take your calls. you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. journal" is next. ♪ host: president obama heads to iowa for a back to school bus tour. he will focus on college financing, among other issues. primetime tonight, two white house hopefuls on c-span. bernie sanders gives a speech this morning. will followa senator sanders. she made a stop in new hampshire. continuing on c-span. we thought we would talk about

the tone of the 2016 campaign. what is your view in the way the candidates are engaging with each other. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if not by phone, you can weigh in on social media. .cspanwj twitter.com/cspanwj. journal@c-span.org. ben carson sidestepping a clash with donald trump. a story out of south carolina. ben carson is quoted this way -- soundedomething that like i was questioning his face. i was not. i was talking about mine. it was said in an inappropriate

way. never my intention to impugn other people. his display comes after jeb bush, scott walker, and lindsey graham found themselves diminished after tussling with mr. trump. also, a front-page story on donald trump. we can take a look. the headline says donald trump's one-man roadshow. hostility.id rival he says everybody who attackes e is doomed. here is one attack.

donald trump is not a serious candidate. he is a narcissist. he believes in his himself. i want to say what everyone is thinking, but is afraid to say. everybody knows this is true. the idea is great. the reality is absurd. he is nonserious. he is a carnival act. host: donald trump responded to bobby jindal in a tweet after those remarks. as you may recall, most of the recent dialogue in the news about it and the conflict came from this "rolling stone" piece.

at one point in the conversation, they were watching a newscast. the anchor throws to carly fiorina for her reaction. look at that face -- he cries -- would anyone vote for that? can you imagine that, the face of our next president? she is a woman. really, come on. are we serious? bobby jindal responded to that. [video clip] >> it is outrageous for him to appearance when it looks like he has a squirrel on his head. we look forward to your comments on the tone of the campaign. phone calls, tweets, facebook postings, we will get to them in the next 45 minutes.

we have more clips to show you. against this comes backdrop. the washington post has put out a new poll. are rising in voter esteem. this is according to a new washington post-abc news poll. hillary clinton has lost ground over the past two months, as she has struggled to manage the controversy over her use of a primary -- of a private e-mail survey while secretary of state.

it is the biggest decline coming against -- coming amongst white women. the survey underscored the degree of dissatisfaction. we have muriel on the line. hello. doing well. here is what i think. and of the -- the tone of the campaign has been terrible. about how they are going to carry out their

policies. i would like to focus on mr. trump. single-handedly, he has all but destroyed the republican party. i have been a democrat and a liberal all my life. i will be voting for hillary. i cannot stand it when he takes the name of bush or any other candidate on the republican side and goes on with his rhetoric about how terrible they are. do not want that kind of tone or substance in a presidential candidate. i am sorry. care if you are democrat, republican, or up on the moon somewhere.

i want someone able to carry on a conversation with a citizen from the united states or a foreign diplomat in s civil matter -- a civil manner. this is the way he comes across to me. he thinks he is jesus christ reincarnated. he thinks he is the only one who is going to do anything. how he comes across as terrible. host: thank you for calling in. are you at -- are you offended by the tone or the truth being told?

democrats, call this number if you want to talk about the tone. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. outside the u.s., (202) 748-8003 . is carly fiorina. [video clip] >> comments speak for themselves. the voters are helping me climb in the polls, they are serious. >> what do you take that to mean? >> i have no idea. honestly, not going to spend a single cycle wondering what donald trump means.

more of your comments. david, thank you for waiting. caller: i have one comment. bobby jindal should not throw stones. he is not eligible to run for president. host: why's that? caller: his parents were over here on a green card when he was born. citizen, butbby a he is not natural born. to be natural born according to the constitution, to be elected president or vice president. host: what do you make of the tone overall? it is getting messy, like grade school, where they are pulling pranks and calling each other names. i do not like it from any of them. what is the way to move to

a different place, a place you would want them to be? caller: that will not happen until the debates start. maybe everything will be settled down. we will see what happens this week. michael, fayette, alabama. hello. thank you for allowing me to pose this question. i wonder if anybody else around the country has thought about this -- and i usually do not talk about, call c-span, or right the newspapers about , because horse races of how silly and mindless they are. have beenur callers correct about that. to consider what if we have another economic fiscal recession during the term

of the next president? they all come in cycles of eight years to 15 years, however long. i am, i, though probably could not vote for hillary. i do not want a democrat in office. i remember how terribly the .ublic treated john mccain the liberal, mother jones, had say untilthings to recently. elizabeth worn and ralph nader would run in 2020. mythat causes me to lose christian salvation and burn in hades, so be it.

haveder if your callers thought about economic trends to sittingey do presidents, governors, and congressman. thank you for allowing us. let's hear from paul, kentucky. i think the established politicians, jeb bush, mike huckabee, they are expected to be rude or bombastic. fiorina,ump and mrs. they are not considered established candidates. mr. trump has been the most rude, disrespectful person

seeking office that has ever ran for office. seen't know how anyone can hope with him coming to office with his temperament. can you imagine him talking that way to the leader of north korea? do you think he could blow up everybody? america has not the money nor the military might to exert her threat all over the world. he seems to throw out rhetoric and brag about his financial wealth. good for the masses of the people. the tone of the presidency, the campaign, is more rhetoric and fearsppealing to people and hatred, rather than coming youith plans and programs want to get america out of the

she is in. no one is speaking on racism, afraidy, dr. carson is to meet with people who can make a difference in the black community, but he browsed down to the jewish community. that is not how you are going to get america moving. the rock ran on a campaign of change. -- barack ran on a campaign of change. host: who are these people saying trump is a clown? he created more wealth than a day than most of these critics have in a lifetime. here is a little on jimmy fallon's show. [video clip] i think she is a nice woman. i do not know her. she is a very nice woman. i think she is going to have a

hard time. she is a very fine woman. stageould be on the main at the debate, and she is going to be. to point your attention to this piece written in forbes by a contributor. the dirtiest presidential campaign ever? not even close. and thomas jefferson, each a pivotal player in the creation of our nation, squared off in a race to the white house that created negative campaigning that would cause ers to blush.ignrt

for jefferson to become , we would see our wives and daughters become big ofs -- to become victims prostitution. aduer, robbery, rape and ltery will openly be taught and practiced. think everybody is taking on donald trump. he would not push back so hard if people would not pick on him. get the respect of north korea, russia, and everybody else. they know he plays hardball. he is not going to be pushed around like the other wimps. tony, fort worth, texas. i think hillary should

withdraw her name from the contingent for president. she is unelectable. she has too many problems too many scandals. to be aanted there republican in the white house, she should stay in the race. if she wants a democratic president, she should get out and let ace areas candidate get in it. a serious candidate get in it. host: what do you think about the tone? caller: they think hillary can win. i do not think she can win. too many scandals. they should get somebody new. has beenistration

dividing the country so bad, that anybody associating with the administration is going to be perceived as president obama. they need a fresh candidate that has nothing to do with the obama administration. host: thank you for calling. the election of 1800, attacks on thomas jefferson. jefferson had his own narratives, one attack came by a journalist, whose pamphlets were funded by jefferson and who had an ax to grind for having been prosecuted and in minutes -- prosecuted and imprisoned by the adams administration for violating the sedition act. rageful,that adams was lying, who behaved neither like

a man, nor a woman, but like a aldeous hermaphroditic ora character. caller: the tone of this campaign is what i thought it was going to be. not good. does that mean to the campaign? the dialogue on issues, how to make the proper choice at the ballot box? i have to second with the previous caller said. if there was nothing to hide on now they are saying she did not wipe it clean. we find this out three months before the primary? why didn't she turned it over six months ago?

she is self-destructing. you need two out of three states. pa, ohio, and florida. biden is from scranton, so he has pa. hillary's goose is cooked. james, columbia, mississippi. caller: good morning. i told the screener that was pushing,from he had his -- whenever mr. trump was pushing, he had his , everything he was saying and doing was ok. now that he is running whatlican and saying

republican policy is, that they cannot say out loud, they do not want it to be said. that was james, columbia, mississippi. a look at the campaign trail. we will have an event with bernie sanders, 10:30 eastern time. on thishave that live network. we will take phone calls after the event. he will replay at 8:00 tonight. one reporter following senator sanders is nicole. good morning. guest: good morning. host: thank you for joining us. the headline to your piece says campaign tors takes christian school. why liberty and why now? the school invites every

candidate who is running for reticular office. bernie accepted the invitation. he is the first from the democratic side to accept the invitation. he has told me he does not -- on his stance on gay marriage or abortion rights, but people might agree to doim on the need something about childhood poverty, or his actions against nutrition programs, social security, his fight against income inequality. he sees that as not only economic issues, but moral issues. he said he wants to begin a dialogue on what morality means, particularly at a bible school, and see if he can find common ground. host: how may students are you

expecting today? guest: i am not sure. the students are required to attend. not sure. several thousand, at least. travelinghave been with the senator. what has the most recent part of his trip and like? how are the crowds? what is he message, gaining from this? he did three stops. i was with him for a couple of stops in south carolina on saturday. that will be a key state. the first southern primary state. the first state he is going to face a largely african-american electorate.

