national security on many levels for about 30 years. martha mcsally is in her after defeating ron barber in 2014. it want to ask you about the future of women in combat. say -- gers you, whenill tell they finally opened up the fighters to women, we were hearing arguments about why women couldn't do certain things. i have been living this flawed logic my whole life. this is america.

we believe that you should be able to do what ever it is that you are capable of doing. i have long advocated that we should be lifting restrictions on where women can and cannot serve in the military. two women who just graduated from the grueling ranger course, a hard-core difficult course, they made it through and all of the emotional arguments about how women can't do it, their male colleagues are telling stories of how they couldn't carry their load any longer and they weren't going to make it through the course and the women picked up the load and carried them through the course. i am so proud of these women. women are often not given the opportunity and we are waiting provide toartment to

congress, they have until january, the answers as to why they would not open all the remaining positions to women. i will be looking very closely at their answers. host: what positions are closed? infantry,have -- anythinganks that was related to ground combat or support units to ground combat. there are about 200,000 divisions that are still closed. america, you pick the best man for the job, even if it is a woman. standard, whyhe would you eliminate 51 percent of your population from competing when we want the best military. we have had women serving in combat since the beginning of our history, since the revolutionary war, they just

haven't been allowed. in iraq, afghanistan, they have shown bravery, they have taken out the enemy, they have made the ultimate sacrifice, they -- they have come home with wounds. millicent,to calls, a democrat. hi ladies, i have a quick question that i wanted to ask the representative. have any of the republican of the gone into any other countries to let them know that they are not happy with the deal that is being made? i know there was an open letter , but has any contact been made to any other countries? it doesn't come from us, it comes from the other countries. and it is iran's cash.

what power would we have over the cash? is, the other countries have said that they were going to go ahead with the deal. what power would we have with iran to keep them from making a nuclear weapon if we are not a part of this? goodness -- i have to stick to just those three. i was over in israel with 36 gop members, talking to the leaders across the board. talking to members of the military, journalists, everyone that we talked to across the board in a diverse political

asntry -- israel is just diverse politically as we are, but on this issue they are in agreement that this is a bad deal. they are confused as to why america negotiated some of the provisions of this deal. be on the board of gaza, the board of syria. at the proximity of israel, surrounded by hezbollah , the failed state of syria, the hamas. iranians are chanting death to israel before the ink is dry on this deal. beenw there have discussions with some of our other allies, european allies

one in particular with france in a meeting with one of our armed services. committee chair says that if america doesn't sign this, they have said that we can't walk away from america. we will have to choose whether we want to stand with america or do business with iran. so this is where we need to be moving forward. again, in russia and china, we can't control what they are doing. to get in a few more phone calls. bob, in pennsylvania. i want to thank you for c-span. it is one of the best programs. the bestnow which is way to go about the agreement, but if we had a republican president, we would have other

problems with it. host: i will take that point. is it political? guest: if you look at some key democrats, like schumer, who are against it, we have a number of ranking members in the senate and house who have stood up against this. it is not a partisan issue. unfortunately the administration is trying to crank up the pressure on their own party to make it a partisan issue to get the kind of loyalty to stick with him. but if you look at some of the key democrats who really understand the region, they have set up against this thing. brad in west virginia, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: my question is, once again, this is all republicans.

not one republican is going along with the president. this is just another political , whatever obama wants, the republicans don't want. host: the congresswoman just responded to that. let me ask you what is happening in europe with the syrian refugees fleeing to europe. should the united states take more -- some of the relief units wants them to take 65,000 refugees. guest: we need to address the problem. we have some coming over our own border. we have to work together with our partners and allies to address the humanitarian situation. we also need to address the root cause. we can't keep turning a blind eye to the chaos in the mideast.

is a safe haven for terrorists and is recruiting terrorists in their from over 100 countries in there. enter 50,000 or more dead in a failed state. -- : and russia guest: and russia, it seems to be. i think the administration do is not have a competent strategy for the middle east, it is confusing at times, they don't address the shia-sunni situation. they don't want to get in related to the isis type. they think iran is a bigger threat than isis. we have to look at the issues to getd see that we have to the root cause.

region to stabilize the when we aren't sponsoring and thisded terrorism, agreement is related to the chaos in the middle east. some of our partners are standing by saying they do not want to get involved. they are more involved with iran than isis. want to thank martha mcsally. you can go to her website. thank you very much for your time. talkwe come back, we will about higher education in this country. we will talk about community colleges and the cost of private universities rising. we will talk to walter bumphus from the american association of community colleges. right after this break. ♪

