search results in the name of privacy and the impact on users in the united states. washington journal is next. ♪ good morning. it is saturday, september 12, 2015. we begin this morning in the wake of a crucial week for the iran administration's nuclear deal. it began yesterday with the house rejecting a resolution to approve the deal. congressional republicans now appear unable to prevent the pact from taking effect. this morning, we are opening our phone lines to our viewers to weig in ono the iran nuclear deal. are you happy on how your party's leadership has handled the deal? how much of the factors you

think the deal will be in the 2016 elections? democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. good saturday morning to you. we're beginning this morning talking about the iran nuclear deal. a very busy week on capitol hill ended yesterday with a vote in the house. here is a headline from "the new york times" this morning -- partisan vote in-house rejects iran.ith " they note that the house rejected a resolution to approve the iran nuclear deal with the vote underscoring how controversial the accord has been within president obama's

own party. but most democrats voted to approve the bargain, 25 voted against it. with affiliate -- while the failure of the resolution will not prevent the pact from taking effect, it serves as a rebuke of obama. hill"s the story in "the newspaper. last night, and on their website this morning. you're asking our viewers to weigh in this morning. our phone lines are open if you .ant to weigh in on that vote yesterday, on the house floor, speaker john boehner talked about the vote, and said friday's effort was just the beginning of the effort to stop the iranian nuclear deal from taking effect. [video clip] president obama refused to listen. he ignored the concerns of the american people, national security experts, and a

bipartisan majority here in congress. now, he is preparing to try to enforce this deal over our objections. never in our history has something with some a consequent is for our national security been ran through with such little support. 11, a dayeptember for all americans to come together. and, for us, to keep the oath we swore to our constitution. our fight to stop this bad deal is frankly just the beginning. we will not let the american people down. that was speaker john boehner on the floor of the house yesterday before the vote on the iranian nuclear deal, rejecting a vote to approve that deal. we will be talking about all the legislative action this week. we are asking our viewers to weigh in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

.ndependents, (202) 745-8002 those are the numbers if you want to talk about it for the first 45 minutes of our show. is up first inen sarasota, florida. caller: good morning. first, i thought i would mention , i hear a lot of people on your program. some of the things are so far-fetched, it ends up mind-boggling. yesterday, or the day before, someone had weapons of mass destruction sent by the truckloads from iran to iraq. the two countries have been at odds for centuries. nothing was ever sent there. they finished the war not long ago. yet, somehow people call in with that kind of nonsense. as far as the deal -- host: i want to let you know, try to bring some clarity to some of those issues you are

talking about, up next, daryl us, thewill be joining executive director of the arms control association. we can ask him about some of these issues. go ahead with the rest of your comment. caller: my other comment is that a lot of people go on with the story for seven thing -- this 24/7 thing. this ideal, whether there was any development out of an area that has been closed since 2002. has nothing to do with all their nuclear edcilities, uranian being min , producing plutonium. all of that is subject to inspection daily, without any problems. it is only if there is suspected development going on in a nonnuclear facility that the

business of 24 days, and as i secretary of energy, who is a nuclear physicist, if i'm not mistaken, explain, you cannot hide much in 24 days. that thegiven the fact rest of the world seems ok with one, and the fact that not republican could be in favor of this, seems to me to indicate just like how the one republican was in favor of clinton raising taxes, which ended up giving us a heck of a one economy, not republican being in favor of this is about the same thing. at the end of the day, this treaty will prove to be beneficial. thank you for the time. host: yesterday on the house ,loor, joe crowley of new york the democratic caucus vice chairman, brings up some of these issues you are talking

about. he was asking for one republican to join the vote and trying to approve this resolution. here is a bit from his floor statement. [video clip] joe crowley: the fact is that no one can predict if iran will give up their program. if they don't, we have options. do this and give the plan opportunity to work, and i am prepared to do that. a real profile of courage would be for one of you to support your president. one republican to stand and support your president. i asked for an additional 30 seconds. >> recognized for an additional one minute. ago, iwley: 13 years stood here in the house of representatives and gave the benefit of the doubt to the then president, and he took us to war. today the benefit of

toubt to give president -- your president to take us to peace. we are asking our viewers to weigh in. you can give us a call, and also join us on facebook and twitter. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. several folks already writing in this morning. we are asking our viewers about the deal and how their party's leadership has handled this deal. scooter writes in his facebook post, more feckless leadership under boehner. you can join us also on twitter, @cspanwj. of course, our phone lines are always open. paul is on the line for republicans from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thes a pleasure to be on

journal. without going into detail, i think paul ryan summed up the republican position, and i think it had a lot of merit. i also think about debbie wasserman schultz and senator ben cardin, and their concerns. schultz made a statement that she personally untended security briefings with the president, and the reason that she and mr. cardin have concerns is that they represent big jewish districts and love israel. i think this is a situation they will have to work out. unfortunately, is the president had given all the members of congress, on both sides of the aisle, every aspect of this agreement, even the deals that he is holding back, or the concessions he is holding back,

i think all of this would have been avoided. then everything would have been on the table, and they would have had an opportunity to vote up and down which way to go. i have been watching this for three days now, and the arguments are well put on both sides of the aisle. host: how much do you think this vote that was taken this week, the vote in the house and the senate, plays into the 2016 election? do you think this becomes one of those litmus test issues for voters? in the "politico" piece on the it is they say that already a defining campaign issue, and like the iraq war and last decade,es it looks to remain a stark dividing line in many elections to come. do you agree with that? caller: i absolutely agree with it.

believe this will be a key issue for both sides to address. we are looking at potential prophecy here for the united states and for israel. if you think about it and study what masterook at dominus had to say. writes, twitter, jack the house is not doing its job, it is standing in the way of the will of the american people. stephen writes, on how the gop the house vote on iran deal to make democrats pay when it is a record to show who is a warmonger. davison wisconsin on the line for independents. good morning. thatr: i just want to say i have listened to all the pros and cons about this for the last

couple of weeks. i can see that this is not the the onlyeal, but alternative i can see, and i think they say, well, we don't have to go to war, but we will go to war. i'm just wondering, we have not even paid for the vietnam war really. we are just started to pay for iraq and iran. does anyone out there have a clue of how we will pay for this? the cost of war does not and with the end of hostilities. usually the civilian populations cost -- brunt of the outcomes. i'm just wondering how that is going to work out. from thanks for the call wisconsin. bernie is up next from florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i feel this way. what did we lose by going into this deal? good morning. what do we lose by going into this deal? we can always go back to sanctions. out ofbomb the hell them if they cheat. we can annihilate them if they cheat. he have all the tools to wipe them out. last resort, why not give peace a chance. host: one of the concerns that the critics say we are losing in this deal is the releasing of funds, $150 billion in funding that was frozen, iranian assets that they are worried iran could use to be a state-sponsored terror. caller: do you think that is

their only money? do you think that is the only money they have that they can't raise enough money to buy a bomb ? if we have no investigations, no way ofng, no secure checking on them, what makes you think they can't develop a bomb? if we walk away, and continue to hurt a country, i would go back to japan. why did japan attacked the united states? when they went into china, we cut off all these scrap iron, the cold, the necessary tools for their survival from japan with roy codding them totally, and so did europe. what did that forced them to do? fight or die. ir attitude.r do we need to repeat history all over again? push them into a corner where

they have no alternative but to fight? it a shot. we can always annihilate them in the future. we have the power, the strength, and the will. host: thanks for the call. ofnie, one of the credits this deal is of course house leader kevin mccarthy. here is part of his speech on the house floor yesterday. [video clip] kevin mccarthy: peace without freedom is meaningless. this deal does not bring greater meaning to the world. it brings a missile nuclear race. this is not just about america, iran, or a few other countries. no country in the middle east will sit back after this action. the world will not be safer. we will not be for your -- free

r. history has shown that if we are willing to stand back and get a better agreement, we can have peace and freedom. we will talk more about this issue of the nuclear arms race in the middle east we will be asking daryl kimball, that director of the arms control association, about that issue. for the next half hour or so, we are asked your thoughts on the action on the house and senate floor. george is in cedar bluff, line for independents. myler: thank you for taking call. earlier today, i had the opportunity to watch some of the reruns in the house that took place yesterday. the question i have is about the known cardin act, what is

as the iran review act, that became law. the president signed it in in may. it seems that the executive eranch required to execut the law, now it appears the law means nothing because the provisions of that act are not being adhered to because both chang chambers of the legislator have yet to have the opportunity to review all the documents that are specifically set forth in iran review act. it seems that the courts now have weighed in and we are experiencing somewhat of an exercise of shared powers by the judiciary, which has granted, if you will, standing considering this particular point, among others perhaps as well. to the other point about cost of vietnam heially --

mentioned an otherwise -- y -- rism is a very costl very costly in and of itself. if you consider, 14 years ago, the attack on new york, d c, and the downing of the plane and shakes will, pennsylvania, the insult of that act -- , thesville, pennsylvania result of that act and the cost associated with how we live our lives today is enormous. the terrorism that is rampant in continues to be ignored. it is time we follow the constitution. this should have been addressed treaty toeaty -- as a

begin with. here we are with all these distractions, and it is at the expense of the american people theyon a to-one margin expose this act. i would like to see if you could share or challenge the guest to have coming up with some of these points, please. host: i appreciate that, george. we will be talking about several of those issues. the iran review act that you talk about, the 60 day review period, set to end on september 17th. house members saying that that extent day review clock has not started yet because of the lack of disclosure of those so-called side deals between the international atomic energy as agency and iran on how to conduct some of the specific

inspections. we will be talking about that in the next 45 minutes or so. you bring up the september 11 day and commemorations that happened yesterday amid the debate that was happening on the house floor. congressman charlie rangel of new york talked about these at some 11th attacks in his statements on the iran nuclear deal. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] rangle: 14 years ago, a terrible thing happened when terrorists struck. now, we have the opportunity to bring our country together the way we did then. 14 years ago, there were no republicans, democrats, there were americans who would say, we have to come together. we are not going to change this agreement. this is the policy of the united states of america, or soon will be.

say, what is the enforcement, what will be do, what will happen if they violated? are we here to embarrass the president or -- time hasntleman's expired. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. rangle: or, are we dignity anderve the integrity of the united states of america, no matter who is the president. if ever there was a time for us to come together to support the policy, the time is now. host: congressman charlie wrangle, part of a vigorous debate on the house floor yesterday. we are getting your thoughts this morning on "the washington journal for go on twitter, robert says this will be albatross.

fred says, don't vote for democrats. bill says, 25 democrats in the house and four in the senate voted with republicans, the party needs to hold them accountable for doing so. theodore is up next on the line for democrats in arkansas. theer: i'm talking about iranian deal in the context of the u.s. economy. even before the deal goes into effect, the united states is having a windfall of lord gas prices -- lowered gas prices. we will have more wendy deal goes into effect. the republicans have done nothing. this deal will help our economy by lowering rates on gas. it will hurt exxon, but it should have been done through the house and senate.

next, in order to help the american people, we should look at a restructure program so that our economy can boom. i think this deal will help our nation economically progress. we should forget all about this and that. that region should -- soith iran as well as we do not have to worry about america going there. the deal will help the u.s. economy with gas prices. obamae seen under getting lower and lower. that is what is important to us, making america great again through our economy.