that was saturday. he was in greensboro, north carolina, yesterday. with ated off saturday historically black university, benedict college. a smaller crowd there. he took questions. the other event i attended was in rock hill, south carolina. about 3000. people were really enthusiastic there. about income inequality, the need to do something about racial justice issues, criminal justice, and continuing his economic populist message, taking on the billionaire class. people were responding to it. florence, south carolina,

held that town hall leading -- meeting. sanders and his outreach to the african-american community. guest: what they say is they are just getting started. they are just starting to branch out. they realize they have a lot of work to do. this is the state hillary clinton came in second in the primary in 2008. she and bill clinton has strong support in the african-american community. bernie sanders is largely unknown. a are taking their message across the state. they are starting with the grassroots campaign.

they are knocking on doors, signing up volunteers, trying to harness this enthusiasm and move it forward. i think the meeting with black and elected officials, that was something they planned to keep doing. they plan to keep having someone with influential people in the community that can help spread their message. nicole reporting. you can read her piece today. thank you for the preview of the event at liberty. appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. 10:30 eastern time is the time for the bernie sanders event, live. take more calls. bernie sanders will replay at 8:00 tonight. -- there wasvent

an event for carly fiorina earlier. we will pair it with that. showsws poll released sanders leads clinton by 10 percentage points in iowa. 22 in new hampshire. 23% of south carolina supporting sanders compared with 46% of clinton. 22% for joe biden. a little bit more from bernie sanders. he was featured in "the washington post." bernvirginians feel the or give the cold shoulder? snickersrance brought

from republicans. it is like pat robertson going to a nudist colony, and not going to get the results they hope for. back to your calls on the tone of the campaign so far. tucson, arizona, independent. say i: i called in to believe the tone so far, the will reverberate through society, magnify itself through society, and will allow everybody to express their worst sides. it is going to be a big issue. we will see the united states become more upset, to the point people are actually acting out.

larry, okeechobee, republican, florida. caller: i just wanted to say i think america is where it should be and the tone reflects most people do not really get involved so early and we do not have as many candidates with so many white views as we have this year. -- wide views as we have this year. as far as donald trump is concerned, he could run as a democrat and could have as much controversy. i think america is exactly where it needs to be at this time as far as the tone of the campaign. thank you very much. host: thank you for calling.

johnny rights, the tone of politics is as usual. political talking points about things that want to improve the quality of life of the citizens. and a lot of folks telling folks what they want to hear. have a lot of folks afraid to offend anyone so they offer the same empty campaign speeches we have election after election. we have one man who is telling it like he sees it, donald j trump. to fix the problems we have, the first step is to admit there is a problem. thehe establishments about democrats and republicans are afraid to admit we have a problem. is his calling in -- anne calling in. caller: i'm an african-american. i would like them to police -- pleaset the world think about the ruptured. world. i don't think these democrats or

republicans are thinking about america. what is this question that we do not trust her? what has she done? what her husband did -- she did not do it. i do not understand the question. i certainly do not hear the answer. so no, hillary is the best person for america. host: thank you for calling. i point your attention to a recent "washington post" piece of the campaign on the democrat side. clinton and sanders will not speak ill of each other. it's a story of new hampshire where hillary clinton hit a variety of subjects at a sunsplashed campaign rally. but not once in her 30 minutes of speaking did she utter these words -- bernie sanders. campaigning 1200 miles away in sanderspids, iowa,

was interrupted for applause 77 times, but not a single line in the senders nearly hour-long stump speech referred to clinton or any other democratic primary opponent. race is being dictated by how the 17 candidates, led by donald trump, attack one another from policy disagreements to nasty personal barbs. the democratic race stands in stark contrast. theite tightening polls, two leading candidates refuse to draw sharp contrast, let alone criticize each other, leaving voters to discern the differences in their agendas and priors -- priorities largely on them. in. is calling caller: i'd like to frame the tone of the campaign on the republican side as the political dark ages. they are about using fear and hate to divide and conquer. they are using the benghazi committee like an inquisition. i mean, hillary clinton is the

most qualified. she is probably the main reason we have got cooperation in what has happened d asran through her perio secretary of state. she has always fought for women. she has always fought for children. she initiated health care. my god, that woman has done all of that her entire political career. the republicans beer her greatly and will do anything to ensure that she is not who they have to face in a debate. she would just tear donald trump, who knows nothing of any of this stuff or has any real ideas on how to fix things. i cannot believe the democrats are even saying things like she should get out of the race. runary clinton is going to and she is going to win and that is what i really believe. host: thanks.

writes on twitter, the 2016 campaign tone is like twitter -- lots of inflammatory statements that are short on substance moorehea. ted cruz sees -- moment to win the public in women support. as carey drops out, trump and carson continued ascendancy. carson new york times," working of the donation latter -- gifts reflect broadening momentum. james is calling in for the democrats. good morning. caller: my point is that it should be hillary clinton that is out. won.ot obama having he was in experience.

-- inexperienced. his nobel prize was wrote a dope e-a-dope with hope. and issued does not win out, she should drop. host: lots more news that we can get to. times" writes of the syrian crisis is a no win for obama. the president's opening bid of accepting 10,000 refugees next year is far too timid in the face of humanitarian catastrophe plane out in the middle east. and even his own party colleagues in congress are preparing to raise some nfold, calling for the u.s. to take in 100,000 syrians. republicans in congress,

meanwhile, warned that the u.s. isn't nearly prepared to bet the refugees as a radicalized muslims are certain to use the program to try to gain a foothold in the u.s. later on the program, we will talk to a guest on refugees, from, how are coming they are being dealt with, the entire process. as we take a look at that, here is another one of the dramatic today, and a refugee they are swimming to the greek island on sunday after the dinghy that they were in deflated. lots of that in the papers today. nancy in north carolina, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a democrat. supporting a candidate who is an excellent one, but has -- his name is martin o'malley.

he is an excellent candidate. he is governor of maryland, but for some reason, he ha is never mentioned on the news. host: he is the former mayor of baltimore and former governor of maryland. what do you like about him? caller: i like him because he is a very dynamic man. beis young enough to president. but he has had experience as a governor. but ivery progressive, cannot understand why hillary just neversanders get on the news. host: nancy, what do you make of the back-and-forth on either side? is it helpful? , as a democrat, it

is not helpful to me. there are only really two candidates that people are talking about on the news and on television. campaign -- of the well, there's some good comments by people. as a very strong democrat, i want a democratic candidate and i think martin o'malley would be an excellent one. obama and i hope he brings in some more refugees to the united states -- the migrants who are having a andible time getting food

help. host: we understand. rick writes on twitter, the ugliness of the campaign reflects who we are as a people, or should i say, the scared, shrinking demo that gets media attention. there is an ad that is out on television right now and i want to show it to you and begin with this piece also in "the washington post." the new tv ad targets gop presidential hopefuls' immigration comments. ed o'keefe wrote this and it is an immigration group backed by business. a plan to start airing this hard-hitting tv ad. words of threehe republican presence of candidates against those of a revered gop figure -- former president ronald reagan. this is from the national immigration forum action fund.

[video clip] >> i spoke of a shining city all of my life with people living in harmony and peace. >> they are bringing crime. they are rapists. if i am elected, they would be out day one. >> i think we should end birthright citizenship. >> i will build a great, great wall. in my mind, it was a tall, proud city built on rocks, stronger than oceans. if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. it and see i saw it's still -- it still. ♪ host: that is from the national immigration forum action fund.

a couple more of your calls on the tone of the campaign so far. derek in maryland, democrat, good morning. -- if ii tell you what have to hear anything else about ronald reagan, i don't know what to say. first of all, trump, keep it up. keep it up, trump. number 2 -- ronald reagan -- the two most report an -- important response ability of any president is to take care of the amazing people. ron reagan did that well because the economy produces jobs. reagan took a $600 billion deficit and turned it to almost a $7 trillion deficit. there were no jobs for any of those. in my opinion, he will go down in history as the second worst president to george w. bush, who failed on the economy.