>> middle school and high school students and your teachers, we are happy to announce the launch of student cam documentary competition. year, and weection are excited to see the road to the white house. what issues do you most want us to discuss during the campaign? our campaign is open to all middle and high school students grades 6-12. c-span is awarding $100,000 in cash prizes. you can join a group of up to three. your goal is to produce a 5-7 minutes documentary and you will

need to include some c-span programming and you will need opinions other than your own. the cash prize will be shared between 100 and 50 -- 150 students and teachers. it will go to the team with the best overall entry. iss year past deadline january 20, 2016. join us this year, ba documentarian. you will find a lot more information on the web stand -- website. nazi.was a he was a concentration camp confidant. he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jewish people. night, thersday conversation with jennifer teagege. would see that he is a

tremendously cool person. -- cruel person. he had two dogs, and he trained them to tear humans apart. , it was aerson pleasure that he felt when he killed people, and this is something that if you are normal, this is very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with walter bumphus, the president and ceo the american association of

community colleges. i want to show our viewers of what obama had to say. obama: -- enrolling 15,000 a -- in in the to school, not one of them had to take out a loan for tuition. in the last six months, more totes have created programs provide free community college, including one in milwaukee, and announced today. there is a movement going on here. the time has come. free community college for responsible students. why is this a good idea? how would it work? first and foremost, on

behalf of the association of , we want tolleges applaud the president for this significant proposal. to your question, the opportunity for many students to go to college without paying tuition is a game changer. it can be a game changer for many students who enroll. host: how would it work? you are talking about a lot of taxpayer money. guest: it is a significant investment in the lives of many folks in terms of getting them to getting america to our place in world order. in terms of being well prepared, a it will offer students chance to get two years of college out of the way with an affordable debt, if any at all.

this proposal would allow these students to have federal grants and other financial aid that would cover their transportation, housing and childcare. a look at community college attendance, 7 million enrolled in the fall of 2013. 40% of students graduate in six years. is that a low graduation rate? guest: not considering the academic preparation that our students come to us with. we take students who were not in the top 5% of their class. students in community college have to take some form of developmental education, so when you factor in a semester or ,ear of developmental education that is why the percentage rate is where it is. it is an improvement.

for years, it was lower than it should have been. we should just focus on success and completion. host: the new york times notes that the proposal needs backing from the republican lawmakers. many lawmakers have reacted coolly to his plan to spend over $60 billion to make community college free. it appears unlikely to be approved. guest: that might be true. i have to tell you, i have had the opportunity to visit with a number of our republican congressman and senators, and i haven't met an individual yet that doesn't support local community colleges. we have had the opportunity to chat with a number of congressmen and while what you

hear from ported, i am pleased to announce that there is a bipartisan effort and we are pleased to hear that. be good for all of us if we could get our community colleges working at full capacity and get the kind of results that we want to get. talking about a proposal for free community college. if you attended community college or are attending now, we want to hear from you. we will divide the phone lines by the eastern central part of the country and the mountain pacific area. our guest here is walter bumphus. senators, alexander blunt -- have come out against this. they say the president was wrong to try to create one good idea

in tennessee to a huge federal program. this of that the federal government in charge of 13th and 14th grade of u.s. education. it would deny students the option to use this new federal aid at private institutions. it would spend as much as $60 billion in federal money to help students whose income is not low enough to qualify for existing federal aid. guest: those are statistics that i hear recited often. there are a number of republicans who support the idea. i believe there were 15,000 students enrolled in the program this year -- this will be a major game changer for that state.

i have been to tennessee and had a chance to speak with their community college president, and we learned about the good things that they are doing down there, it will give the population and to improve thee workforce in many ways, and it will make a difference. i can't imagine anyone being against that. having a more qualified workforce. students who are entering there is aolleges, responsibility factor that would take place once a student is enrolled. they have to maintain a 2.5 gpa. in michigan, they have a republican governor and they support responsible students. myself, this is not just

professional for me. i both have dr. degrees, and so does my daughter. it is amazing what education can do in just one generation. madeeneration ago when we university universal, and you high schoolde universal, and you see the difference that has made. many of these students will be transfers. host: let's get to calls. richard in west virginia. are you at a community college? caller: i am retired now, i worked for a nasa contractor for 18 years. i want to say that community college in my opinion is a great way for a young person getting