thank you and have a great day. from manchester, new hampshire. go ahead. caller: i will turn my tv down. i want to talk about the iran thing. first, i want to say, the democrat party is the communist party. if anybody wonders what is having with our country, it is communisthis party trying to take us down. somebody called in about pearl harbor. the democrats are action tried to blame us for pearl harbor? what a shame and disgrace. second, we have four prisoners over in iran still. even talk to these people without getting your people back is absolutely absurd. making a dealre

with the devil. do we really expect them to have any truth anywhere in this equation? excuse me, i'm a little nervous. i just don't understand why we even started. why did we even start talking to people who killed all of our soldiers, or many of our soldiers, have funded terrorism, and we know they are not truthful. host: what would have been the best avenue to start with your? you said, why did we even start talking to them. when would you start talking to them? what would you require first before talking to them? prisoners go,r stop funding hamas and hezbollah , stop threatening israel, stop threatening us. they want to kill us. how ridiculous is this. lastly, you know what, i have been without a president for eight years. this person is not my president. i did my history, and new i would never follow this guy.

i'm hoping to get a president next election. i would never follow this guy. go trump. thank you for your time. michael is up next on the line for independents. caller: skaneateles, new york. host: i appreciate that. caller: ivan try to weigh in on this for quite some time. i have followed it extensively. i have several points i would like to share with you. foremost, they did an excellent job. thes not about obama or democratic party. this was a coalition of nations throughout the world. i would wonder, to all these , to germany, france, china, russia, the united kingdom -- did they all get it

wrong? did they not have a vested interest in protecting their sovereignty ordination nation stucco how is it that we are the only ones who got it wrong, yet they all agreed to it. furthermore, as far as the american people being opposed to it, at the beginning of the summer, the american people were for it. through all of this propaganda and negative advertising about how horrible it is, the american people have gone against it. that is really about demagoguery or the politicizing of the situation. these nuclear physicist, noble ,aureates, and world leaders whoever you want to name, they all support it. host: answer dana's question in, thetter who writes question should be, what do we gain from this deal? caller: what do we gain from

this deal is that we, as a nation, have taken a leadership role in protecting the world and that part of the region and stabilizing, and having the ability to go in and monitor, and actually supervise what goes on in iran. as far as us to bring them money, it was their money to begin with. money to keep, or something we gave them. it was something that was part of the deal of the new station's that took place. on thehat is michael line for independents. on this issue of the money and passedns, among measures by house republicans this week was one bill that would prevent the president from lifting sanctions against iran.

we can talk more about that in our next segment of "the washington journal." we have been talking a lot about president obama, here is his reaction to the house vote yesterday. host: we are getting your thoughts, your reactions for the next 15 minutes or so. we will carry this discussion into our next segment. kenneth is in arkansas, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to show you what donald trump was trying to tell .he world

donors were trying to give him millions of dollars, and he said, i can't take your money. when you said is, i will not take those donations. we have the best congress money can buy. the oil companies are the ones who don't want this deal to go through. once they take the sanctions off, the american people will benefit because they will sell that oil on the market. wall street and these congressman, who are bought and paid for through the oil companies, this is the reason why they don't want this deal to go through. he is not concerned about is -- they are not concerned about israel or terrorists. i bet you, you will find out that they have stock in those oil companies and their people, their relatives have stock, and greed is feeling their vote -- fueling their vote. host: a few more headlines from

this morning's papers. "after victory for nuclear agreement, a battle over iran sanctions looms." also, from "the new york times," "nuclear deal sealed, obama must now make it work, and mend fences." let's go to nancy waiting in anchorage, alaska, line for republicans. thanks for getting up with us. caller: it has been quite interesting. exceptionarly take to nancy pelosi getting up there after her work shoving this down people's throats, saying this will be great, and republicans were not allowed in on those meetings. the president has been acting like a dictator.

secondly, when the gentleman got up a while ago and spoke and said, this is going to be peace and safety. doesn't he know what the bible says when they say there will be peace and safety? destruction will hit the united states again. remember, the microphone was on when the president sat with put in, and he told them that when he got back in, there would be more leverage. he did not know the microphone was on. i just think it seems we are being led down a path that is quite dangerous for the united states. outside the democrats can't see that. the republicans are doing the right thing. i'm glad that some of the democrats are thinking about this. i hope the debate will help them see what their target. i'm very concerned about our nation. 25 democrats joining republicans and voting no on

approval. it did not achieve the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome the filibuster. 50 senators voted in favor, and for against it. chuck schumer schumer of new york, robert menendez, and ben .ardin of maryland christine is in maryland. thank you for calling. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that when harry reid was the leader in the senate, he used the nuclear option whenever he wanted to get something passed. i don't understand why mcconnell is being so stupid as to not do that same thing. we have not passed anything since the republicans have taken both the house and senate

because they think they are following the rules. i'm a republican, by the way. we just think the republicans are losing it. host: do you think part of the reason that mitch mcconnell is not using that is because he was so critical of harry reid when he did it, saying he was throwing out the rules and tradition of the senate? caller: yes, but they don't understand that they are losing republicans like myself. i have no confidence in the congress anymore. still runningare congress, even though they are in the minority in the house and senate. host: who do have confidence in in what is currently a very large republican primary field for president. is there anybody that inspires your confidence?

caller: i will tell you, i'm for trump all the way. i'm with him all the way. hopefully he can turn things around. he is not going to be a chicken and sit in the back row of any of this garbage going on. on the republican primary front, some news late yesterday. rick perry, former governor of out ofdecided to pull the race for presidency. you can see the headline there on the front page of "the houston chronicle." fromperry also tweeting his eagle council speech yesterday, where he made this announcement, saying in part, i share this news with no regrets, life is good, and i am a blessed

man. we will get into that in whatever later segments of "the washington journal" this morning . we will talk with josh kraushaar on the 2060 elections. we want to get your thoughts on iran nuclear deal, the house boating yesterday to reject the deal. on our line for democrats, darrell is in missouri. caller: good morning. i think iran should have to go through the same tough scrutiny and oversight that israel had to go through to get their nuclear weapons. oh, that's right, israel didn't have to go through any tough lied and stole their way to nuclear weapons,

and not a pee out of this government. abouts nothing ever said their nuclear weapons, and how they acquired them, and never had to do anything including inspections, on-site visits, or anything else. host: you may want to stick around for daryl kimball, segment,s in the next he is executive director of the arms control association, and we will talk about nuclear proliferation around the world. stick around for that. doris is in chicago, illinois, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i was appalled that the republicans decided to hold this vote on 9/11. i mean, i cannot imagine the stupidity of republicans. iran had nothing to do with 9/11. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

afghanistan maybe had a little to do with it, but the people who attacked us in york were from saudi arabia. supposedly, our friends. as you see, the republicans here, they don't support the american government, they never supported this president. they were just appalled that this man of color became our president. they have been opposing everything. there are five other nations that were in there with the united states. those five nations are in the process of getting rid of the sanctions. even switzerland, who is not part of the deal, is in the process of having their banks remove the sanctions, and giving iran money. host: you bring up the color of the present skin -- president's

skin. you think that is the reason for the opposition or the president's policies that people disagree with? caller: no, no. some of these policies republicans agreed with before he was president. we have a bunch of republicans who cannot make up their mind, whether they are loyal to america or to a foreign country. as far as i'm concerned, you need to pick a country. you are either an american citizen or a citizen of a foreign country. you need to support the american government. we cannot let any foreign country dictate our policy. we are america. opposition and support for this deal coming on many editorials,t disfavors, commercials, at

campaigns.- ad here is an editorial cartoon talking about former vice president dick cheney's opposition to this deal. host: just one of the ways the opposition and support of this deal is being expressed in the newspapers around this country. harry is up next from north carolina, line for republicans. caller: yes, i think we should use the deal. one of the main reasons is because it is trust, and we get a chance to verify. veteran, itnam era think having something set up like this when we went to war in vietnam, we would not have lost

so many lives d veterans. god bless america. host: bob is in trenton, new jersey. go ahead, you are on now. caller: i just want to say one thing. we should have never negotiated this without our men on the table from the beginning. they want to be able to buy and bn's -- ic intercontinental ballistic missiles. what do they want that for? israel is in their backyard. they don't need it for that. they want to send us a christmas present, come christmastime, or whenever. the only other option for this deal is war. , howr. smarty-pants exactly is that going to start? who is going to fire the first shot? it is going to be just like it is right now.

what brought them to the table to th begin with are the sanctions. $150e going to give them billion so they can buy their ic bm's. the other guy who talked about , weel lying and cheating gave it to them. thank you for your time. host: tied for just a few more calls. we also want to keep you updated on some of the news tories going around -- news stories going on around the country. california lawmakers have given final approval that would allow terminally ill patients to end their lives. it faces an uncertain future .ith jerry brown it succeeded on its second attempt after the highly

publicized case of britney womand, that 29-year-old with brain cancer who moved to oregon to legally take her life. the front page of "then your york post" about cuba.pe's visit to ,hat story noting that the pope of course, coming to the united states and will address the united states congress and united nations, and celebrate mass in central park during his trip to the united states. we will of course be covering that here on c-span. you can watch all of the pope 's speech. al is up next in texas. caller: good morning.

commentanted to make a on the piece that you had on dick cheney, it is very good. i watched him the other day speaking, rejecting this deal. when you look at him, he is like a mad dog. ,ost of these people's problem and i hate to say it -- this is the first black president, and there is a hatred. hating. there is no other reason. it is just plain hatred for this president and disrespect. thank you, sir. host: you mentioned dick cheney. he and his daughter out with a new book, talking about national security issues, and getting into the war on iraq. that book getting a lot of coverage of the book review pages of the newspapers around the country. richard is up next in rhode

island, life for republicans. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: in the early 1950's, the united states removed the government of iran because they ozying up to the russians, and we replace the government was one of our liking. during world war ii, we do with our enemy by incinerating them, vaporizing them, and occupying them. i think we should apply the same principles to the current situation in iran. host: william is up next in north carolina, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yes, go ahead. have our heads

in the sand. anything this man is going to do will be opposed by the republican party. they have not accepted this man because of the color of his skin. it is not because of the deal. they hate this man so bad that saidhe was elected, they they would make sure he would never be president no more. we have to take our heads out of the sand. they oppose him because he has black. it is wrong. they hate blacks. also, donald trump, he hates the blacks. that is william in north carolina, unless caller in this this 45ast caller in

minutes. up next, we will discuss the iran nuclear deal with daryl kimball, the director of the arms control association. later, we will turn to politics in the 2016 election with josh kraushaar. hill" notes that the house will vote on planned parenthood next week as congress onertakes an investigation the organizations use of fetal .issue on our "newsmakers" program this week, we're joined by jim jordan of ohio. during the interview, which airs tomorrow, he discusses whether planned parenthood should continue to get federal funding next year. [video clip] we have, on video, where this organization was engaged in the most repulsive activity that you can think

about, and what may be criminal activity. they should not get another penny of your tax dollars, my , and the people i represent in ohio. the argument that clear, we will take the money that was going to this organization, which was engaged in wrong at city, may be criminal activity, we will take the money and put it over here, same level of funding, and if the president and harry reid thing, we can't pass that, we insist on this organization continuing to get your tax dollars, and a if they say that is more important than funding our troops and veterans, they will have to defend that with the american people. i think that is such a common sense position, we just need to make the case in a compelling and repetitive way over and over again so the american people understand what is at stake.