i hope that when bernie sanders goes down -- i do not know why he is wasting his time going down there. why is he going down there? qury falwell was a ack. i do not know why he is wasting his time, but i like him, too. host: bernie sanders at 10:30 a.m. this morning at liberty university. the donald trump feud reaching a new level. one of the many stories of the campaign by christopher snyder of fox news. trumpally in iowa, blessed paul as being in an effective guy and national security issues. he claims paul is attacking him because his poll numbers remain quite low in these media attention. the latest feud began thursday when paul referring to trump said, i do not think there is anything conservative about him

and i think he is selling us a bill of goods. and so i think we need to be very careful that we do not theumb to celebrity and all sudden get a fake conservative that turns out to be a big government republican. later saturday, trump again blasted paul on social media. "lightweight senator rand paul should focus on trying to get elected in kentucky, a great state which is embarrassed by him." more of the latest dialogue there. kelsey from baltimore, you are the last call. what do you think? caller: i think everyone is talking about donald trump and ben carson and i think the reason being is that they are not the typical politician. they are not afraid to say what they mean and obviously, they're going to have people instructing them how to navigate washington, but they are not washington natives. that is what resounds with people across the country who are struggling. where washington is not really in touch with anybody, people feel like they are politicians

like someone said earlier and they are just gave him -- giving campaign speeches over and over. as a republican, i am not necessarily a huge fan of, but it is refreshing to hear honesty and some kind of idea that you actually know what they believe and stand for rather than just cowering to an kind of pacifying people by saying what they want to hear. host: kelsey, thanks. i should point out that congress is in for just a couple of days this week did to the jewish holiday. back, the senate tomorrow will take a redo of their vote on the iran nuclear deal. it is a redo every procedural vote. -- of a procedural vote. the republicans will continue their fight against the agreement. they vowed to continue to block path foric republic

sanctions relief. and "it a cash went all will instead endanger america and our allies for years to come," said michael mccaul, a texas republican. the house, to continue to fight. the senate on schedule as they vote on tuesday later in the week. some abortion related bills and the big bill that we have been hearing about planned parenthood funding. the house eliminates that funding and look for the senate to come back in tomorrow in the house and senate wednesday and beyond. that will do it for our first segment. coming up in a couple of minutes, congress does just have until the end of the month to keep the government from shutting down. the bipartisan policy center william hoagland will join us next on what will happen now and a possible shutdown. and later, both the u.s. and nato have expressed concerns about military support that

russia is giving to syria. later, we will be joined by ojanksy on what is happening and if we should be concerned. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," gary epstein, task force, fcc will discuss the broadcast spectrum auction that will allow wireless companies to bid on airway space. >> a congressional determination that was made in the spectrum act -- and one thing that i do want to emphasize is that we are

not taking spectrum from broadcasters. it is a voluntary auction on behalf of the broadcasters. continue to be an extremely valuable service. when congress has this act that broadcasters on a one time only basis will be able to relinquish spectrum rights for a share of the proceeds of the auction. congress' is that determination and the fcc's determination to make market forces available to meet broadband needs. in other words, the need for broadband spectrum is burgeoning by multiples and exponentially. there is not a lot of good and low band spectrum left. this is a new and novel method that congress has put in place and the fcc is to implement. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2.

announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we're going to talk now -- budget it matters matters. william hoagland is from the bipartisan policy center. that date of september 30 is out there. a potential government shutdown is something we are reading about. federal government funding is expiring as we sit here. explain where we are in the annual spending process. guest: we have 12 of preparation bills that fund the government on october 1. of those 12 appropriation bills that keep the government up and running, only six have passed the house of representatives and then have passed the united states senate. at this particular point, we are a long way off in the next five days at congress is in session to pass all those bills. it is clear that we will end up

having to do something that we tol a continuing resolution avoid a shutdown. that requires passing an omnibus bill that will keep funding at the current year's level going forward or we will have a shutdown. host: with a couple weeks left in the fiscal year, what are the main sticking points? how come only half of the bills have been acted on? guest: the usual problems that we have in terms of deciding what level of funding the federal government should be operating at. forth aident had put budget back in the spring that increased funding for appropriations above what we call the caps that were established back in the 2011 agreement. congress wants to stay at those caps. the differences are around $40 billion in differences. the first issue is that we have a difference of opinion between the administration and the congress and what level of increased funding should happen

in 2016. the second issue here is while congress,ship in speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell, clearly do not want to have a government shutdown operational,rnment the difficulty has come up with the issues such as planned parenthood, which i know you will be talking about later. that is funding for planned parenthood. the confederate flag issue came up earlier this year. we have other issues and programs like the iran nuclear deal. all those provide opportunities for members of congress to offer amendments to this continuing resolution and that is what creates the problem here is actually even passing a simple, clean, continuing resolution to keep government-funded. host: we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest william hoagland. the budget deadlines, the sequester, all these fiscal matters we are talking about.

the debt ceiling as well. guest: that is another issue that comes up at the end of october and early november. according to the administration, the bipartisan policy center the least we can get it to the middle of november or december and that is another issue we have to deal with. host: here are the phone numbers. .emocrats (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. also send a tweet and i want to ask you how a cr works. does it increase or decrease? how does it work? guest: continuing resolutions mean what the term implies. it would occur at the current

level. you simply continue straight lining those fun things into 2016. a continuing resolution can be for two weeks or three weeks and it can also be for a full year. it just depends on the decisions that they make here in terms of that length of time. tore could be adjustments the continuing resolution, but historically, a continuing resolution follows exactly what the term means -- funding programs where they currently are. host: who would like and dislike continuing resolutions? [laughter] guest: very good question. first of all, if you were to fund a program at its continuing resolution, as an example, let us take the planned parenthood that means the funding for planned parenthood, which is somewhat around $70 million in appropriations -- and there is a difference here and i did not want to get into the details here -- but appropriations

funded for fiscal year 2015, planned parenthood is at $70 million. the continuing resolution would continue that funding at an annualized rate of $70 million. those that are opposed to any continuation of planned parenthood would be opposed to a continuing resolution that included that kind of funding. that would be one example of why you would be opposed to it. those who would be support a continuing resolution, besides the obvious factor of not winning a government shutdown. the other option for those people who want to compare the level of continuing funding compared to those caps that i mentioned, though sequester caps, it turns out that you might have the same level of funding and most likely a better level of funding if you did a continuing resolution as opposed to funding at the cap levels that congress had adopted. host: prior to joining the

bipartisan policy center, you spent more than three decades on the hill on the senate staff. remind us of where you serve. i began my career with the congressional budget office when it was established in 1974 under the first director. beginning in 1981, i began my career with the senate budget a committee until the end where i spent the last four years in the majority leader's office. i was the staff director and his of preparation director. calls,efore we get to let us stay with planned parenthood a little bit more and its relationship with what we are talking about -- the budget negotiations. program, newsmaker congressman jordan gave his perspective on the topic as it relates to the budget. take a look. [video clip] now know and we what we have seen on video, we have on video with 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 tax dollars, and the families i get the privilege of representing in the fourth district of ohio. if we just make that argument that clear, we are going to take the money that was going to this organization, which was engaged in what we now know what they were doing -- criminal activity -- we are to take that money and put it over here, same level of funding. if the president and harry reid then, we cannot pass that, we insist on this organization considering to get your tax dollars, and they think that is more important than funding our troops, our veterans, and funding women's health issues, they will have to defend that position with the amazing people. that is a common sense logical position and meaning to make that case and a compelling and

repetitive way over and over again so american people can clearly understand what is at stake here. host: william hoagland, planned parenthood -- the house will put themselves on the record as to whether it should be funded or not. should this be enough to shut the government down? guest: i hesitate to speculate on that. clearly, it is a very difficult issue for those who are taken the position that there should not be funding for planned parenthood. and depending upon particularly in the united states senate, where it will require 60 votes to pass a continuing resolution to get over the filibuster, and with presidential candidates running, and for them on the republican side in the senate, this makes it very problematic. this could be a very critical piece in the decision. theuld only point out that

appropriations bills -- and not to get too far in the woods again -- this is what we call a discretionary point of the budget. planned parenthood in the appropriation bills is about $70 million as i recall. but there is another close to 300 plus million dollars that goes to effectively planned parenthood through the medicaid program. you could eliminate the $70 million if you would like and you had the votes for it. but the end product is that it will not eliminate all funding to planned parenthood since most of it comes through the nonappropriated accounts called medicaid. lots more to goe t through with that planned parenthood vote. william hoagland is here with us. bob, democratic colleague. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak on

c-span. watching andy listening to your program every morning. call his that i hope congress does pass the budget. think every director on every agency should have to sign a , juststatement so that like the ceos and cfos of corporations nowadays, so that every cent is used properly. and that is about it. and i lovegovernment our country. thank you. host: mr. hoagland. guest: thank you, bob. first of all, i think every administrator of every agency -- i respect the time and efforts that they put in these programs. i do not think they would have any difficulty signing it because that is the law.

you are not to spend money that has been appropriate to the agency for activities that are not designated by congress and fraud is not something that we appropriate money for. i do not think it would be an issue here. i want to make it clear that it ouldot something that w significantly modify the level funding for these programs. host: gina's calling and from corpus christi. caller: good morning, gentlemen. 36statement is based on my years of practice as a registered nurse. it is in regards to planned parenthood. when planned parenthood was formed, we nurses fail in tears -- volunteered at various free clinics to educate women. and interestingly enough, many men regarding birth control and -- rights of an individual

whether they be sexually active or not sexually active -- there is a lot of pressure on both sides, both male and female, to be sexually active in our society. that thet say education that we do in planned parenthood has very little to do with abortion. i am a catholic. i take care of patients who are postabortion, but i will not be part of doing an abortion. we reduce thef funding for planned parenthood, then we are going to be spending probably more than $800 million in medicaid doing more abortions because we are not doing

prevention. the rule in medicine is prevention first. so i hope that your listeners teenagersing their and starting very early on sex because. pressure stars really early. -- here pressure subtly early. host: anything you want to say? guest: i want to thank you for your years as a nurse, a critical profession for our country and i clearly endorse your statement as it relates to prevention. prevention, whether the in this particular area or any area of health care, is critical, so thank you for your service. host: a bit more about the anatomy of a potential government shutdown. one tweet this morning says, government shutdown? we note that does not happen.