out of high school who might not yet know exactly where they want to go, to go to community college and get a part-time job and take classes in the evening. get your basics out of the way at a lower cost so when you are ready to transfer to a four-year college you can concentrate on what you decide to major in. i was very lucky that my parents supported that. my father said that as long as i put my money towards education, i could stay for free. guest: we are going to have to get you on one of our commercials. comments, i'myour glad you had a pleasant experience. host: rod in for genia. -- rod in virginia. caller: i think there is not enough support for kids in schools. there was an article comparing andard to community college we need to get those kids out of

community colleges. too many people just flounder in community colleges. thank you. host: what about that? there are critics who say the same thing, a lack of direction .n community college students have to leave and come back. guest: we accept friendly the time weut at offer opportunities to many students to be available to students who wouldn't get them otherwise. not that anything is wrong with four-year universities. i worked at the university of texas, one of the finest in the country, but not every kid when they graduate is mature enough. it is not about aptitude as maturity. every studentnot is ready to go away and study in college. the individual attention they

can get in community college can make a difference. host: what about the way community college is set up? sayde this report, they that graduation rates are low toause the first goal was open up post secondary education to everyone and they did that well. but it created a complex system. there are lots of decisions that need to be made and students are on their own. that is why we call this cafeteria college. butt of stuff is there students end up with a lot of wheel spinning. thing that the report stated is that we have a mission of access. we have done exceptionally well. but now we are laser focused on students with education.

we are offering pathways projects. that provide students with a more structured experience. i have a really good friend who said that community college students don't do optional. they're better if we provide a structured pathway to graduation. host: kevin in louisiana, a professor. are you a professor at community college? caller: no i am not. but i did attend community college in mississippi for two years before i matriculated to a four year institution. my specialty area is educational history. i can tell from personal experience as a professor, as well as a former student, students get more bank for their buck if they do their first two

years of undergraduate work at a community college. their students are their teachers are there to teach them. if a student goes to a four-year institution out of high school, they will be placed into a jen and english class, history class, it has 400-500 people in one room. they are usually taught by -- like graduate students. so students are getting higher learning in a community college environment, that is why they are necessary. better than the online type of education. i appreciate your work, sir. guest: thank you for those wonderful comments. i worked in the state of louisiana for several years, and i appreciate the wonderful news

that you have provided with regards to community college. you are so correct, most faculty members at a higher university are focused on research. where is our faculty at community college, we are focused on teaching. i used to say that we want to hire faculty members who like students. four-year institutions don't, but we appreciate our faculty members in a community college. as you stated earlier, oftentimes in the freshman and sophomore year, you are getting graduate assistant students teaching. they might not be trained to do college students. to jean now, ao former community college student. hi, i was in community college here in north carolina back in the early 1970's.

at the time, i had come out of the military and i was a young wife. opportunity.y my appreciation for can the -- for the community college system. me, i not been there for would probably not have had the opportunity to go on a four-year institution. teach in the california community college system. i think this is a wonderful opportunity, in opportunity for those who are immediately coming out of high school, but also for those young adults who are just figuring out and finding their way.

i think the comments that have been made about the maturity factor, where we are going and where we need to go, community college is there to help resolve those issues. and i think in this current where the economy is changing and the types of jobs are changing, the community colleges are therefore those workers who need to be retrained . again, they play a vastly important role. i think the president is on a proper track by trying to make this more available and accessible. in many states, there are already many versions of this through some of the early college programs for high school highnts, they are doing

school and community college, simultaneously. host: ok, jean. guest: she makes an excellent point. community college is excellent at preparing students to matriculate in a way where they do graduate. think the point that she made, and that would also like to reiterate the fact that dr. jill biden, our most famous community college professor, and she was telling the story of her travel on air force one. it is so important that we have work like her doing god's as i call it. she talks about the wonderful potential of many of our students. opportunity and potential. the ways that we change the landscape of our communities by

having a more educated and trained workforce. host: on twitter, there are thousands of open welding jobs. why can't community college is trained for these jobs? guest: community colleges are training for these jobs. i recall when i was in the state of louisiana that we developed a welding class, and in many of our states and communities, more welders are needed. goes by not a week that when i don't talk about a corporate or business leader who appreciate the number of community colleges and the ways that we adapt our programs. the new york times about obama passed announcement yesterday, it was the second time he brought up the idea of free community college.