house passes a cr barring planned parenthood from being funded, and the senate strips the and sends it back, what would happen? jim jordan: we have 20 more days of debate, lots of things happen in politics. you saw what happened this week where we decided to go a different way on the iranian nuclear resolution in the house. things can change. as i said yesterday, to a few belichick, even doesn't script the whole game, it is a dynamic process. i think anyone who has watched the video will agree. frankly, some people who may not support the same pro-life issu

position that i do, they don't want their tax money going to an organization engaged in what those videos exposed planned parenthood to be doing. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now at the daryl kimball of the arms control association. is the joint plan of action, as known,n nuclear deal is and effective policy? guest: on balance, we think this is very strong and effectively verifiable. it does not back iran's capabilities for very long time, 10-15 years, depending on how you calculate the limitations. thwe have to compare this, as we have been hearing in the discussion this morning on the floor of the house and senate, to the alternatives.

reality that iran has been a nuclear capable country since 2006-2007, and what could happen in the absence of this agreement, and is there a better agreement. our view is that there is not a better agreement available, given the diplomatic situation. without this deal being implement it, we would be in a very difficult situation because iran could rapidly increase its enrichment program, and put them in a position to produce enough material, in just a few weeks. host: take us to the backside of 2025-2030. is a nuclear iran assured at that point? guest: first of all, the basics are that iran or any other country can theoretically produce nuclear weapons with

orhly enriched uranium plutonium. this agreement cuts and half its enrichment capacity and reduces the stockpile to very small ofunt so that for a period 10-15 years, it would take iran 12 months to put together enough material for just one nuclear weapon. they would have to do other things after two weaponize it. blockedonium path is because the reactor is being redesigned. and, there are inspections, not oft for the 10-15 period time, but permanently to assure that is not doing things that do not comply with the agreement. the problem is that after your 15, it could, according to the agreement, theoretically increase its enrichment capacity

for peaceful purposes. it is at that point that we must be very watchful. the deal action provides a look because of the inspections and monitoring, because of the requirements that iran now has to notify the agencytional atomic about its plans and what it is doing. we would see if iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity vastly after the year 2015. they will, by the way, not have a peaceful purpose for that one lightey only have now. reactor have plans to buy three or four more from the russians. the russian model is that they provide the nuclear fuel for thetors, and take back field. you don't have to enbridge uranium, which is necessary to

create feel for reactors, or bonds. iran does not really have a practical need, a justification, enrichmenting its capacity. and not think it is inevitable that iran will pursue weapons in your 2015, or so. they realize all the tools we currently have to deal with the situation. sanctions, military action, international action. host: we will be going through some of the arguments on both sides of this issue for the next 40 minutes or so with daryl controlof the arms association. now would be the time to call in if you have specific questions about this deal or non-prolife raton efforts around the world. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002.

the are you have questions from viewers this morning about secrets ideals. what are they? guest: one of the things that this agreement does is it requires iran to allow the international atomic energy agency to monitor not just their declared facilities, there no nuclear sites, but to allow the on ato look at those sites continuous basis. that is what the 20 47 access 24/7 access means. in addition, it provides the iaea the ability to go anytime to any site that they believe is engaged in military nuclear activity. there are arrangements that allow for the iaea to do that, and a limit on the amount of time that iran can delay that access. there has been a controversy over the arrangements of the iaea's access to one particular

e parkins site. this agreement requires iran to allow the ieee eight to go back to that site to see what is going on. early reports have suggested that iran would be doing the inspections by themselves. we just found out yesterday that iranians will be collecting soil samples at the site, but , literally looking over their shoulder. host: they will be on site when the soil samples are collected, is not like they can had fromer a vile of soil

somewhere. guest: on the hill, they have said, we have not seen the documents that explain how this works. the reason is this is a confidential agreement between iran.ea and for decades, the iaea has had these agreements with inspected parties, and those are confidential documents. host: what is another example of where this happens? guest: they inspect sites around the world. arrangementscific between the agency and the netherlands, or the iaea and south africa on how these inspections take place. they are confidential because you don't want to have this information out there about exactly how the iaea does its work.

that could help her liberators -- proliferators. the fact is that the obama administration does not physically possess this, and they did not send it to congress, but the administration officials have seen the documents and have been briefed briefed members of congress on the details of the agreement if they have questions. host: let's get to the calls. kathy is up first. are you with us? caller: yes. hi. i don't agree with the iran deal because i think that -- i have listened about one month ago to another, there was like a discussion that had to do with a and there was a lady who had dealt with a lot of iran issues. making ant is like

agreement with the devil. when they are over there chanting "death to america" and burning our flag, these people don't think rational like we do. trust theser people. host: in your mind, there is no trust to begin with to start the dealings? caller: exactly. it's like you are already making a deal with the devil. they are burning our flag, ."anting "death to america jong they have korea, kim whatever, and to have evidence that korea is helping support them too. it's like, why do you even want to begin to make any kind of deal with people who do not think like weguest: there is a y of distrust between iran and the

west. the iranian regime is responsible for reprehensible behavior. that is true. this agreement is not built on trust. there is a great deal of disagreement that is focused on verifying that iran is complying with the terms of this agreement. the real question policymakers iran has had that for several years the capability to make nuclear weapons, what do you do about it? to basic choices are continue the sanctions that have been in place but have not stop the growth of iran's nuclear abilities, despite the fact it has been hurting their economy and changing their cost-benefit calculation. pursue an to agreement, which the george w. bush administration try to do and what the obama administration achieved, or do you take military action? be generals who look at this,

military experts, made it clear that military action would only set back iran's nuclear program for three to four years at most. then you would have to go back and deal with it. sanctions have not been totally effective in slowing their expansion. the reality is we have had needed to reach some sort of agreement with them to constrain their program. that is the choice we have if we want to stop them. you give us a snapshot of north korea and where their nuclear program is? guest: north korea had a research reactor throughout the 1970's, 1980's. by the early 1990's, it had produced a small amount of plutonium separate from the spent fuel. a violation of its nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

prevents countries from -- sing peaceful there was an agreement in 1990 four to freeze north korea's plutonium production in exchange from japan,idies the united states, south korea. that deal fell through in the early 2000's, when north korea was complaining there were not getting their oil. they were pursuing a uranium enrichment program. further efforts from the george w. bush administration to halt in the nuclear eyes north korea. euarize north korea. they are known to have a program that will probably give them material for more weapons. they have elastic missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead. their program is unconstrained,

is growing slowly. the real threat with north korea is they dictate -- is they could begin arming these listed missiles with nuclear warheads, threatening japan and south korea. is waiting on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that this is really not a treaty, this is a surrender. the only thing missing is a white flag. and we are not even getting our prisoners back. no deal. not a treaty. technically, this is an executive agreement. , china,e united states france, the united kingdom, russia, germany, and the european union that negotiated this agreement with iran. they have pursued this agreement in order to get iran to comply with its nuclear

nonproliferation treaty obligations and to comply with un security council resolutions passed since 2006, calling on iran to comply with his commitments and halt its program until such time there is a conference of agreements. , members of congress, said they wanted to weigh in. they wanted to have a say on this, even though this is not a ,reaty, technically speaking that they have the legal authority to provide an consent on. processwhat led to the we have seen in the last few days. host: a process that officially ends september 17, one that 60 day clock and. good to pennsylvania. line for independents. raymond, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to jog people's

memory. in the 1970's, pakistan was in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. there are also characterized as terrorists, backing terrorist organizations, and if they got a nuclear weapon, there may be a nuclear war or they would use it. they now have somewhere around 180, 200 potent warheads and delivery systems. how they use them? no. the same rhetoric is being used on iran. i think it is all about israel. israel got their nuclear weapon and nothing was said. this country said nothing about it. they are the ones who are willing to use it at the drop of a hat. willing to use a nuclear weapon them indy who opposes the middle east. they are the wild card. they are the ones who should not have a nuclear weapon. park storm on twitter has a similar line of questioning.

does the israeli government not have to submit to inspections or sign on to the npt? why the double standard? let's back up and talk about who has nuclear weapons. i can talk about pakistan and israel in particular. there are nine countries today that have nuclear weapons. the u.s. and russia have third-largest number combined. the u.s. and russia currently warheadut 1600 nuclear each that can be delivered intercontinental distances. next is china and france. they have around 300 each. then there is the u.k.. they have around 100. then there are the countries that never joined the non- proliferation treaty but our states with nuclear weapons. india,ountries are pakistan, and israel, and as i said before, north korea

withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty in 1993 because they were violating it. accor stan is a country that has pursued nuclear weapons outside nuclear proliferation system. they did so in response to india, which india conducted its first test in 1974. a slow moving arms race has been taking place there. a great deal of danger in involving pakistan's nuclear weapon, both in terms of the security of those weapons in pakistan, which has terrorist organizations operating on their soil. and there is a risk that could be conflict between india and pakistan that escalates into a nuclear conflict. wasel is a country that pursuing nuclear technology in the 1960's. they used a reactor at the site called the mona temperatures around 1968, 1969.

the united states has not acknowledged that israel has nuclear weapons, in part because of the diplomatic problems that the u.s. government felt that would create if we acknowledged it. whether we like it or not, the fact is the united states has not acknowledge the presence of nuclear weapons in israel. israel has not officially acknowledged the fact it has nuclear weapons. but because it never joined the nonproliferation treaty, it is not subject to the same kinds of safeguards against the misuse of civilian technology for military purposes, like we see with iran, which has been a signatory and a member of the treaty since the beginning. -- there are double standards in the global system. all sorts of areas. you could say this is one of them. that iss not a country

willing to use its nuclear weapons lightly. i think none of the countries weapons,ess nuclear except save north korea, think of it that way. but there is a risk these weapons can be used in a conflict. it is in everyone's interest that all of these countries reduce the role in sale of these weapons and military policy and reduce the numbers that exist and prevent new countries from having nuclear weapons like iran. host: we go to marie on our democrat line in new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling because i thought i have heard a few other media people tell us that there were five other countries involved in this deal. and i think you already gave her the name of those countries. and that is why i was calling. hat i also wanted to say t the republicans admire -- what

was his name? i just lost it. the republican president. on his name,lank but you know who i am speaking of, right? host: george w. bush? caller: no, prior to him. guest: reagan. caller: yes. they admire reagan very much. and i know there was a time reagan said he hoped he lived long enough to know there were no nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. so why can't they get forward with the same thing? the same idea. that nuclear weapons are not good for any country to have, really. because of any that he ever drops one of them anywhere in the world, it would do complete damage throughout the world. it is not going to stay contained just in that country.