it's running on cruise control. 80% of government stays open. is that true? guest: appropriations make up about 30% of the federal budget for defense and nondefense programs. isr twitter person absolutely correct about that. close to 70% is associated with paying benefits, whether it is social security or medicare benefits, or as we talked about, medicaid benefits. that goes on regardless of appropriations. what happens though is that if you do have a government shutdown, those agencies that administer those benefits, safety clinics -- save the clinics or the hospitals or social security offices, the people and personnel are affected by it. benefits continue, but it does create disruption. i would suggest that we do not want and noticed the leadership

of congress want there to see it shutdown. nobody wins in that particular situation. host: we are couple of weeks away. -- preparations does the treasury secretary have to start making? guest: they have to focus on the deficit. not to confuse the issue here, but the treasury must like -- much like all the other agencies will have to worry about which personnel should remain on the job as essential personnel. in terms of the treasury, they will be under the same situation of every other agency out there in terms of who should come to work and who should not come to work to maintain essential services. the treasury has a different issue that they are going to be focusing on. secretary lou has arty sent a haser to congress -- lew already sent a letter to congress last week on a bigger issue called the statutory debt

limit. when you add up all the borrowing we have there, we are at a limit. there is a limit in the law and we are a bout out of room to have any more borrowing authority. sometime andhat as we mentioned earlier, it may happen in the middle of november. to treasury would have manage a situation where we do not have enough our wing authority to pay our bills. host: these two issues come together in time. this is jack lew and we will get back to calls in a minute. this is june of this year, congressman mick mullaney and the secretary had exchange of priority payments. here is a look. [video clip] >> you want to the finance committee and you told them at

the time that the system are automated to pay because we are -- the policy has been that he will pay our bills and it would not be easy to pay some things and not others and they were designed that way, etc. in may of 2014, you give this chairman of a letter saying something slightly dif ferent, " the new york fed system would make treasury payments while the treasury was not making any other kind of payments." lu, when didu, mr. you come to learn that the new york fed was technologically capable of making the payments that you sent for to the chairman in may of 2014. >> comes men, i did not remember the exact date, but the statement that i made in 2014 and to this committee are entirely consistent. what i said in 2014 is that we

make tens of millions of payments and we do not have the capacity to pick and choose amongst all them. i did not address specifically the question of if there is a technical capacity to pay simple interest. i did indicate to this committee that we did have the technical capacity. it would be a terrible thing to do. pay principal on enters, you will be defaulting on something else like medicare payments or something else. the only solution is to raise the debt limit and not put any president in the position where they have to make the decision -- do they pay one thing or not another. guest: what the secretary is referring to is that you can continue to pay on what the asus of income is coming through at a time, but you have to set a priority of who receives payments. fore pay the bonds investors overseas first or do hold back and accumulate the cash and be able to pay social security benefits?

it is a very difficult process. when you are making over 10 million payments daily, it puts a tremendous amount of burden on the secretary to determine what should be paid and what shouldn't be paid. host: our guest is bill hoagland , here to talk about government spending and the appropriations process and the continuing resolution. this debt ceiling matter is coming quickly upon us. he spent more than three decades on capitol hill and he takes the next call from alan in saint pete, florida. hi there. caller: how are you? i want to speak a bit on the planned parenthood issue. i am an independent. i am not for either the republicans or democrats. my impression of what is going on with this so-called issue is that the republican party

basically wants to abolish like the jefferson-madison principle, which endorsed the separation of religion and state, and the republicans seem to want to abolish lincoln's policy on the issue of brooklyn citizenship, which lincoln favored. , whichhright citizenship lincoln favored. and they want to abolish abortion and women's equality that the scholar on hitler wrote in his book on hitler that hitler criminalized abortion in 1935-1936. the republicans seem to want to endorse the policy on women and women's rights and women's qaeda and theal taliban and isis have.

ifavor women's equality and favor the separation of religion and state, which means equality before the law for all religions and for no religions. i favor lincoln's policy in supporting birthright citizenship. it appears to me that the problem with the republicans is that they have come to endorse out right not to policies -- the democratsand will not come out and say that's what they endorse. that's my problem with republicans and democrats. they want this country to go nazi or fascist. host: your comments? guest: i did work with the falcons on capitol hill and still consider myself to be republican. i take somewhat umbrage at the fact that republicans are classified as being nazis. that would be my only quick comment.

what we are talking about is funding of something -- i'm a green eyeshade. i'm a budgeteer. the issue is do you shut down the entire federal government over $70 million? to thisind solutions without shutting the entire federal government down over one of these issues? that is the critical issue here. madison, as you mentioned, believed in working out between the two branches of government. that is where we need to get back to finding the solutions at both ends of pennsylvania avenue. host: michael, republican, you're on the air. caller: good morning, i am enjoying this conversation quite a bit. my question for mr. hoagland is very supple. i came to the realization that when congress budgets and approves money for a project, our federal government instantly

assumes that money is spent. so if the project is not come to , the omb by law is supposed to send the excess ary, to the treasur but they never have done it. i was involved in killing off in a billion-dollar project when i was in the air force. four years later, it became very apparent that money was spent. that money added to the federal budget. that money added to, if you want to call it, national debt. is ink what we have got accounting process that needed to be cleaned up many decades ago. and neither party will address it because it is too technical. this is your expertise mm would love to hear your opinion on this. host: thanks, michael. guest: you are really getting into the nitty-gritty of

appropriations and allocations and processes that happen within the government. observation.uick i'm not aware of the particular program you're talking about where that a billion-dollar project was to be terminated. i can assure you that if the money had been appropriated and it was not spent, then it would be classified as an obligated money. it is my experience that it will go back to congress and work with the appropriations staff and committee and reprogram that money from that particular project to another. i think what you are referring to hear must've been the situation, where they got approval from the office of management and budget and the got approval from congress. we are not going to spend this money on this project, but we are going to reallocate that money to a different set of priorities within the department of defense. i do not think the money simply

disappears. if it has been appropriated and it has not been obligated, it will be tracked through the processes appropriately. asks by twitter, our government arrives at the accounting figure they call deficit? guest: it takes the amount of revenues that we take in and the total amounts of spending that we make. is tofference is simply think about it as cash-based accounting like a checkbook -- what you spend and what you have. the difference is simply the deficit. the complications that some people get to -- and just for classification here -- the accumulation of annual deficit over from the beginning of the republic to today is what we refer to as that. that is a different number them an annual deficit figure. our figure is about $400 billion this year. our annual accumulated deficits

from the beginning of the republic to today is closer to $17 trillion. host: here's a headline on the debt ceiling. they vie for the standoff over the borrowing limit is spooking economists and investors. why would they be nervous over a debt ceiling problem? government --eral it's treasury debt is one of the most respected in the world. they would be very nervous if for some reason the federal government defaulted on not paying interest on its obligations. and that would have replications -- ramifications that would run all the way through our financial system, create havoc, and make our treasury instrument, which has been the basic instrument for financial security throughout the world --

it would undermine the credibility of the federal government as an organization that is willing to pay its debts. host: leah is calling and now for bill hoagland. caller: good morning. i'm calling about planned parenthood. my concern is shutting the government over the situation. theyin concern is that keep talking about this video, which they are saying has been edited. not oneeen clear that has been seen fully unedited video of this incident. i am a retired clear police officer -- retired police officer and i do not understand how you can go to a court of law with an edited piece of evidence. i think that is a key part of this whole situation. i have no real response here. i've not seen the video either so i cannot really comment on it. host: in new york now where lee is on the line. good morning to you.

question is that a gentleman earlier mentioned the fact that people in the government should sign a statement about fraud. i do not really believe in terms of fraud, but what i am thinking is that all branches of the government are appropriated a certain amount of money. it seems to me that if they did not spend it all, they do not return it because they will get less the following year. have --ht say that they renovate their own office or hire new people to continue to get that money. these scandals like shrimp on a treadmill or the fraud situations that you have stated, these that are so elaborate and do not pertain to business -- i have an average income and i'm a federal taxpayer. when i see these things, it really upsets me. thank you. that is a very good

observation and one which i have observed in my years in washington. that is exactly what you just indicated. of theseministrators particular programs have not appropriately planned their expenditures over the course of time and end up before the fiscal year runs out increasing their expenditures to spend the entire amount, i think that's unfortunate and it should not be that way. we do have a process by which agencies are supposed to allocate their expenditures on a quarterly basis so this does not happen. i think that is a form. i would like to call it saw fraud. i do not think it is meant to be. there are issues associated with this, but i do think your point is well taken. host: peter from pennsylvania, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen.