in addition to that, he will announce a new round of federal -- and new round of federal grants intended to encourage companies to hire apprentices who can learn while they earn. host: stanley in nebraska, go ahead. is, i have noment qualms with community colleges. it is the nature of the people in anyg these courses university or college. liberal, you can get any rate you want, because you follow the liberal philosophy. if you are conservative, you get

a lower grade. as for free community college, this gives the federal government a tremendous bargaining chip with higher education. if you don't follow federal guidelines which is a common point of creating education, and giving more power to the federal government, you will not get your loans. you will not get your junior-college paid for. this is the federal government going about and essentially in forcing the liberal policy towards education. host: ok, your reaction. guest: i am not quite sure how to react to that. that to your point,

giving grades based on whether someone is liberal or republican, i don't think that is happening, i understand your standpoint, but many of the people i interact with on a , i cannot imagine a college operating in that manner. community college has always been about access for every student. to be very candid with you, i don't think any college would really even know your political or persuasion, i don't think that matters at all. they want to see the student learn and have the opportunity to get a well paying job and take care of their family and provide education for the next generation. host: an attendee of community college, go ahead.

hi, i'm calling in to express my support for the president's proposal. my experience with the system generally parallels that with kevin and jean, who called in earlier. i can't express what a profound impact community college was for me. i hadn't really prepared for college in my high school years. i entered the system and i was first in my class, i ended up with an electrical engineering degree from boston university. a law degree from the university of connecticut school of law, i have been practicing for the last 20 years. aside from the fact that it has had massive personal impact on me, it makes good economic sense. paying $40,000

-$50,000 in taxes over the years, and truthfully i would might be in prison if it weren't for community college. guest: thank you for your comments. you are exactly what i was saying earlier about maturity. may have the aptitude but don't have the maturity, i would like to congratulate you on an outstanding career. jeff in california, you are next. caller: i am curious about the requirements that need to be met for the free program? what happens when -- like when i went to community college, i went for one semester and i walked away clean. start 1.5 years in, and they decide they don't want to do it anymore, are they

obligated to pay something? is it money lost? it -- it is an investment in that student. life happens. students leave, but they come back maybe 2-3 years. it wasn't a bad investment, in a just weren't successful at that time. one of the things that this does issuee is addressing the who have debt that they will never be able to pay it back. that will be a major lifetime challenge for them. to your question, there wouldn't be anything that they own, i would just hope that they would return and be successful. got: comparing students who to community college to

four-year -- guest: significantly lower. to providees try not loans if they cannot get away with it. but those students who do take , their indebtedness is significantly more if they attend a four-year university. in my opinion it is not about either\or. most people end up getting undergrad from coming to college and then a baccalaureate from a university. it is about the lifetime learning potential of a student. the goal is to get students all the way through. calling from fredericksburg, virginia, good morning to you.

you are on the air. all right, i will move on to doug in wisconsin. .aller: good morning thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead with your question. caller: this policy is being implemented somewhat by the states themselves. what is the need for the federal government to get involved? guest: i can't totally answer that. we have about five out of the 50 states right now who have implemented or who will implement in the next two years. there is still opportunity out there. we serve 46% of all the students in higher education, so there is a lot of room for opportunity there. most states would tell you they need more qualified workers, a

more highly qualified workforce, and that is a huge part about this proposal, it would do just that. would also help improve the family opportunities that are out there. that is what i get excited about. ,ost: auburn in new york attending trinity college. caller: yes, i have a unique experience, i went between 58-60, and then between 1996-1998. the experience both times was quite different. the first time, it was nothing timehe major, the second it was like half, you did of electives. of you to doy studies, it seemed to be, i have a community college near to me

and i can see that there are a lot of high school kids coming in and getting advanced courses. that a be interesting if you could talk about that. guest: lots of great programs in that is thete, richness of a community college program. having high school students or young students being able to learn with senior students, like me. i believe that is a rich only to get not opportunities from the professor, but also from the students who you study with. not all students -- not all , but youave that range do have a range of abilities and ages. i think it adds a richness to the classroom. ,ost: how does it compare

students who graduate from a -- from acollege community college, to getting a degree. higher, you are getting a student graduates with a specific skill in a specific area. there is nothing wrong with a liberal arts degree, but if you students,and talk to people will say that they have a baccalaureate degree or a masters degree, but it is not in a specific area. we are probably graduating all of our nurses, they are getting jobs as soon as they graduate. many other technical areas, we have some employees who are cherry picking. and that is great.