it will go throughout the and over time, they will dropfected negatively by a of a nuclear weapon. i wish they would go back and think about what reagan said and maybe one day, we would have a world where there is no nuclear weapons in any country. that should be our goal. host: marie brings up the p5+1. can you run through the countries in the p5+1, and are any of the legislative bodies in those countries as opposed to this deal as we have seen the opposition on capitol hill this week? permanent p5+1, the security council countries plus

these countries and are diplomatic legislations have been coordinated by the european union. that is the group pursuing these talks. it was the eu three, france, britain, and germany, that began talks in 2003 to 2005 with iran. that the process has been going on that long. back told, let's calm one of the points the viewer, caller, made. talking about this, why is it so important? it is because nuclear weapons are very different from conventional weapons. the detonation of a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world would be a real game changer. the use would be catastrophic on a global scale. that is why every american president, beginning with eisenhower, kennedy, reagan, who said in his inaugural, a nuclear war can never be won and must

never be thought. to all other presidents, including barack obama, have made nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament a major goal of the united states. republicans and democrats. there have been different views on how to pursue those goals, especially recently. but that has been u.s. policy. it has to be because nuclear weapons represent one of the greatest threats to our planet. is on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. kimball, as you said, iran has been in violation of the npt for the better part of a decade. why should we agree that if they did not hold onto their operations -- obligations under npt that they will hold their obligations under this new report. i do not know if i should be concerned about this, but i heard iran's neighbors, if this

deal goes through, they will develop their own weapons. ouldn't americans and people around the world be concerned this is the beginning of the end of the npt? about what is important this agreement if it helps preserve the integrity of the nuclear nonproliferation system. of the safeguards system. what you run data over a decade ago was they pursued uranium enrichment technology from pakistan. they began secretly building a uranium enrichment facility. today, that facility has 20,000 centrifuge machines, about as tall as our room here. they spin very fast, enrich uranium. enough,nrich uranium you can have nuclear bomb material over time. what you ron did was they did not inform the ij about their

plans. they also conduct aid -- what you ron did was they did not inform the iaea about their plans. that is why we think they violated the npt. the problem today is they now centrifuge machines. they are halfway to building a reactor that could produce enough plutonium for two bombs a year. so what do we do -- in my view, we have no chance but to engage toh them and find a way establish a limit that prevents them from getting nuclear bomb material they would make on a nuclear weapon. this agreement provides the eyes and euros on the ground, the monitoring system, that would give us ample time to respond to any violation probably end up decisively -- any violation probably and decisively. i do not trust them, but this is

not about trust. trust would be to walk away from this agreement and hope a do not expand their nuclear capacity and actually build nuclear weapons. you areicy situations, not presented with very good options. we have been in a situation here for over a decade, in which the options are not ideal. this is clearly the best possible outcome, i think, we can pursue now. host: our guest in the last 15 minutes of the segment is daryl kimball, executive director of the arms control association. control.com. @armscontrolnow. daryl kimball, also a peace fellow for his work in arms control. questions asyour

we talked the iranian nuclear deal and nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world. patrick is in new jersey, line for democrats. taking myank you for call. i wanted to bring extension to the extreme short-term memory of their conservative party. their guru, ronald reagan, actually did perform a deal with russia, which had well-known, numerous nuclear weapons. and his motoo was "crush and verify," which is what obama is doing today. weaponslso sold nuclear to iran, saddam hussein, and osama bin laden. this is a country that does not have established nuclear weapons. they may be working towards it, but they do not have it. ronald reagan made a deal.

trust and verify. this is the exact same thing going on. why do they oppose it if they are ronald reagan conservatives? guest: you are right that ronald reagan did negotiate to ban major nuclear arms control agreements with the soviet union. the 1987 treaty that eliminated all intermediate range nuclear arms missiles. and he began negotiations on the strategic arms reduction treaty, which george h.w. bush finalized. but there is one difference between those cold war era agreements between the u.s. and the soviet union and this agreement, which is that this is a multilateral agreement between the united states, its allies, and iran. and it is iran taking on all of the responsibilities. we are not giving up our nuclear weapons. what we are doing in this arrangement is if you ron does

the thing it is supposed to do, cut its uranium enrichment capacity by over half, reduce its enriched uranium stockpile, theantle its reactor, allow inspections we need to check for cheating, then the p5+1 will lift the un security council sanctions. and the u.s. and european union will waive some of their national sanctions on nuclear related activities. we are not giving up nuclear capacity. iran is taking on these additional accoutrements for an extended period of time. host: sandra wants to know more about the arms control association. guest: we formed when i was still a young boy in the 1950's by some of the men who put together the arms control

the 1960's into the 1970's. it has been our mission since then to provide information about these agreements. diplomacy to deal with the most dangerous weapons, which we define as nuclear, chemical, biological, and certain conventional arms. today"ish "arms control on a monthly basis to provide a forum for ideas and solutions from a variety of perspectives. that is our mission. positions onpolicy important issues like this one, the iran nuclear deal. host: rick, line for republicans. good morning. i was watching that first day they were having the hearings in the house. the ride was reading that links the material about the 1954 atomic energy act or whatever. he went through the reasons behind the secret deal or

whatever you call it. at the end of that, he read guy and hemer iaea said those things can be made available to be seen. -- i guessderstand that is one of the basis of what they are doing in the house -- but it seems really strange that this is such a secretive thing. one other thing, wendy sherman was talking about the levels of enrichment. the only thing that they could was sufferingase fuel. increasep with that -- was submarine fuel. what is up with that? host: this agreement is a 159 page agreement open to the public. basic agreement the p5+1 negotiated with iran. iran has a plan of action it has

worked out with the i-8 ea to resolve questions about its past military dimensions experiments. its nuclear weapons experiments from the past. have just a few weeks to resolve those questions with the iaea. visits byves these the agency to certain sites and which, areres for confidential. the un security council passed a resolution that governs how the sanctions relief will occur and when. everything is in the open, but for these confidential agreements between the iaea and iran. if members of congress want to understand how that works, they can go to a classified reefing, in a classified briefing their basement of the capital. several members of congress have done that to get their questions answered. submarine fuel.

guest: normal reactor grade enrichment means you enrich the 5% ofm ore to about 3% to u235. which is the fish in a bold type of uranium. if you want to produce a bomb, you need to enrich the detail to 90% or so. there are some reactors that run on higher and -- on higher levels of enrichment. there are some reactors around 20%. we there are some submarine are actors that run on a higher percentage also. some legislators have said one of the justifications for possible higher enrichment by iran may be for their nuclear submarine program, which they do not have. this deal prohibits that and

keeps you ron from going past the 3% to 5% levels for at least 15 years. and i'd argue much more than that. that is one of the values of this agreement. it bars iran from enriching to higher levels closer to bomb grade. host: mavis is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask mr. kimball that the israeli prime minister has been to the other five countries and adjust their congress in reference to stopping this deal? to my knowledge, prime minister netanyahu has not gone to the parliaments of the other countries. he has met with the leaders of these other countries involved in the negotiations. what he was clearly trying to do this year was to influence congressional opinion against

the agreements. he felt he had the ability to try to do that. ofre has not been the kind debate in germany, france, or the u.k., russia, china certainly, that we have had here about the agreement, in part because all parts of the political spectrum in our three european allies have been in support of this. because they see this as the best possible outcome to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. aboutally, i am puzzled prime minister netanyahu's approach. it is not consistent with all of his military and security leaders. some of whom reluctantly think this is the best possible outcome to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. the disagreements were between prime minister netanyahu and president obama in the past,

i think it is important they get over it. this deal is going forward. congress has not walked its implementation. it is in everyone's interest that this is implemented on schedule is the iranians do what they are supposed to. that takes compliance. that requires working together in harmony to make sure this work. host: cheshire connecticut is next on our republican line. thomas. myler: thank you for taking call. one of the problems with the arrangement is it is really not a treaty. if this were a treaty, it would be ratified like senate, like reagan wasaty when president. reagan had leadership. i do not know if he was working against an opposing party at the time, but he ratified the treaty against the soviet union. this is not a treaty. this is an executive order being

imposed. that is the problem. when you cannot govern any more as a president, you start to impose things. i do not think the president has the leadership to really lead congress. through this process. he is basically putting out an executive order and saying that is the law of the land. how this is the type of thing that will prevent iran from building a bomb. he should want a treaty because that is permanent. the executive order expires when he leaves office. thomas, cheshire, connecticut. a few minutes left with daryl kimball. i want to ask you about a headline in today's "new york times." "islamic state ordinance shows traces of chemical agents, u.s. says." these headlines are really worrisome and troublesome.

two years ago, the syrian government used nerve agents on its own people outside damascus during its terrible civil war. the syrian government has a large stockpile of chemical agents. russia strong-armed assad under the threat of military action. that material was removed by the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. but now the islamic state has begun, in more rudimentary fashion, mustard agents, lacing that around its conventional munitions. now we are seeing injuries in syria and perhaps other parts of the conflict in northern iraq involving mustard agents. this is a worrisome problem.

there is uncertainty about how daseh, the islamic the islamicesh, state, is acquiring this. this is clearly yet another war crime on their part. involved,untries whether russia, the united states, should be condemning this. host: are they? guest: some are. the united states and russia agree there should be a formal investigation of the use of mustard agents by parties in the conflict. we will see what the results of that are. right now, we do not have vladimir putin condemning this, we do not have iran publicly condemning this, though that would not make a lot of difference with daesh. host: let's see if we can get in one more call. luther has been waiting on the

line for democrats. can you make it quick? yes.r: a lot of good information. the one thing that needs to be said is that president rouhani has said he wants better relations with the west. and foreign minister zarif was educated in the united states. 70% of iranians are under 35. talking about the revolutionary guard, the supreme leader. there is another group. they cannot talk about that in the deal, but it is the reality. when people think about the deal, it is a good deal, and if it does not work guest: those are very good points. this is a long-term agreement. it does not expire when

president obama leaves office. we have many opportunities to ensure that you run complies. if they don't, there will be penalties. that is for sure. the international community will be behind us in trying to enforce the agreement. it opens the possibility of better relations between united states people and the iranian people. perhaps helpuld, the pragmatists went out over the real hardliners in iran. that is not the reason for the deal. that is one side benefit that we could perhaps leverage in the future to moderate iranian to hader any future which we really need to try to do. that is another challenge beyond the nuclear problem arise presented. host: if you want to check out the arms control association, he is the executive director there. i appreciate your time this money. -- this morning. up next, we turn to politics as politicaln with the

editor of the national journal. later, and our last segment today, we will talk about u.s. and european ideas of privacy on the internet at a time when google is being ordered by european regulators to censor some internet search results. we will be right back. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, politics, books, and american history. on c-span tonight at 8:00 p.m.. speeches by two republican presidential candidates. first, scott walker visits reagan. louisiana governor bobby jindal at the national press club. on sunday at six 1:35 p.m., to profile interviews with gop candidates. first, former new york governor george pataki talks about his political career, and issue shading his candidacy. then, former pennsylvania

senator rick santorum talks about his time in congress, his 2012 residential run, and why he is running again. on c-span2's booktv, tonight. jack cashill argues that progressives have become intolerant of opposing critical views. she talks with-- susan page on c-span3 at 8:00 policylemson university paul crist for anderson teaches a class on how confederates viewed reconstruction in the wake of the civil war. discussions on how some white southerners justify and even romanticize their defeat and motives for fighting. sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m., the landmark supreme court

decision ruled it was unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriage. at the virginia historical society, author and history professor peter wallenstein examines the context and legacy of loving fee virginia. the complex these of the case, and how it affected similar legal challenges. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. host: josh kraushaar is back at our desk. he is politics editor at the national journal. he joins us for a discussion of all things 2016 election as we move into the fall campaign season. i want to begin with rick perry and his announcement last night that he is ending his president shall campaign. one of the headlines on this. and then, there were 16. surprised? guest: not that surprised. is story with his withdrawal a lesson that hard money still matters in essential politics. rick perry was not raising any money over the last couple of months. his campaign started to sputter.