at thanks to everyone c-span. c-span is a national treasure, i think. mr. hoagland, i want to thank you for your many years of public service. guest: thank you, peter. caller: i would really like you to enlighten us a little bit on just how much -- i would call it congressging -- is trying to exert on spending. this is a very irritating ter and reminds me so the earmarks and congress trying to adam amidst to the budget and trying to control exactly how an individual agency or government entity will spend or may not spent any of the money that is appropriated to it. i just long for a day when

congress will allocate funds and i guess it is too much to hope thethat they will allocate money to the cabinet level departments and let the theetary decide or to individual federal agencies. let the agency administration take responsibility for how the money gets spent. is there any limit on how much control congress can attempt to exert on how these dollars gets spent? thank you very much. guest: absolutely. this is a system in which no subject to be spent appropriations made in law. congress is the first responsibility for having oversight. i think to your point is to what are talking about planned parenthood and the confederate flag and things of

this nature -- to what extent does congress get involved in micromanaging the agencies of the appropriations process? i would say what we have here is a breakdown of the other part of the legislative branch, which is called the authorization process. you're not supposed to appropriate money until it has been authorized. that is the responsibility of of committees to make sure that they are giving guidance to these agencies on how they spend their money. the real issue is strengthening, i think, the oversight process, the authorization process. you also mentioned earmarks. there is limitations that are placed now in congress on the amount of earmarks. quite frankly, the administration, when they submit a budget, they earmark what they want to spend the money for. i believe in the checks and balances that we have here and i think it is a system that works

fine, but it does need to strengthen the oversight responsibility, which i think has been weakened i all the years of battling over the appropriations process. host: here is a paper put out by the bipartisan policy center. the top line says "into the danger zone: sequestration and troop levels." is saying? the guest: whether we have limited our provisions to the cap. for defense and nondefense. through sections that have been placed on defense are starting to have real limitations on ability to maintain are forced structure going forward. -- issue that the by policy bipartisan policy center staff are having is whether or not the caps on been established are no longer appropriate for the threats that currently exist

today. and whether they should be adjusted. host: remind us again of how sequestration first came about. i willa long story and try to cut to the chase, but the beginning of quite frankly the sequestration goes back to a in 1985 that set limits on spending. if you did not need to set targets on hitting a deficit and you did not hit that, then there would be across the board reductions in spending and all the appropriated accounts and some of the nonappropriated accounts. that concept was carried through 2011 wheny up until the budget reform act of 2011 set caps going forward. if appropriations exceed those

and heou come back reduce across the board down to the cap levels. -- you reduce across the board down to the cap levels. it is a history on how these came about. it was to control the level of spending. i would once again point out that this controlling one third of the budget and not the other two thirds of the budget. defense, andn other headline recently -- despite possible government shutdown, many military families and congress will reverse the quotation -- sequestration this fall. how do you see this playing out? guest: this is a major issue. the president wants to have an increase. when you look at the numbers, congress and the president have about the same level of requested funding for defense. congress does it through a different way, which they use something called the overseas contingency account which is

funding beyond the caps. the congress and the president are in agreement on what the top line here. the difficulty is that when increasing spending for defense, the president would like to see a somewhat increase for the nondefense. and that is where congress is bowling is neck. host: rhonda, good morning. withr: it has been long privatized medicaid and medicare. i live in michigan where planned parenthood is pretty much eliminated. andcannot get birth control insurance to pay for an abortion once a year. medicaid and medicare are the same thing. they will not pay for birth control, but they will pay for abortion once a year. where does it end? these insurance companies are not willing to provide

prevention versus it. i am a pro-lifer. i think there are circumstances -- host: she is breaking up quite a bit. guest: i would only make one quick observation. rhonda, you were breaking up. under the affordable care act, private carriers are responsible for providing prevention services. of yournot quite clear statement that they are not providing prevention services. they are required in the affordable care act to provide those prevention services and counseling services. host: let us try paul in columbia, succulent appeared -- south carolina. anler: years ago, when i was accountant, june the 30th was the end of the fiscal year. 30y extended it to september so they can get their job done and now, they take the month of august off and still don't get

the job done. ,e should unload congress anybody that takes a month off in august. [laughter] host: but the first time that we have heard that. thank you, paul. guest: i was there when we change the fiscal year. it was part of the congressional budget control act to move time to set up the new budget process. yes, it was a move from july 1 to the end of september. i have been a proponent and my old bosses over the years have recently put out a report in support of it. the time has come to focus on what a lot of states have and that is it by annual budget. these it -- you appropriate for one or two years and you oversight for the oversight responsibility. i would also say that if you do not pass a budget and you do not get your work done, you should eliminate all recesses going forward. , but rather controversial

i do think you are right. you are paid to do a job -- get it done. if you do not, state until you get the job done. host: what are the pros and cons of a two-year cycle? guest: it is hard to judge what might happen in a two-year perio d. for supporters, you would come back with supplementals in the second year. of this is pros that many agencies -- 90% of their funding -- is at the same level of the previous year. it is the same 10% that causes the problems. it is finding a way to move forward so that you do not have the government shutdowns. you have opportunities for oversight responsible these. host: one last call from beverly. democrat, hey beverly. caller: i have two questions. what part of this that they are docussing does it have to

with the two wars and the drug ?lans that george bush in thand the second question is -- host: hang on, beverly. guest: the current debate that we are having has nothing to do with "the two wars." the appropriations is not funding -- let me rephrase. it is not funding those wars to the extent that they have been completed. too important, not to get far into the weeds here, but there is something called the overseas contingency account that takes care and is outside of the debate that we are talking about right. host: beverly, go ahead. caller: the second question is on this budget. how much are they protecting the rich? host: what do you mean by that? caller: with the money.

the rich do not seem to ever get touched. they have never gotten touched. years, they need to start at the top of the budget. and work their way down through. guest: the issue is to be debated, but for clarification purposes, this appropriation ,ill does not affect taxes except for administration of the irs may be. thatit does not affect level. the government shutdown does not impact upon the distribution of the tax burden. host: final thoughts on as we wrap up on this year's budget. guest: i'm not one to speculate on whether or not it will be a shutdown or not. i do believe the leadership of

the congress does not want to have a shutdown at all. any kind of government shutdown will always be down to nobody's benefit. congress will probably be here well into the holiday season in resolving these differences. host: all right. the hoagland is a senior vice president of policy and capitol hill. we thank you for your time. in the associated press this morning, the kentucky clerk says it won't interfere with gay marriage licenses. , kim davis,clerk said monday she will not interfere with her deputies it foreep issuing licenses same-sex couples and she said they would not be authorized by her. she has returned to work, but with those conditions.

we will hear more about it later today. breaking news that she has returned to work. we have about an hour and a half the washington journal. coming up next, we will focus on the russians government and its military support of the syrian government and bashar al-assad. will talk to us about that. and later, we will look at the support refugees receive when they come to the united states. david martin is a university of virginia professor. be right back in a couple of minutes. ♪ all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states will give their attention.

petitioner versus basil. rove versus madison is probably the most in case this court ever decided. existed as anet here on then were not even recognize. >> putting too affect presidential -- putting into andct residential orders the orders of marshals and the courage of children will stop -- of children. >> we wanted to change the courts of society and also society. >> so she told them that they search, ando have a

she demanded to the paper to see what it was. once they refuse to do so, she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it. and thereafter, the police officer handcuffed her. imagine a better way than to tello life the human story in the courts. >> the forced interment of japanese amendment -- japanese-americans in world war ii. afterbeing failed -- being convicted for failing to appear in court. this court took the cases that were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick up freedom that is most essential to democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go to a few cases that

demonstratehat dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 10 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. landmark cases. exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them will c-span in series on cooperation with the national constitution center debuting october 5 at 9 p.m.. >> washington journal continues. host: at the table now, matthew rojansky, at the can institute over it university of virginia. good morning. make ais expanding to two expand a major

airport in syria. it is in the coastal province qia.a what is going on there? official russian position is that for the duration of the conflict now, servingrs, they were out contracts signed many years ago. they are continuing to supply weapons. assad obviously needs those. the broader picture, though, is very disturbing, and that is, that the are escalating military conflict where the united states and many other countries are already present. it is definitely a multisided conflict. the more weapons and the more sides, the more dangerous he gets. host: secretary kerry has spoken about this escalation.

what is that like? guest: there's not a lot of dialogue. he quickly talks to lavrov, his russian counterpart. hand, the on the one united states and russia are on the same side in the fight against isis. on the other hand, they have to radically different positions when it comes to the assad regime. the russians say you cannot solve this problem without making a sod -- assad part of the solution. if you don't have some functioning of the state, you will have iraq. you will unleash a new wave of extreme terrorists. the view of the u.s. and the gulf states is quite different, which is that it is time to move .ast sod -- assad there is a lot of daylight between russia and the united

states, and that as well as ukraine crisis as we have discussed before on the show, is thereason why russia and u.s. are not talking to each other on a tactical level. that is a huge problem. you have russian military forces operating in a very complex, dangerous space, and u.s. military forces, and they are not communicating. host: my guest is matthew rojansky of the wilson center talking about russian actions in syria and involvement by the u.s. we welcome your comments and phone calls, as well as your tweets. the headline in the "new york times," -- syria -- movesn in syria pose concerns for the u.s. the president had something to say about it recently. [video clip] obama: russia has for