i don't have any statistics in front of me that i can recite in terms of jobs comparing a four-year degree to community college. what i find for those students who do matriculate, there are more opportunities out there for them. host: p in texas, where did you go to them into college? , beforein illinois transferring to a four-year school. 95% i did transfer, i got of my credits transferred by the four-year institute. i see kids nowadays that are getting no credits or half for u.s. history. u.s. history between one institution and another institution should not change.

calledi believe it is churning. i don't believe we should be nickel and dime inc. the kids in the educational industry to the trust funds of the big institutions. $10 billion that harvard has? endowment, there you go. that is my comment, a disturbing trend that i see. guest: i would like to speak to that. he brings up an important issue. 40 years ago when i started working in community colleges, working on transfer issues. students who would transfer would not get credit for all of the credits they had earned.

i'm sad to say that it is still an issue. but as we continue to focus on this transfer issue, he does as he pointed out, a history class is a history class. many of the agencies make sure that if you are taking english 10 one at a community college and you take it at a major university, you should have the same rigor and requirements. sameshould have the credentials, at a minimum. states like florida, they don't have that as an issue. have a course numbering system that is the same. but we have work to do in that arena. it isn't fair to students when they transfer and they don't get the full credits that they have earned. tweet from one of our viewers saying they got out of college with a ba in history and philosophy but got my first

good job after a stint in 20 college. rob, where did you go to school? caller: i went to a four-year school and indiana, but i was a 35 year employee at a local community college. i have many good things to say, but i have two concerns. one would be the fact that it is free, and that i think you might get more out of your education if you have to pay a little bit. florida, the of state legislature a couple years that they did it away with the development of education program and they did away with the mandatory piece of it. opt to dodents can developmental or take the

regular, and they think that is to their detriment. your points you for that you just made. free is an issue for a lot of people. somewhat,sagree because i support the idea of but students do still have a stand in the game, i think that is what you were referring to. they do still have a stand in the game because they have the cost of books, transportation, childcare, so making it tuition free is just a benefit to the students. and many of them are going to take advantage of that. and i really appreciate the point you made. host: dr. walter bumphus is now

the ceo of the american association of community colleges. u.n. to murray state university and got the phd from university of texas. for a few more phone calls. we will go to rochester in new york. go ahead. i have to push the button, that would help. caller: i would like to say good morning. i benefit from going to a community college but it appears to me today that perhaps we onld concentrate more getting people back to work in jobs so that they could perhaps provide for themselves as far as an education is concerned. the u.s. by going to military years ago when they granted money for tuition.

i took advantage of that. but i don't think we can afford to continue to just provide people with services. we should focus and concentrate more heavily on giving people back -- getting people back to work rather than continuing to provide free service. thank you. guest: thank you for your perspective on this. a board that if had when i let the louisiana system, the board member used to remark that when we talked about baccalaureate degrees, there were only a couple of words that were important. werehat was whether we providing our students with jobs. -- thisthis is whether is where community college will make a difference. whether there is frequency

college or higher education in general, it will give more opportunities for folks to be better educated and to go into the world of work. i think you have seen the statistics where in the future, the percentage of jobs that will require not only a high school a baccalaureate degree, it is significant. so many of the jobs people are working at today won't exist in 30 years. that is why we have to continue to make these investments and train the workforce. host: one of our viewers says they are all for this plan, but what if it doesn't eventually morph into a system that must accept everyone, whether or not qualified. an excellent point, and

it is implied by the statement that the president made, it is for responsible students. we have to continue to hold onto that. be concerned about making sure students are matriculating at graduating. you don't graduate students who are not good students. host: the president earlier talked about an apprenticeship program. what role will you play in that. guest: i was thrilled yesterday when it couple of community college presidents who were in attendance at the president's , they received something like $3 million for an apprenticeship program. we are finding those kind of programs in advance manufacturing. other konduz -- other countries have done this for years. i am pleased to see the colleges

who are offering more apprenticeship programs the earn while you learn programs. host: how does it work? they are getting paid? guest: absolutely. aey get a chance to learn program and get a good wage. to study thee aviation apprenticeship program. it is amazing, students go and they have to have experience before they come and when they walk out the door, they can work on airplanes and make an improvement to our country. host: what other interest or use -- other industries are interested in these programs? guest: the companies? host: or the industries. auto, aviation,

technology, manufacturing -- all are becoming interested in offering apprenticeships. more, you can go to the website to learn more about 20 college. walter bumphus, we appreciate your time. now bring you to the house, we are about to gavel in for today's session. live coverage on c-span. [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.