even though his super pac that had millions of dollars still in , hebank was up and running did not have enough money to hire staff, to travel to iowa, to new hampshire where he needed to go. he ran out of money -- when you run out of hard money in your campaign, you can survive no matter how much money from super pac's you get. rick perry's expectations were disconnected from the reality of the campaign. he started out as a candidate who couldn't reach the divide between the establishment and the tea powder -- tea party grassroots. he had an imposing resume to run on. this is an environment where people don't like politicians. they don't like people who have not been in office for that long. he overcomes the burden of 2012. everyone are members the moment

at the debate. he was never able to get past that. host: who is your protection of who might be next to exit the race? guest: jim gilmore. when you get past junk in omar george pataki is the really big longshot. you have to look at rick santorum who won the iowa caucus last time. he is barely registering in all the polls that have been conducted in the state recently. santorum is also struggling with money. he has not that much to spend. he does not have a super pac of great proportions. i think santorum is someone to watch. there will only be four people in the early debate next week on cnn. get more airght time they would at 11:00 a.m. debate. guest: nobody has a carly fiorina moment. if they don't have one of moments where they do so well they don't get momentum from it, all of them will have to look at what their future campaigns will be. host: rand paul tweets this

after rick perry's decision. what does it say about the gop with -- 183 and a half term governor with a successful thousand?leading jobs guest: it says that in the republican party, you have donald trump, ben carson, carly fiorina, people want outsiders. people do not want career politicians. they don't want people who have spent time in politics. rick perry, that is one of his calling cards. he was governor for one of the biggest state in the country. he was not able to use that argument of government explains to his advantage this time around. host: a tweet from the reality star and successful businessman donald trump leading in the polls, he says rick perry is a terrific guy and i wish him well. i know he will have a great future. withd trump is very active his twitter account.

if you want to join the conversation about election 2016, we are talking just crush hour of the national journal -- we are talking with josh kraushaar. ,emocrats at 202-748-8000 republicans at 202-748-8001, independent set 202-748-8002. hillary going to make certain announcement about big ideas, big policy ideas. how far away as hillary clinton today from that speech the months ago? guest: quite a bit. one thing we noted on the show is that his/her -- that was her second launch. during her additional campaign announcement, she did not move. normally when you get announcement, you get a little bit of move. not only did they not move up when she announced her campaign,

they have not gone up since her glitzy announcement on rhode island. make no mistake, democrats are in your panic mode when they look at her numbers and how badly they have slipped. they are worried that if she does not turn things around, and the next month or two, that is one joe biden -- bernie sanders continues to receive momentum in both iowa and new hampshire. she is a lot more vulnerable than anyone had any reason to expect just a couple of months ago. what's pulls do you look at? there are so many polls out there saying different things on hillary clinton and bernie sanders. universityuinnipiac poll that says that bernie sanders at 40 12 clinton's 40. thinkay that people bernie sanders is more honest and caring. guest: and i will, they were the

first bowl to show -- in iowa, they have the first bowl to show that bernie sanders ahead of hillary clinton. subsequently, there have been other polls that show bernie sanders in the lead and even closer to hillary clinton. sanders clearly has momentum. the controversy is that after controversy over the e-mail server not going away and causing great damage, democrats are large saying this is not an issue for a long time. they thought this was a media witchhunt against hillary clinton. we are starting to see in iowa and new hampshire slippage of her favorability among democrats. that is why he is making inroads here. we are taking all of your election 2016 questions. we will take a call from spring hill, florida, line for republicans. the money. -- good morning.

caller: good morning, sir. i said torepeat what the individual who answered the phone. i started out in the political arena. i work for a democrat etc. straight out of college for a couple years. after the impeachment of mr. clinton, i went over toward the conservative side. i worked with them for about five years. by the end of it, i was so frustrated, so disgusted by the whole process that i ended up leaving the field. fact thatvote is the i don't vote anymore. i am so sick of the entire process. someone like trump who i would've never thought would be in the position he is in having such a high leave. then, hillary going down, jeb bush being in the civil digits, i think it speaks well of what the american people are seeing. they are frustrated. coming up from eight, i hate to

say this, but an insider's point of view, it is mind blowing that somebody like dr. carson and donald trump are leading in the polls. i think it is reflective of what the united states, the people are sick of. when you have over 60% of the people not turning up to vote at a presidential election, that says a lot. what would bring you back to the polling booth? and other candidate that you are very worried about? caller: i never believed in term limits before. if there is someone who pushes term limits. that would actually impressed me a lot. to see a candidate that would shake things up. actually try to make a change and show the american people that change is possible. some way to stop the sense of

apathy from the american voters. that is what would get me to come back. right now, this is the first time i will vote in a present election -- i will not -- because, if nothing else, i would go for donald trump. host: can you pick up on the frustration he was talking about, their? guest: the point about donald trump is his staying power. you look at the polls, a lot of arele like the caller against the washington establishment and the way politics has been played. the question is are these people going to caucus and iowa? in quitehas not voted some time. we'll donald trump supporters actually vote? when you look at the polls, some of his voters are less likely voters than other candidates. question is when you get to october and television ads go up and the campaign begins in

earnest, will his support the inflated from the polls because of upset voters who don't like politics say they support don't trump, or does the action have staying power? 20% in october, you know he has real power to win these caucuses. the headline, my advice to donald trump to the issues. guest: this is the first time he is responding to trump attacking ben carson on his show. this is the first time i could see rush limbaugh criticized donald trump. he has been something of a neutral supporter of his. he has certainly defended him passively on his show. this is the first time rush limbaugh, the most inferential talk radio host threw a fastball to donald trump. i think that is are important. element of the

republican party is what is feeling a lot of his support. as much think our as he has had, he can't afford to be fighting the republican party. if you're getting attacked by jeb bush, carly fiorina, ben carson, that is not sustainable. i think it is the first time you may see his support may have peaked. host: among those you left out on the list of people attacking trump are bobby jindal. here is a bit from his recent statement this thursday morning at the national press conference. >> the idea of the donald trump act is great. the reality of donald trump, however, is absurd. he is nonserious, a carnival act. here is the truth about don't tell. donald trump is shallow. -- truth about donald trump.

he has no substance. he lacks the intellectual curiosity. you can't argue policy with this guy. the only thing that donald trump believes and is himself. he tells us that his health care plan will be fabius. he tells us his tax plan will be really terrific. he is shallow, there is no substance. he does not know anything about policy, he doesn't know anything he is talking about. he makes up on the fly. he does not believe in limited government. he, over and over from his believe in socialized medicine for his desire for tax increases. he has told us over and over that he has no problem with big, top-down solid government. the only problem he has with d.c. today -- he has no problem with big, top-down government. the only problem is he's not the one running it. donald trump is not against big government. he is just against the folks that happen to be running it. donald trump is for donald trump. he believes in nothing other than himself. he is not a liberal, he is not a

moderate, he is not a conservative. he is not a democrat, he is not a republican. he is not an independent. donald trump is for donald trump. he is not for or against anything. issues don't mean anything to him. policies, ideals, they are not important to him. he is for donald. donald trump is a narcissist and an egomaniac. tough words from bobby jindal. guest: it is a no lose situation for bobby jindal who is struggling in the polls. best way to get any attention these days and the world of republican politics is to go after donald trump. it was a substantive or teak, -- critique, one that makes the case that don't trump will not affect change. , we have seens republican candidates to the c4, rick perry had a very meaty critique of donald trump months ago and did not do any good for his campaign. he continued to rise in the poll. i'm skeptical that bobby jindal will be the guy that takes donald trump down.

i think if anything, it may raise his visibility in the polls. from twitter, bobby jindal , so original. pennsylvania, line for democrats. donald trump is never allowed to go to vegas and open a casino because of his ties to the mob. david k johnson wrote this recently. you can read the article. it talks about his ties to the mob and his use of illegal aliens in his buildings. you can read the article, you can still self-described, he is basically a lackey for the mob. host: let's let josh kraushaar

respond. i have not read the story. the point that he does not have court principles. doesn'ter mentioned he have a hard line. that is what bobby jindal was getting at in his speech. he is saying whatever historically relevant at the moment. he is. on every issue -- he has flip-flopped on every issue. the reason i am skeptical is that that line of opposition will work is that people know about it. it has been about there. his numbers keep on rising. i think the most effective line of attack for republicans to use against donald trump is the fact that he is like a politician. he is actually running the campaign and acting like a candidate, i think you will look more political. withwill be the avenue which republicans will get more

traction. host: tennessee, line for independence. go ahead. caller: thank you for the show. concern, i think, is about bernie sanders. i am a bernie sanders supported. a lot of people in the media discounted him from the get-go. it is amazing to see how much she has surged and how much momentum he has. how he is one of the only candidates that comes some of the issues and just hammers on those issues that he talks about. that are actually relevant to what is going on in america today. candidates areer really on the issues. what the media seems to discount is the fact that people are concerned about issues. that is why they back in. not because they are anti-hillary.

, butnot really for hillary only because of her stances on the issues. they don't jive with me. bernie sanders will begin phenomenon of the fall. the question is does he have staying power the on iowa and new hampshire? the first question will he win the caucus in iowa and new hampshire? the polling shows it is possible. hillary clinton has not had a good couple months. bernie sanders is ahead of her in some states. the best case scenario for bernie sanders is staying power. can he win more diverse states data when you go to south where republicans make up a majority of the electorate, kenny appeal to those orders. -- voters. i am skeptical. i think it bernie sanders wins iowa and new hampshire, they better be hoping joe biden is in the race. i think it is more likely the

establishment support would move to him if he is a candidate. maybe even martin o'malley. i think that is a longer shot. if joe barton johnson the race as a backup quarterback. it bernie sanders does well, party leaders will start to get nervous. biden will be more of a likely recipient of that support. host: hillary rodham clinton did not want to apologize. she relented in an interview with abc news. she added, i am sorry about that. a few tweets. we are having this discussion. what turns people off is the political machine. most media participants are part of this machine. chris says don't have is a reality tv star. people are misinterpreting his entertainment value as electoral appeal. you can join the conversation at cspanwj.

ron, line for republicans, you're on with josh kraushaar. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few comments. at one time, i supported hillary. i sent money to her. she lost the run. for time, i ended up voting obama. that was a big mistake because he has been such a divider between different classes and people. what i wanted to get back was the comment hillary clinton, she is always a bit ahead of bernie sanders when they take these bowls. look at biden. biden is not running. -- when they take these polls. it makes hillary look a little bit better than bernie sanders. they pushed biden out of there. they took the survey. maybe hillary would be behind sanders. that makes her look better. you are calling on a line

for republicans. are you actually democrat -- a democrat? at 1.i was for hillary but i have changed my party. i'm for trump. host: line for democrats, scott, des moines. glad josh is here. i am 61 years old, lifelong democrat. i'm disabled. social security is my sole income. we were not having enough fun. the first thing the republican house did when they took power earlier this year was to set it up so that, run september or october of next year, people who are disabled will get a 20% decrease in their monthly benefit. the reason i bring this up -- bernie sanders i have been in

favor of ever since he announced on doing what i -- i am doing what i can to support him. i think he will surprise a lot of people. the thing that a sounds me is the democratic party are talking about a plan b since secretary clinton is foundering. they talk about biden, they talk about gore, they are even talking about john kerry. the guy who is now beating hillary, i believe in new hampshire and iowa, is senator sanders. he is resonating with people. he is issue oriented. he is judgmental of dirty campaign. they have blinders on. that is a great question. it goes back to the previous caller as well. in new hampshire and iowa, nobody expected bernie sanders to be doing this while at this point in time. now, there is a very real chance

that he could beat hillary .linton in either or both the big question is does he have activist feeling for the party. in iowa, you need to be able to organize for the union. bernie sanders is starting to reach out to those groups in a more aggressively than he did in the past. hillary clinton has a fundamental advantage among those constituencies. joe biden would have an advantage over bernie sanders going head to head among those constituencies. one iowa andders new hampshire, he would be the story. there would be real panic in the clinton campaign. i would certainly not rule him out primaries and caucuses. he is planning -- they are to have a game plan, the center's

campaign, to focus on some of the other caucus states, colorado, state with a very college-age population. they are not just planning for new hampshire and iowa. makeup ofook at the the democratic electorate and a lot of states after those two states, it is a lot harder for bernie sanders to compete. line for republicans were kimberly is waiting. in mine. waiting, des moines. -- good morning. caller: the morning. people forget that ronald reagan was a movie star and he was just fine as a president. jindal, heobby sounds like he is totally jealous. he seems insecure and has to tear donald trump down who seems to be very self-confident. that appeals to us. the american public, we are not stupid. we get tired of the same machine running.