.ears now sold weapons to assad i had a conversation with mr. putin some years ago and said that was a mistake and would make things worse as long as he would continue to support assad. he did not take my warnings, and as a consequence, things have gotten worse. isappears now that assad worried enough that he is inviting russian and visors in an russian equipment in. and that won't change our core strategy, which is to continue isil in iraqure on and syria. but we will be engaging russia you cannot know that continue to double down on a strategy that is doomed to failure. if they're willing to work with us and the 60 nation coalition

we have put together, then there is a possibility of a political settlement in which assad would be transitioned out and a new coalition of moderate, secular, and inclusive forces could come together to restore order in the country. that is our goal. this is going to be a long discussion we will be having with the russians. but it is not going to prevent us from continuing to go after isil pretty hard. it could prevent us from going after the political settlement that could ultimately bring peace back to syria. this is where our military efforts have to be combined with .ffective diplomatic efforts host: matthew rojansky of the

wilson center. guest: this is the same thing that the president has said all along, you are trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear. huge numbers of people are dying, as you know. but the president says we can extract this perfect democratic solution, rather than the two alternatives, which is the assad very bad,ry that -- or isil. horse andf we pick a it is not assad. the more the russians committee, the more we have this three sided conflict in which two of -- inde of them simply

which two of the site ostensibly fighting the same enemy are not talking to each other. host: let's take the first phone call for matthew rojansky. thank you for taking my call. it baffles me that the united states continues to make the same mistake in foreign policy over and over again. bush went to war in iraq to get rid of saddam, and now he's gone and look at iraq now. he helped to bring down gadhafi and look at libya now. syria,h this conflict in the president has been saying that assad has to go. i think that's a mistake because it backs us into a corner. you cannot negotiate after saying that. moderate rebels don't seem to be strong enough in alternative to isis as a site government. actuallyans may be

helping us against isis by supporting assad, because the efforts to help the moderates have not been very successful. i would like to your your opinion on that. host: thank you. guest: yeah, thanks. all, when the russians think about both the examples that you gave, iraq and libya, they would tend to agree with what you said, but probably take a stronger position. which is that this is the united being probably incompetent, but intentionally these regimes. , andocus for the region specifically to the russians, is afghanistan. that has been triggered by the hunt for bin laden, 9/11, and so

forth. that has been a multibillion tights -- a multi-decade long morass that has a lot to do with the radical as long throughout the region, weapons being floated into the region, and chaos. that is concerned, in particular when you think about syria, which for moscow is the last bastion of russian influence in the middle east. they saw gadhafi in libya go. they don't want to see that in syria repeated. let's go to ron in new york. caller: hi, i was wondering about what i call the 500 pound gorilla in the room. where is turkey right now? me that the sunnis in the region want to get rid of the iranian influence, be it in yemen or syria, or hezbollah in lebanon. go ande let the turkeys

overthrow assad and then turn on isis later? is turkey ok with that? host: the role of turkey. an extremely has complex and basically impossible role in this equation. it is true that relative to its immediate neighbors, it is a military superpower. it is a member of nato. it is a critical transit state either for nato flag operations, or for russian transit. let's not forget that the russian ships that we have been observing over the last several have been passing through the bosporus straits will stop -- the bosporus straits. by treaty, but basically turkish waters. refugee crisis, which has been dominating the headlines in europe and is an existential crisis for leaders in the european union.

turkey was once an aspiring member, and now it is the superhighway by which those escaping the conflicts are getting into europe. it seems the last thing the turks you want to do is get involved in fighting this conflict, because they are either going to have an enemy on their doorstep in the form of the assad regime, or they are going to be -- where they are going to be propping up a neighboring dictatorship. what they want to do is quietly managed the refugee crisis and keep the border more or less controlled. they have not been able to do that. and then provide low-level support to the us-led coalition. host: we're talking to matthew rojansky of the wilson center. susan is our next call from massachusetts democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

host: good morning. caller: i understand generally there was a consensus that assad had to be dealt with, or compromised with or is part of the solution to the problem. has that assumption changed in the past few months, or is that an assumption? to, -- number two, is there still anyone in the country that still works for the government that could perhaps be relied upon to get him to come and become a more reasonable player in the field? host: thank you, susan. guest: the question you vast in many ways -- that you asked in many ways is the question a lot of us have been asking the last couple of years. the answer, i think, was taken out of the hands of those in the discussion because the white house made it very clear that of theicial position united states is that we see a future for syria without assad. and became clear when the u.s.

was hacking one of the rubble ones admittedly -- backing of the rebel groups, admittedly are therebels that today. there might be someone in the assad military who we should talk to. situation inhe iraq. if you give it of the entire army, no one knows how to control weapons on the battlefield. as long as the folks that we are backing say that their purpose is to bring down assad and the regime, that just kind of to the gadhafi in libya russians and anyone who does not want to abandon assad. host: didn't this iran deal that a son guarantee will never be deposed in syria? both iran and russia will support him? is, itthe answer

depends. it depends a lot on what the iranians are going to do. obviously, the russians have been supporting assad for the past four years. they have been supplying limitless weapons. it is clear that syria is one of the top weapons clients from russia. ironically, the biggest frustration i've heard from russian interlocutors is not that assad has been killing so many people, that he is so bloody, that he is so bad, but that he not very good at being a bloody dictator, not very effective at ending the conflict. if the iranians were willing to escalate to the point of actually sending in concrete assistance, perhaps their own writers -- their own fighters for example, and that is not entirely off the table, that could turn the time. on the other hand, that could

result in a huge outpouring of support of the islamist rebels on the other side. host: bill, and republican. go ahead, please. caller: thanks for taking my call. this will headline is concern over russia's military buildup in syria. i think it is a false title for the segment. i'm certainly not concerned about the russian military buildup in syria. i don't know who is, the site someone saying there is this buildup. i remember no little while ago refusing the situation in syria " -- let'scoalition call it what it really is, the u.s. vassal states. they decided to go in and get rid of this chemical weapons

thing. it was probably cia work. syria, but itnto was prudent that de-escalated that situation. say that this is russian military buildup seems a little false to me. guest: it seems clear that there is an uptick in the russian shipments to syria, both air and sea shipments. and those include logistics equipment, for example, tents where truth -- troops can be housed. the russians have acknowledged it includes technical experts. and it definitely includes weapons, which the russians are supplying under existing contracts. but to your point about whether there is this a go over this strange dance that happened over the chemical weapon issue where russia seem to be on the wrong side from the u.s. physicians -- position until suddenly he was solving all of our problems.

-- until suddenly putin was solving all of our problems. that might be one of the small handful of possible outcomes that putin has in mind. there is no question that he wants to support the assad regime on the ground, support those that are already there, in particular the naval center. be russia's prestige and russia's access on the line and the russians will fight to defend it. but i think there is a corollary purpose here, and that is, positioning for the international negotiation that will take place on the sidelines of the u.n. general assembly meeting later this month. the stronger russia's hand, the more cards they are showing on the ground, the more likely it --that will get the kind of that putin will get the kind of respect that he wants at the table. even against the objections of the united dates and others in the region who turn and say, moscow, we see you have all of these forces in the region will

stop what can you do to help -- in the region, what can you do to help? host: in the "wall street journal" these talk about russia's syria play. and a right that russia could it have intervened long ago. do you agree with that? guest: it is an enormous counterfactual. i have no idea. and there is no way to say that american intervention at that point would have looked like libya. maybe we would have unleashed an earlier, maybe even deadlier wave of crisis from the heart of -- of isis from the heart of

syria. are islear that where we not what you want to be. in particular, we have a really dangerous cocktail of geopolitical superpowers on the ground and then local transnational terror forces, and then the assad regime itself. it is really explosive. no one wanted to be here, but here we are. and everyone is digging in. -- he isrew fox writes the director of the henry jackson society.

guest: the problem with this logic over and over is i can have all the sympathy in the world for the position that the author there is taking, but if you're negotiating position is, we dictate all the details of how our cooperation is going to work, you are not going to get cooperation stop -- cooperation. cooperation is always a two-way street. we've got to find some way -- and russian position is that we got to find some way to accommodate assad. the u.s. has said we will not accept that. we have military on the ground and we want them to be the pictures. russia has said that is not possible. there not going to get russians on board. it is not going to happen. host: it's good to travis, a democrat. good morning.

in regards to what the gentleman said earlier about the 500 pound gorilla in the room, turkey. why should we involve those that are not in the region? let's just let turkey absorb it. any other outcome of western powers intervening, it becomes that. let turkey take it over. let them manage it and control it. i know a lot of people say that is the recreation of the ottoman empire. but they were managing that look, hundreds of years. let the middle easterners to get their own garbage. andthe turks invade syria manage it, done deal. no more civil war, no more refugees running across europe and dying stop -- and dying. let the turks take care of it. know, travis, history

10th repeated so. i can only imagine that the conversations being had amongst highly educated and thoughtful westerners about world war i about how to manage the middle east and warring tribes the desert kind of went like that. can't we make this the turks problem? the unfortunate answer is, yeah, you can't. you may get the iranians problem, right question mark but pretty soon you will have another -- right? pretty soon you have another problem. i don't think there is anyone answer in the region that will solve the problem. the answers have to come from within. the biggest problem that we have is most of the answers that we are seeing right now, we can pretend there is some viable, democratic, secular, from into the west's alternative. but most of the answers we are of powerhat get a lot on the ground are radical islam of some strike, or they are

aligned with iran and the shia. none of those seem to be acceptable to the west. and now we see that bad things that happen half a world away tend to have repercussions right here at home. we are barely just past the 9/11 anniversary, so that is the reminder. host: a call from california, ellen. caller: good morning. mr. rojansky, i've met are the work you do at the wilson center. i have a question for you regarding the migrants. i want to know how many russia has taken in, and if you have a number. i also want to know why the arab states are not taking any of these migrants. why are they all going to europe? thank you and i will take your answer off the air. guest: a great question. i don't know how many if any russia has taken in. i do know that russia, to the surprise of many people, is the second destination the world after the united states for

immigration. this is the -- i would not be surprised if we start to see flows come through those regions. they are all to the south and all local regions. surprised ife legally, or illegally, we do see flows of refugees from the syrian conflict. certainly, i know we have seen refugees from the past coming out of the central asian conflicts, to stand and afghanistan going into russia. it is true that plenty of refugees are going into jordan and lebanon. but the history of refugee flows in this region, going back to 1948 to the establishment of israel and before that, is that these government can not to have -- these governments tend not to have an integrated flow for immigration. they just examine refugee camps and hold them there and try to client them into an international problem so someone else takes care of it. and unfortunately, that is west.

host: we have about 15 minutes , of with matthew rojansky the wilson center. if you would like to call, here's the number. the numbers are on the screen. we look forward to your continuing questions and comments. and we can connect to what the said color said -- caller about refugees. do you see a spike of people wanting to leave syria? conflicte longer the goes on, the more you will see it. we have already three or 4 billion displaced -- three or 4 million displaced. the russian view is a little cynical in this respect. that is, the migration crisis,

the refugee crisis, insofar as it shakes the pillars and foundations of european unity at a time when european unity has been response or four european sanctions against -- in responsible for european pension against russia over ukraine, then shaking at my not been such a bad thing. i would not say that the russians are looking to make the conflict worse, to send more refugees into europe and break that apart more. the channels through hungary and other parts of europe, it just reduces the likelihood that the next round of european diplomacy and sanctions over ukraine will be quite as moralizing and resounding as the last time. that is all to the good for moscow's perspective. host: 10 puts it simply on twitter. the problem will never, ever, ever be solved. simple as that. let's go to michigan. david, a republican.

go right ahead. iller: yes, on this issue believe a lot of the blame that the news media is putting on pruden -- putin belongs on obama's lap. the guns that were being fired at the government of syria were american guns and american bullets. they were supplied by american people stop -- by american people. firedhole first shot was from people using american guns american bullets, and american influence. they were doing what we wanted them to do, get rid of assad. and then he started fighting and, oh, he's bombing his own people, they say. we would call it collateral damage if we were doing it. what he's doing is killing his own people, which gives us more reason to invade. i find it disgusting. i find it hypocritical.

and i find a government in washington, d.c. to be criminal. here i network right listened right after the president of the ukraine was overthrown. the people from the east, c-span opened up the line to ukraine. and they had people from the east calling in and saying, america, get the heck out of our business. and the people from the west of ukraine were thanking us for having their back, like we really didn't have anything to do with that. me, this president who says he is proliferating fee -- proliferating peas is the biggest warmonger in the world. i've never seen anything like it. well, david, i definitely get your frustration of the absolute failure so far of any i wouldervention -- say, not only in syria, but in the region more broadly. almost everything we have tried

to achieve, lets you really dress it up, doesn't look very positive right now. -- unless you really dress it up doesn't look very positive right now. and actually, it is a bipartisan feeling. the u.s. is the biggest weapon supplier on the planet. the russians are a close second. that means the weapons being used to kill people in conflict around the world have at some point been supplied by the united states or on behalf of the united states, or russia. the irony is that we are both there on the ground in syria. not only through our proxies, but there directly flying missions, or their in the case of -- or in the case of the russians, there on the ground. you have these military behemoths seeking to solve at least the military problem in syria, and at least nominally on that problem they should be able to work together with all the

weapons at their disposal. but i grew into, that we are just floating the weapon -- flooding the region with weapons. it is discussing to see isis running around in american-made and armor -- american-made and supplied armored vehicles and americanand firing bullets at our people. but i would hope that we could at least nominally talk to the people on our side and at least the feet isis. it is a small thing, but an important one. host: we have joel on the line from texas, democratic line. caller: these people in iraq and syria, i'm going to say it, they are cowards. don't want to fight for their countries. we can give them all the help that we want. but i don't want to see our men and women going over there and fighting their workers -- their wars until they can take their skirts off and put a pair of pants on and fight like men. and we can help them out.

crossing young men over. look at the news. look at the pictures. if you want to take these people into this country, by god, send 45,young men from 17 to these guys, send them to live june -- kathy june and our military bases and train them -- send them to can't live june le -- send them to lejeune and they can join the fight. theory -- syria- ize the conflict or even vietnam-ize conflict.

end, it is not going to be the folks that we say we want to win. we could wash our hands of it and say you deal with it, that is one thing. but as i mentioned earlier, i think we are living in a world in which unfortunately, the consequences of a regime change and a bloody vacuum in a far part of the world can come to at home. that is largely what the obama administration -- what caused the obama administration and the bush administration to intervene. again, i think there are coalition approaches to at least defeating adversary like isis that can work. i am encouraged that on one level the russians are nominally fighting against isis and are prepared to cooperate. i would like to see a coordinated approach that might achieve something. host: an op-ed from the washington post, --

but if go to thomas in humble, texas, republican. caller: good morning. i was just went -- remembering out colin powell said come you broke it, you bought it full -- said, you broke it, you bought it. palestiniansw, the , are they part of the human now and will be embargo be lifted at the gaza strip?

guest: i cannot really comment on the israel-palestine stuff. it is not my area. as far as the -- the russians going broke in syria, they have been in syria for half a century. it has been a pretty lucrative thing. one of the motivations for them being in the room in the first place is that the russians, first with assad's father, and now with the charlotte thought, have had multi--- and now with besar al-assad, have basically had military contracts. it is another way of subsidizing your own industry. as long as the russians remain relatively arm's-length am a in other words, syria doesn't turn into afghanistan, a decade-long occupation where they are fighting directly on the ground against the enemy, and as long as that enemy is not been supported by another superpower

like the united states, i don't think the russians will go broke in syria. i think the editorial piece that was referenced earlier is probably right, putin will get some version of what he wants in syria. cleverhink it's a pretty approach. when he's basically doing is throwing a gotland down and saying, look, we have something positive -- throwing the gotland ntlet down and saying, look, we have something you want. host: here is a tweet. from zechariah, allentown, pennsylvania, good morning to you. caller: i have a simple question. something am having difficulty understanding. --we have a way to control

sad and his military have had difficulty controlling isis. how are they going to control a nation? the beauty of rhetorical questions is the answer is in the question. i think you're right. i have trouble personally and imagining how a free syrian army , a sort of fledgling democratic government, even imagining that ,hat was possible in damascus and would maintain territorial control over all of syria and be able to unite a fractious tribal society, and the lesson for that is iraq. and iraq had the advantage of ofs of hundreds of thousands coalition troops backing up the government, years of funding and andning a new iraqi army

police force. syria will not have any of that stuff. the thing that scares, and kind of exhausts me more than anything when i look at what the u.s. policy in syria appears to be is that even if we win this , the nextagainst isis step looks like the last 10 years of iraq to which still hasn't ended up well in my view. that seems exhausting and pretty unfortunate. springfield,in virginia, independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. this is a multipart question, so please if you could answer the parts of it. it looks like russia is doing erdogan a favor in turkey by assisting assad. and i wanted to comment, but the other three parts of this are, what is the saudi interest question mark what is tehran's -- what is the saudi interests? what if tehran's interest? and what is iran's footprint in

syria? guest: let me try to go back on that. nato is pretty straightforward. the u.s. is leading a multinational coalition with nato is backing up. turkey, of course, is part of nato, which confiscates their role. i described earlier some mixed interests they have there, including on the refugee issue, which is probably the single overwhelming security situation for them. has a positive relationship with russia at this point. i think the russians are looking to continue to maintain turkish support for their transit operations going into syria. obviously, if the turks said no and try to block that, it back could make life very difficult for the russians. the iranians, they have been providing support for what they view as part of this broad shiite alliance in the form of the assad regime.

but on the other hand, they are not fighting directly on the ground to the degree that they were in iraq, as far as we know. if the iranians were to go in more significantly, it was likely provoke a lot of other arab states to go in on the other side. of course, what that other side would be, given the dichotomy of the free syrian operation -- free syrian army operation or the moderate operation is anyone's guess. as farce the saudi's go, they have money to contribute. they can -- as far as the saudi's go, they have money to contribute. they can contribute and they have been. as far as war on the ground, they do not want isis coming their way. host: next guest, eddie. caller: we need a good statement to get over there

and negotiate. i'm worried about turkey getting involved. they are hitting crisis, but also hitting the kurds. saudi arabia, the shiites, they are hitting them in yemen. somebody ought to get over there , and notinate that just realizes. host: and left color from phone call from maryland. caller: one of your previous callers said real men would fight. as a woman, real nancy peace through diplomacy -- real men seek be through diplomacy, because it is actually harder to achieve these that way. that is what we need to apply here. trade.ed of the weapons there is no food, no humanitarian aid in many areas, but they've always got weapons.