i am a number of the national healthcare regime. the first thing they want to do is go out to d.c. and offer a lot of money. that was a complete turnoff. these people believe -- they should be doing the right thing, that whoever pays more. that to me is a mob. thanks. guest: that line is the most powerful line in a doll trunk campaign speech. i think that caller speaks to that. i don't agree between the comparison of trump and reagan. he was a two-term governor of california. he was involved in politics. in democratic politics and then later on in conservative politics. he has no electoral experience. i think the relevant comparison, the relevant comparison for trump is when he ran for california governor, he had no expense of the time, you when

you -- even when you look at the political states of torsion a or versus trump, shorts and they are was more popular than trump is right now. source nager won a lot of support from democrats when he ran the first time. also trump, even though he is doing well with republicans, turns off democrat and republicans. host: he has put out one paper on his positions, what is next for trump? guest: i think the only issue he has on the campaign said. if there is an issue that is driving support for him -- fortson, it is a situation where democrats and republicans and the leadership of both parties can have a much more open and supportive policy and sunset of immigration reform. people feel shut out and do not support increased immigration or a more competitive approach to immigration reform and they want more border security as their focus. both parties are shutting them out. donald trump is speaking to their concerns.

line for independents, des moines. interestedm more into looking into, between donad trump and hillary clinton as if they were to become the commander-in-chief of our armed forces -- host: we lost him. we go to lawrence, san rafael, california, line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. just to comment, i remember when , my mom was ao we democrat and my dad was a republican, but in those days it was more centrist. i asked my god what he thought and he -- i asked my dad what he thought and he said, he is my president. , when youondering why do have the president, the country can't be like he is the president. ast: you don't think there is

respect for the office anymore? caller: that is the thing. republican, my mom was a democrat. more centrist. truman one -- won, i asked him what he thought about the outset, the chicago headline and everything, he said he is my president. that is how it should be. next, fromis up washington. for republicans. good morning. you are on with josh kraushaar. republicansink the should go after bush and go john case it -- quebec -- kasich instead of after going over -- after trump. bush has got the money, so if they knock him out the money will go to them. it does them no good moneywise

to take on trumped. trumped -- trump. .ush is an open borders guy he does not think enough of the united states and speak our language in his home. if he wants to be president maybe he should be president of mexico. candidatesepublican -- host: josh kraushaar? guest: there is room for a conservative, someone who is maybe a little bit more hawkish in immigration. that was the scott walker play in iowa, he tried to appeal to some of the donald trump voters. that was a strategy that he some of the more hard-line immigration candidates will go after bush. it works for scott walker, in now pulling at 3% in

iowa. immigration is clearly a powerful issue, but the strategy by which other candidates like donald -- other than donald trump can capitalize on that are not sure -- are not clear. host: you brought up martin o'malley. he got some attention this week in his attempt to raise awareness about campaign contributions. he worked with the independent journal to go to wall street and lay a guitar on wall street and see how much money he could raise. here is a bit that was put out by the independent journal. [video clip] [indiscernible] >> excuse me.

♪ this land is your land. ♪ this land is my land. ♪ from california, to the new york island. ♪ from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters, this land was made for you and me. walking that ribbon of highway, i thought below me that endless sky way. ♪ i saw below me that golden valley, this land was made for you and me. ♪ host: maryland governor martin $1.74ey ended up raising and pack of gummy bears. guest: that was one of the more

creative videos we have seen from any site -- any candidate this cycle. they deserve a lot of credit for thinking outside the box and really underscoring the point of a wants to make, he is not the establishment candidate. he is running as someone who is much more populist. the problem is, no one knew who he was. people on the streets of new york, on wall street, did not even recognize him. he only raised $1.74. no one went up to him and said, hey, you are the former governor of the state of mech -- maryland. he has been all over the place and people still don't know who he is. his message is not connecting with them in the same way bernie sanders's message is. it was a creative, clever video and it should get some attention to his campaign. on the other hand, he has been doing this for months and people still don't know who he is. host: we are in massachusetts where bill is met -- waiting on our line for democrats.

caller: i have a couple of points. one is i like bernie sanders, that he is an independent and i don't know why he is running as a democrat. he is an independent. he should join the democratic party in order to run with the democrats. on the other hands, -- on the other hand, i don't know, i think he is going to join the clown show. one more thing, josh, you are a pretty intelligent guy. i know you realize at the end of the term that the nominees are going to be hillary clinton and job bush. i think you would agree with that. guest: i actually wrote a column saying that it has never looked less likely that we are seeing hillary clinton and jump -- jeb bush. it is such a divided field on the republican side. you really only have bernie

sanders as the main challenger to hillary clinton. when you look at the dissatisfaction towards washington and career politicians, and you look at biography and hillary clinton's record, they are about as far as you can get. i actually think the republican's will nominate bit of aho is a little fresh face. someone like marco rubio or someone who is more of an outsider. andink they are going to go think outside the box on the republican side. i honestly think it is going to be a very volatile situation because of the e-mail scandal. you never know where this is going to go. it has already done a number on her favorability ratings, and biotin is waiting in the wings. i saw him on "the late show." he was emotional, he may not get in, but if he does he will give her a run for her money. host: if you want to read josh kraushaar you can go to nationa

us a callom or give for the next 10 minutes or so. curtis is in hinesville, georgia. for independents. independents. caller: you kind of still my thunder there, but i think donald trump really touched what americans are looking at. we are tired of career politicians that raise tons of money. that is what is wrong with our political system, it is corrupt with money because then you are beholden to the special interest groups that through in and millions and millions of dollars. and you have super pac's. that. trump has hit i think that is super legitimate. one common i would also like to make is when you said bernie sanders does not have the staying power what you are really saying is bernie sanders cannot raise the money. that goes to my first point, it is all about the money. money, money, money.

wouldas a republican i think they would want to stay away from hillary clinton and let her become the nominee, because i think she is totally unelectable. by last point is, i am watching john kasich. i hope he will take a look at him. i like what he did in congress. i like what he did in the state of ohio that turned them around. it is all about the money, that is what is wrong with our political system. thank you. guest: just to clarify, sanders's problem is actually not money. a lot of small donations along the lines of what howard dean did in 2004. he has been able to raise enough money to get his message out there and campaign aggressively. that is only going to continue. i think his challenges more demographic, and that he has appealed with certain constituencies who are overrepresented in new hampshire. i wonder if that would translate to north carolina and nevada?

and i am intrigued that you have a democrat who is really positive about john kasich. kasich is a someone, he is a party leaders in smoke-filled room -- if you still had party leaders in smoke-filled rooms, he would be a contender. it is knowledge his jon huntsman who is running for the liberal republican campaign. he is certainly more moderate on immigration, social issues. but by and large he would be considered a fairly center right candidate. host: and we are talking money, money, money. if you are on twitter wants to know, when do we get to see record?rumps tax i think don't think -- what he said is if obama released his tax records -- he

has conditioned that on certain things. i don't think we're going to see any detail about his tax returns unless we really get to the point where he is a nominee and maybe has a little more pressure. host: david is in edmond, oklahoma, line for republicans. you are up next. caller: good morning josh. guest: good morning. caller: i have enjoyed listening to you this morning. i am a lifelong republican. i have a theory regarding this trump that i. would like to hear your opinion on. i believe the percentages we are seeing in polling now are the ofolute peak, the very limit the intellectually bankrupt americans who would write in to buy inel -- by end --

to the babel that this guy spews out. otherwise i would point out we are going to coin a new phrase, reagan democrats. they are the mainstream of the party who love their country and would cast a vote for hillary clinton before we put a more on in the white house. host: who is your candidate? caller: you know i absolutely love the idea of someone who is not bound by special interest, and therefore ben carson i really am intrigued by ben carson. guest: i am fascinated, i don't actually think ben carson has -- i actually think that person has more of that power than donald trump has staying power. i guess i am work as than some folks. he has been on every cable news show, morning show.

he has gotten at least $1 billion in free advertising for his campaign, but no one else is running campaign ads. is now up,campaign the super pac will be going up next week. other candidates will jump in. negative ads matter, positive ads matter. kasich spent four or $5 million in new hampshire and he is in second place in the new hampshire polls even though he is not doing well nationally. money matters. people will start to engage if you spend money. money, henald trump's certainly has appealed that the numbers will change quite a bit. i think it will take a true outsider like ben carson who really can tap into evangelical support, socially conservative support, in a state like iowa. they are looking for a dark horse. if you are looking for a

wrapup of all the polling that is out there, you can see this chart showing the ups and downs previously 17 -- -- candidates in the republican primary. is donaldlines, there trump going up over the summer months. this red line is ben carson. you can see his numbers starting to spike in the latest polls. we are taking another five or 10 minutes or so to talk with josh kraushaar of the "national journal." in connecticut, line for democrats. you are up next. caller: good morning. i am just so fed up with the media in this country. i am a democrat and i am supporting hillary clinton. i have watched for over 20 years now "the new york times" constantly going after her.

currying up whitewater -- whitewater, having to constantly retract what they say. it is just ridiculous. the republican field -- there may be many in the republican field, none of them have experience. hillary clinton has proven herself. she has fought for her own voice. it is just ridiculous, i do believe that republicans will come over and vote for hillary. i do think that she will start because there is nothing there. it started in benghazi and now it is going to everything else. we have been down this road. we know all the media. they are just going to have to accept that hillary is possibly going to be our next president.

earlier this week on "the ellen degeneres show" hillary clinton made an appearance and talked about being a female candidate for president in this country. [video clip] think it isall, i just a reality that we are held to a higher standard. it gets a little old but you just forge ahead. all these wonderful, beautiful young women, don't get discouraged. don't give in. don't give up. [applause] i actually think, look. i am not asking people to vote for me because i am a woman, but i think if you vote for someone on their merits, one of my merits is i am a woman. that interview getting a lot of attention. guest: what she was really trying to do there is appealed to her base, women voters. one of the most striking findings over the last couple of weeks is that she is actually not getting -- i mean you would

be expecting her to exploit the gender gap against republicans, but her numbers are underwater with women. she needs allen. that is a show that women watch. we will see if it works. it did not help the day she was on the show was the date the new york times reported that she was trying to show she was more authentic and relatable. that was an attempt at that on the show. i think she did well for himself. ultimately there are a lot of other things going on that are going to overwhelm just one appearance on "ellen." host: steve, you are on the washington journal with josh kraushaar. caller: thank you. i just want to state that maryland got a little bit burned by martin o'malley with his taxes on the people. what i see the democrats doing is trotting out a new candidate like elizabeth warren, someone they can rebrand who is young,

kind of they way they did with barack obama. you don't really know what his history is. on the republican side i see donald trump in the next several months just mowing down the competition and someone else coming in. would that be ideal? i don't know. as a woman voter maybe i would like to see someone like carly fiorina. she is a strong candidate, she would make an excellent replacement for hillary with respect to the issues. is another interesting candidate for the republican party. we will just have to see how it all plays out. we have a long way to go. host: following up on women voters, talk about donald trump and women voters. he called into "the view" this week is well to talk about women's issues. guest: he is trying to rebuff some of the attacks that have been directed his ways. he is actually doing quite well with republican women and

independent women, which makes me think that a lot of his momentum is as much due to name recognition and the fact that he is on television all the time. he is the person everyone is talking about. that matters. when you see women and men, moderates and conservatives in the polls, there is saying that they like trump more than all the republican candidates. it actually gives us a reason to because it's about his staying ultimately he is going to do well with people who are disaffected. when he is finishing in first place with every single demographic group including women, who he has a real issue a cautionary sign. i think was the campaign begins those numbers might not last. let's get to mike and wyoming, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: first i would just like to say you guys at c-span should be nominated to be the moderators of all debates, you

just show neutrality on both sides of the aisle. just a heads up for you guys. josh, i looking for a job for carly fiorina on wednesday night. most people don't even know who she is and i think women are really going to get their eyes opened up and say wow. they are going to like this gal because she seems like she is just so bright. u.s. very question, she has got an answer. she is not sitting there jumping around. her.all in for i guess that is my comment on her. host: and a great way to end this segment. predictions for the cnn debate this coming week, who needs to do well? who may stumble? guest: i think there are going to be a of negative attacks. the fox debate, largely the candidates did not want to

engage. bush is now going to have to go against ronald trump. the candidates need to break out. rubio, scott walker, they will be a lot more aggressive. theink fiorina has about -- best potential to really break out. to dos the opportunity even more in this debate if she continues to shine. i think she has the most upside of all the candidates. the campaign is really beginning in september, post-labor day. this is going to be a rougher debate and i think there will be some clear winners and losers. host: josh kraushaar, political editor at "national journal." we encourage you to follow him on twitter. we appreciate your time. of next we will be talking about the united states versus european ideas of privacy on the internet at a time when google has been regulated to censor

some european search results. that is up next. we'll be right back. >> middle school and high school students and your teachers, we are happy to announce the launch of c-span's 2016 student can video documentary opposition. with 2016 a.m. election year we are really excited about this theme, a road to the white house. what is the issue you most want candidates to discuss during the 2016 presidential campaign? our topic is open to all middle and high school students grade six through 12. we will be awarded $100,000 in cash prizes. students can work alone or join a group of up to three. your goal is to produce a five

to seven minute documentary on the issue you selected, and you will lead to include some c-span programming and also opinions other than your own. the $100,000 cash prize will be shared between 150 students and teachers. the grand prize, $5,000, goes to the student or team with the best overall entry. the deadline is generate 20, 2016, and our winners -- january 20th, 2016. join us. you will find lots more information on our website, studentcam.org. azi.e was a knotty --n he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. ,> this sunday night on q&a jennifer teege on the life

altering discovery that her grandfather was a nazi. >> he was a tremendously cruel heson, a person who was -- was capable -- he had dogs, he and rolph. ralph he was a person -- there was , hething that you felt killed people. this is something that when you are normal, if you don't have this aspect in your personality, it is very, very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at eight ago eastern and pacific on c-span today -- q and a. host: ashley messenger is the senior associate general counsel

at national public radio. she joins us to talk about privacy on the internet. google has been ordered to censor search results by european privacy regulators. we should start by explaining what the right to be forgotten is as this issue has come up, especially in europe. guest: i am not sure that the right to be forgotten is the right name. it is really a right to have data about you removed from any heabase, or any way that person gathers or stores information. in 1995 the european union issued a regulation that purported to govern data privacy , edits and forward various provisions about the collection and storage of information. to have was a right information about you removed upon request. 2012 the european union issued updated regulations that expanded on that right. and then in 2014 court of justice for the european union

issued a court ruling that expanded upon that and said that information could be removed from search results, from search engines, if it were inaccurate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or -- i am forgetting the fourth word. host: tell us an example of that in practice. what would be an example to use as they went through that process? guest: the case presented at the european court of justice was a man whose house had been repossessed, and there had been an issue published in the local newspaper providing information about the sale of the home. that is pretty normal, when your houses repossessed you have a sale and people can bid on the home. so it was in the newspaper, which is fine. but then when people searched his name on google, this result would come up. although it is perfectly acceptable to have information in the newspaper, he felt it was not acceptable to have it come up as a google searchable. he asked that the information be

delisted from google. that means when you search for his name, that when you search for foreclosures or other information, but when you search his name it will not come up. so why does google, a u.s. company based in california, why is it subject or trying to be subject by european regulators to some of these? guest: because they can do this. 97% of the market in europe for search results is google, obviously that is really important. where does this stand today? guest: in april of this year c dnil -- cnil ordered google to do list all the information about french requesters. google said they would do that. if you are in france your google domain would be .fr.

google said well know, we are not going to do that. we are going to make it available on.com. the french regulator said, no. you need to delisted everywhere. google said no, we're not going to do that. i now they have asked the european regulators to formally .ithdraw their notice they have until the end of this month to decide what to do. european regulators have until the end of this month. they can either sanctioned google or they can drop it. host: this is starting to get attention in u.s. newspapers. there is a column in "the wall street journal" specifically about the case. -- if the google make search engine allows france to edit its results globally we would find itself -- ourselves

in a race to the bottom where the internet would only be as free as the least free place. we are talking about this issue that is right to be forgot -- the right to be forgotten. we are asking you to call in, you can also tweet us. if you want to call us, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8003 ,-(202) 748-8002 how does the spare an opinion polls in europe? they are very much for it. there is a deep divide about the concept of privacy between united states and europe. it goes way back. i think the interpretation of privacy law has been different for as long as the united states has existed. it would be a mistake for americans to think that this is

simply a policy issue, because it is not. it is really about deeply held cultural beliefs about who we are as people and how we function in the world. the germans and the swiss, for example, have laws regulating disclosures of information about criminals once their sentence has been served. the reason these laws exist is the concept of self-determination. a believe you should not be defined by other people. control whatght to other people know about you, and how you present yourself to the world, and to reinvent yourself if you wish. in the united states we do not really approaches that way. the general rule in the united states is that this information can be freely disseminated, whereas in europe there is often restrictions. it is not just criminal activity. it is things like, soccer players having affairs, or models who go to rehab. that information is often protected by privacy laws

and cannot be published by the press, whereas in the united states that would generally be fair game as long as it meets the standards of newsworthiness. laws are notacy just hitting search engines, it is also being applied to news sites as well? guest: not yet. a for the moment, google is by far the largest target. a have drawn a decision between journalistic activity and the search engine. for the time being, news organizations themselves have not been targeted. it is sort of like -- i saw an analogy once for someone said it is like going to a library and being free to look at any book in the library, but we are going to burn the card catalog. host: what has been the obama administration's response to this case? has there been any response from the administration or leaders here on capitol hill? guest: i don't think there has been any kind of formal, organized response. i am sure people have opinions about it. i think where we see the most action is with the federal trade

commission. expressedsioner has some interest in privacy regulation. there is a group called consumer watchdog that has petitioned the fcc to use their enforcement action to create something like a right to be forgotten in the united states. there hasn't really been a big push. i think in the united states it would be far more difficult politically, and a large part because this clearly advocates first amendment rights. pretty much everything the europeans have ordered google to do would be unconstitutional if ordered by the u.s. government. i just don't see this becoming a huge part of the issue here, although i do think over time we are going to have to figure out how we are going to deal with data privacy. data privacy, freedom of speech, and the right to be forgotten. if you want to call it, we are talking with ashley messenger of npr. democrats can call in, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 we will start with charles in new york city. caller: hi. google not about came toreeable when it programmaticive me,tionship really puzzles because of this particular time i am having problems with google and it happened all of a sudden. hasnotion that google an international collective compromise really

hoping for and i was a reaffirmation of something that you said a few minutes ago about this notion that google has decided not to agree to fall in line with a question or a statement of that to france about this collective detente. if you could speak to that. host: sure. we will let ashley messenger jump in. guest: google has so far stated -- it is on their blog in the united states -- that they have asked the french regulators to withdraw their order. i think that it is important to

understand the philosophical differences between the europeans and the americans on this issue. europeans have a lot of experience with the collection of data being used abusively. if you think about what authoritarian regimes did in the 40's and 50's and 60's, they would create -- collect data and use it abusively. they are very concerned about that and i don't blame them. in the event safely of had a different experience. our experience has been that prevent theules dissemination of information, and so we are more concerned about the abuses of government restricting our ability to disseminate information. the interesting thing is both a collection of data and the dissemination of information can be used abusively. possible case it is that people in positions of power will use whenever the system is in an abusive manner in a way that will prevent people from being free. and so then you have to decide

how do we balance these interests so that people do maintain their freedom, that the government cannot collect data in an abusive manner, but also they do not prevent the dissemination of information in an abusive manner. there is just no clear answer. google really does seem to be on the front lines. they are the main target of the european regulators at this time. goingre the ones who are to have to make decisions from a business standpoint about what is best for them. host: and in the meantime, request coming in to google from individuals and europe to remove certain results about them. google has released some data on that just to give our viewers an urlsle, in france in total that individuals with relationships to france have requested that google remove, 216,041ave been requests, and about 52% of those

had been removed. you can read the numbers from , and it hassite individual results for germany, great britain, italy, and spain. let's go to mike in boulder creek, line for independents. caller: hello. thank you for having this show. hello? is -- host: go ahead. , can i i am a teacher say my last name. i would like to show the show to my kids. host: go ahead. ,aller: my name is mike brennan i am a teacher in san jose, california. in 2006 i was -- i googled my teacher.com.your

students were allowed to post anonymously. it was just ridiculous. it was junk. people can say whatever they wanted to say. so i did that at one time, and at that point i just wrote it off as the internet is just a place where people are throwing a whole bunch of gossip out and it does not matter whether or not it is true or false. i think that if people go to google and they tell google this stuff about me, google has an obligation to take that step down. as far as privacy goes, i think certainly whenever privacy is being compromised on the internet, again they have an obligation to take that step down. he -- if they if complied with these regulations

from the french, it would be at the bottom, google is already at the bottom. the internet is just this place for people to post any kind of vitriol they want. there is nobody out there and trying to make sure the sum up there is true. i think truth is really what the government and corporate executives should be looking for. host: can you talk about the case law that applies here in the united states? guest: i will do that, but i think it is important to knowledge something he said, which is that the internet is full of something that is not -- stuff that is not true. there is lots of nonsense on the internet. the question is, how do we handle that? he also spoke about obligations. i think it is important to distinguish legal obligations from ethical obligations. in the exits the legal obligations are fairly clear.

states thenited legal obligations are clear. unless the claim meet the standards for libel or invasion of privacy there is no obligation to remove it. even then i am not sure there is internettion, because service providers are not liable for those types of claims. it is up to the individual to go directly to the person who s from it and seek damagee them. although there are some courts that do seem to be willing to issue injunctions when it comes to internet content, i think there are legitimate questions about the constitutionality of that kind of behavior. with the rate your teacher's website. people will post whatever they want, it is an expression of opinion for the most part. thealways have to look at statement in context and determine what kind of statement it is. it is is something -- if

something that would be protected by the first amendment there is no obligation to remove it in the united states. whether that is true under european law may differ, and that is really the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction. exactly what law should apply to what is on the internet? it raises a sincere question, if the french ban gay propaganda, if saudi arabia bans any criticism of islam. you mentioned turkey has regulations. all countries have regulation. there is a lot of information that a country could deem a violation of their law and ask google to d list. that could in theory create a situation where the internet that is available is the lowest common denominator. only the information that is available everywhere. that seems like an unappealing option. folks watching this segment and then tweeting their thoughts. don writes in, it has nothing to do with the internet

specifically. a person should be able to own it their image, their history, their identity. right toks, does the be forgotten extend to public figures or just private citizens? guest: in theory it applies to everyone. it doesn't necessarily matter if you are a public figure or a private citizen. that said, whether you are public or private will go into the analysis of the information. the european union does acknowledge that press freedom is important. if you are a politician that has done something truly newsworthy that would weigh against delisting. personare an ordinary and it is information that is not really relevant to a matter of public concern, they would probably require delisting. host: here are mary's thoughts on the public. if you post naked pictures in college while drunk you should be able to take those down. arrest records, maybe not. we are taking your thoughts this morning.

jim are called us from florida, good morning. caller: hi. , in 2003 thes anton globe did investigative journalism on the priests that were molesting kids, and i was wondering what that -- would the right to be forgotten also block people from finding out about people's past deeds? because these priests had been and what is the right to be forgotten free people who have done heinous crimes? host: thank you for the question. certaintyan say with that in the united states information that comes from public records, like court records, would not be able to be censored.

it is pretty straightforward. in europe, that is not necessarily the sole determinant factor. the europeans have not been completely clear about what would happen with a case of criminal convictions. part of that is the complexity about how the european union works right the regulation that came from the eu is a directive that basically tells all the member states to come up with their own regulation consistent with what they have published, but they can vary. countries like germany that have more restrictive laws about the publication of information about people who committed crimes in the past might say that the right to be forgotten does apply to criminals. whereas other countries that don't necessarily view the rights of criminals to be forgotten would not have the same kind of regulation. , don't want to speculate because there are many different countries. there are some suggestions that

criminals are not necessarily automatically entitled to have their crimes forgotten, it will probably depend on the interpretation of each member states laws. host: we are talking with ashley messenger, general counsel for npr. the right to be forgotten is our subject. don is in washington dc, like for democrats. go ahead. caller: i just want to say good morning to everyone. is that youn this have a lot of innovators putting out ideas on the internet. they have many concepts out there. i am an innovator and inventor. that is the only way i can be recognized, by putting my ideas out there. my ideas have been picked up by many companies, but i will not get all the way into detail on that. my understanding is when these companies pick up your idea they run with your idea and then they don't give that to you. they make money off of the idea

that they still don't compensate you. what does a person do to deal with this right not to be forgotten? to come tole understanding on that. people are sucking them up and they are not getting back with the middleman at all. tos is another scapegoat erase the little man out of the system. i think we need to think hard on your innovators are creating the future. we need to come to a conclusion on how we can keep the internet a live for innovators to put their ideas out there. host: we will let ashley messenger jump in. kind of the opposite concept here. the right not to be forgotten. guest: the concept the caller

was talking about specific we are questions of half its law. all i can say is he may want to consult an attorney to see what rights he has, if any. that said, the idea of being credited with their own deeds and being able to be found on the internet is important. there are people who have pointed out that if you exercise the right to be forgotten in the context of an incident, let's say there is a crime that occurred and you d list -- delist the information with respect to the commander of the crime, but maybe the victims want the crime to be recovered. a want the information to be recovered. there is a concept there. i can't say i am pretty sure the response of the european union would be it does not remove the information from the internet entirely. it removes it from searches aced on the name of the person who requested delisting. the information is still out there but you cannot find it through a person search.

i think that the argument on the other side, which i think is the stronger argument, sometimes you need to be able to find the person who did the misdeed. the person who is trying to hide the information. valid interest there, even on behalf of other people who were involved. there is a public interest in being able to have access to that information. host: so the big question then, who gets to decide what is a valid interest and who is not? guest: that is a big question. host: tranquility has a question from our twitter feed. legally is the internet can separate -- considered a private asset, a server, or the town square? that would be a very complicated question to answer. of thely speaking most services you use on the internet are a private company. they can pretty much do what they want. to firstnot subject

amendment rights in the sense that their actions are not government actions. that said, the government could certainly impose restrictions on their ability to collect and disseminate information. the question will be how we work that out. that is exactly what the european union is trying to do, to have a government regulation that imposes restrictions on a private company. it would be unconstitutional here. host: and in his column in "the wall street journal," he says if the europeans percent -- prefer censored search results, they are entitled to their censored internet. but the obama administration should step up and fight against european demand that google also censor accurate search results and should always be available to americans. and conrad on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: i just want to ask a question. decide that get to

if i move from say, philadelphia , if i was or germany a child molester and i moved to germany, you could not find it. or if you are in the united states and you could find it. there needs to be a common ground with the countries working together so that people who are doing things they don't have any business doing cannot cross the border and you will never know they are continuing to do what they are doing. you can never find them. the only way you can find them as if they came to the united states. where ifave a protocol i am working with germany, i am working with canada -- host: another case study for you. guest: i think it is important to the -- distinct a couple of things here. are the countries working together? i think the answer is definitively know. -- the european -- i think the answer is definitively no.

we will have to see what happens. it may be that there is a sort of geo-filtering, that the results that you get will depend on the country you are in. that is a possibility. another possibility is that google will be forced to make a choice between doing business in the european union or censoring results for americans. i don't know what will happen. course depend over the of the next few weeks, what the french regulators do. but the second issue is whether government entities work together to trade information about criminal behavior. you did mention, if a criminal moves from wonder addiction to another do they share information? that is a question about what we would consider fourth amendment issues. can government entities share information amongst each other in a criminal context, and if so, how do they do that? that is deathly outside my area of expertise. area ofitely outside my expertise. it has very little to do with

whether you as an individual would be able to find it. steve picks up on some of the concerns surrounding this topic. people who get arrested get mug shots their name in the paper. if they are wrongly accused, how did they get the reputation back? guest: there are a couple ways of going about this. a lot of the suggestions that have been made involving the right to be forgotten are ways to resolve the issue without imposing censorship on search engines or anyone else for that matter. what is the primary suggestions is that there should always be more speech. in the united states there is an any first amendment problem. if you don't like the speech, more speech is the answer. a lot of people have suggested that there should be a way to add more information. if there is a google search result and you think it is unfair and incomplete, there should be a way for you to comment and respond. google attempted to introduce allowedlus, which people to give profiles that would come up high in search results.

that in theory gives you the ability to respond to things in other search results that you disagree with. that has not been a particularly successful initiative. to createogle chooses some kind of system that allows people to notate search results that come up, i don't know if they're willing to do that but that is what idea has been proposed. host: and on twitter one viewer proposes that anytime an untruth is posted a space for rebuttal must be available. let's go to craig and michigan, line for independents. good morning. obviously the laws are playing catch-up with the technology. the teacher called from california, and in regards to all of the vile garbage that is put out on people, i actually would like to see something similar. if i am arrested, i go in a court of law. i have the right to face my accuser.

somehow a law should be put into place where that is not allowed. if you put something out there, you should own it. that is a way i think a lot of this could be straightened out. that is all i wanted to say. guest: that raises a very howresting point, which is do we interpret information we find on the internet? i have written a couple of articles on the topic of freedom of speech. what does it mean when someone says something? the take away is once people speak -- when people speak, when they purport to represent fact or give their opinion, what they are really saying is something about myself. if i speak to reflect my mindset, my beliefs. it does not necessarily require objective truth. one of the things we have to struggle with culturally is to figure out what it means when you see something on the internet. this actually goes to the earlier caller's question about weddings you are charged and it is a mistake? has because you see someone

been arrested, there should be something that clicks in your head that says that does not mean they have done anything. we have a presumption of innocence. unless you see a report about the conviction, then there is a good chance the arrest was invalid. we should not assume people did what they are accused of. what people say may or may not be true. it reflects the mode -- the motive and the mindset of the speaker. of epistemic humility, a cultural approach to this information where we understand that this is probably incomplete and i may need more information before i decide how i'm going to use this particular piece of data. host: in the log review piece that we are talking about, if viewers want to read it, it is what would a right to be forgotten mean for media in the united states jacket we have time for one or two more calls with ashley messenger. she is also an addict professor

at -- an adjunct professor here in washington dc. let's go to a caller in georgia, line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm actually from ohio. host: sorry about that. caller: that's ok. i just tuned in a few minutes ago, so i am not sure if i am on the same page. i think i will ask my question anyway and see what you have to say. and i qualified for a free phone, which i did get because i have a lot of medical bills and i really needed everything i could find. i have noticed on the phone, which i believe the service is provided by virgin mobile, there is a lot of activity. a lot of symbols, lights shine and then go out. onave also heard and at go

the phone. i have heard my own voice echo. i am wondering if this is a way to invade privacy of an , i giving in america of these free phones. i just wondered what your take on this is -- host: just to be clear, are you worried someone is listening in to your calls or tracking your calls? caller: that is what i wondered. this technology that has exploded, i am even wondering if they are able to use the cameras through the phone it is unbelievable what is going on today. host: got it. we will let ashley messenger jump in. a whole other set of privacy concerns that people are very concerned about. guest: actually information security is a legitimate concern, and there is spyware that can be installed on electronic devices like phones and tablets. whether the free phones are a

plot to do that, i have no idea. i have no opinion. i really have not thought about it. it is theoretically possible that devices can be hacked or spyware can be installed that would allow people to capture information about you. that is a legitimate concern that is not exactly what the right to be forgotten goes to. but the capturing of information illegally is actually an important issue and is covered by various federal laws including the computer abuse act and other state and federal regulations. host: we want to thank ashley messenger, npr senior counsel for your time on a cultivated topic. guest: thank you. host: that is our show today. -- they-- you turn in -- to -- make sure you tune in tomorrow we will be discussing a debate about the imitation and enforcement of same-sex marriage was around this country. thethen diane oakley of national institute of retirement

security will be here to discuss remote retirement planning. finally brad snyder will be here to discuss the recent decision by the judge to reverse the four-game suspension of patriot, brady as well as sports laws that are impacting the nfl. that is all to my warning. in the meantime, have a great saturday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up next on c-span, presidential candidate lindsey graham on the iran nuclear agreement and the response in congress.

--n, chair washington salt washington democrat scholz talks about. later, a hearing on planned parenthood. with 2016 being a presidential election year, we are really excited about this year's road to the white house. what is the issue you want candidates to discuss most during the campaign? our competition is open to all middle and high school students grades six through 12. c-span is awarding $100,000 in cash prizes. students can work alone or join a group of up to three. your goal will be to produce a five to seven minute documentary on the issue selected.