and the idea that some people think we need to have another military option in the middle east against iran is so counterproductive. how much more suffering do we want to unleash in the middle east? to kind of like, you know, apply diplomacy, strong diplomacy behind the scenes. one question i do have for your guest was, i heard on the build harsh -- on the bill maher show that the economy does not want to take any refugees, but will spend all this money on helping refugees making it to europe, or investing money in mosques over there. why theyt wondering were not taking anything. is it because of the shia versus sunni? host: is it true that they have

not taken any? guest: i cannot comment on that, i don't know the saudi policy. abruptly speaking, when you are -- but broadly speaking, when , the policymocratic toward refugees has been generally to do as little as possible and make them someone else's problem. i would not be surprised if that was the position of saudi arabia and other states in the region. i want to comment on her pointed out diplomacy, that we need some sort of diplomatic initiative. i completely agree. i hope i don't sound like a broken record in saying if you have the russians on the ground already, and the u.s., and the european and middle eastern actors, it is like you have all the pieces there. what you don't have is that we are not all saying the same thing. we are all saying subtly, but significantly different things, and that is about assad. we need to figure out what our position is on the future of syriac, and i would absolutely

take seriously the -- the future of syria, and i would absolutely take seriously the earlier point about how will they succeed assad when has failed -- how will they succeed when assad asid has failed question mark ld knows, there are enough resources employed at this point that it should be solvable. host: matthew rojansky is the director of the wilson center at the kennan institute. thank you for your time. left, aone segment segment about your money, as we do from time to time. we will talk to university of virginia professor david martin. he will talk about refugees being admitted to the u.s. and the support they receive once they arrive. we will take your calls. we will be right back. ♪

host: a signature -->> a signature feature of book tv is our book fairs and festivals across the country. here is our schedule. in new york, we are in -- in september, we are in new york. in early october, the southern festival of books in nashville. the week after that, in austin for the texas book festival. from our nation's heartland, it is the wisconsin book festival in madison. and back on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, portland oregon for word stock. followed by the national book award from new york city. and in november, live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that is a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span's book tv.

>> tonight on the communicators, seeing -- gary of discuss the will option that will allow wireless companies to bid on the wireless space. one thing i do want to emphasize his we are not taking spectrum broadcasters. it is a voluntary option on behalf of the broadcasters. continue to provide an extremely viable service. a one-time only basis, they will be able to relinquish their spectrum rights in return for a share of the proceeds of the following option. congress's it is determination and the fcc implementation to use market more broadband spectrum available.

in other words, the need for growing bypectrum is multiples. there is not a lot of good broadband spectrum left. novel method that congress has put in place and that the fcc is to implement. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: here is another one of those many extraordinary pictures. we are seeing it on television as well. men, women, and children from syria in afghanistan clinging to a dinghy sunday. -- and afghanistan clinging to a dinghy sunday. they are off the coast of greece. i'm going to talk to david martin now from charlottesville, virginia. he is an international law professor and a former judge deputy -- the former deputy

counsel at the department of homeland security. the president has asked that 10,000 syrian refugees be brought to the u.s. as we start to look at that process, can you define for us first how the u.s. looks at a refugee? what is the definition in u.s. terms? drawn byfinition is international treaty. a refugee is someone out his or her country of her origin and is afraid to return. the keyword is "a well-founded fear of persecution" in their home country. that applies both to our overseas resettlement programs that we are mainly focusing on now, the people we select and bring to this country as part of this program. and it is those who get to this country on their own and apply for political asylum. this we want to learn how

process works. the state department has put out information about its process. we have learned about $1 billion will be spent this year for admission and resettlement of refugees here in the u.s. they go to about 190 communities . they get basic housing, furnishings, clothing, and food provided on arrival. expenses are provided for the first couple of months. is there a process -- there is a process in place. generally speaking, how effective has it been? guest: overall, it has been quite a successful program. we have resettled almost 3 million people through this oversize -- this overseas resettlement program since the law was significantly revised in 1980 with a new piece of legislation. a lot of people have made the transition. it has relieved a lot of suffering around the world. generally, people have made successful transitions to this country. but it is a complicated program

and involves a -- additional pieces become more complicated with more emphasis on security screening, for example, these days. of it is a very confident public-private ownership -- partnership that involves key government decisions, but major roles by nongovernmental resettlement agencies that do the key work on the ground when people arrive in their community of destination within the united states. for: have plenty of time your calls, so we welcome your calls for david martin, a law professor talking about refugees in the u.s. we have been using the same three lines through the show for democrats, republicans, or independent, but we do have a fourth line we will refugees living in the u.s. -- if youe here and live here, we want to hear where you came from and what it has been like for you here and what

your situation is like. to -- we continue to chat with david martin. david martin, if you are someplace in the world and realize you have to get out, want to get out, who do you turn to there? how does the process begin their and how does it connect to the state department over here question mark -- over here? guest: the key institution for most is the u.n. refugee agency. they will be dealing very often with a lot of the logistics, the immediate reception and care for the individuals. the high commissioner makes toeals to other governments support the immediate needs in the refugee camp or settlement where they are. and it doesn't always start out right away. not matter of fact, it is something they look to run away, resettling people far away.

persecution has broken out in the war has broken out in the home country. the preferred solution is to resolve the situation at home and enable them to return. but if the situation goes on for several years, then we begin to look toward what we call other durable solutions. resettlement in distant countries, as well as possible local integration, and still hope for voluntary repatriation at some point. set up. program is not to just allow anybody anywhere in the world to walk into an embassy and say, a refugee, please let me -- and say, i'm a refugee, please let me into the united dates. it is set -- into the united states will stop it is set up your right here. it is in certain parts of the world and it is what they call access priorities to emphasize

return to the u.s. in one of those access categories. and there are special arrangements where the high commissioner for refugees at the u.n. agency can refer someone who is in particular danger even if they are not in my those listed priorities. that way, they get access to the program and then work with an agency, usually a private of organization funded -- a private organization funded by the u.s. government. they will pull together a case file, and ultimately theft an officer of the u.s. to call of -- to decide if they qualify. if there are other disqualifying factors, such a criminal history , and there is now always look out to see if they have terrorist affiliation. if they pass that screening, then they are on their way. there are several other steps that we can talk about if you like, but then they will be on their way to eventually

connecting with a resettlement organization in the united dates, and being sent -- in the u.s., and being sent to a connecting organization to help them for the first few months of resettlement. host: the top five countries any refugees in 2014 were as follows. iraq, 20,000 people. burma, 14.5 thousand. somalia, 9000. bhutan, 8.3 thousand. democratic republic of congo, 4.5 thousand. in the united states, texas, little over 7000. california, a little over 6000. new york and michigan, 4000, and florida, about 3500 folks. before we get to calls and learn more about the questions and people situations, once they get here and are set up in a town, do they have local sponsors question mark are the same -- do

they have local sponsors? are their families question mark how do they get their -- on their families? re? do they get the there are nine different agencies that may have different roles. , an efforte an area to settle people with other people in their area for integration. those agencies decide amongst themselves how to parse them out. they make arrangements with a local affiliate within the community in which that person is likely to be sent. it might be a local church. it might be a branch office, something like the international

rescue committee. they will gear up. they will arrange for housing to be ready for a person. some initial supplies. they will meet the people at the local airport and help them move in. the initial funding comes from what is called a reception and placement grant of they go so that organization to facilitate paying their first month rent, buying initial supplies, furniture. there's other assistance to get people locally registered like a driver's license if that is appropriate and get them on the road tour successful employment is a real emphasis in our program to get them employed locally. that is one of the initial costs and the initial ways in which the response goes forward. there are programs that are available for transitional assistance. these are people who are very different from other immigrants and we expect them to become self-sufficient right away,

having fled as a refugee from a very difficult situation. we do not and his they're going --bring the same immediately we do not anticipate they're going to bring the same immediate resources. a lot of times local communities have additional programs and other special programs that can help them. successfuly make a transition to life united states for them and their families. host: let us get to calls for david martin. tennessee, on the republican line. i have able,. it's crazy that we bring these refugees and when we have housing.who cannot get we are having housing right to these people as soon as they come in and treat them like royalty. i've and try to get my disability for the last five years and i have them through the system. disability, they will get

it right off the bat before we will. people are having a hard time getting jobs as it is and they will get first opportunity for the jobs. host: david martin. concern about the veterans? know about that situation. there are programs that provide assistance for veterans and are not in direct competition with the refugees. i do not want to make it sound like it is a cushy process for the refugees. we expect a lot. united states government resettlement agency expects a lot out of the people who are coming. they are not going to be handed long-term assistance. it is very limited transitional assistance. it's a difficult time in they need to rise to the child's. contribute too the committee. if done right, it can help to expand the demand for goods and services in that community and help to spin off and create other jobs.

i do not think it is a one-on-one competition by any means. we certainly expect a lot of the refugees who are coming to work hard and make their own transition and get into being self-sustaining rather quickly. host: on to hampton, virginia now on the democratic line. deborah. caller: i just want to make a comment. one of the callers alluded to it in the last segment as far as health from the -- help from the eastern countries like saudi arabia, lorraine, qatar. because mybahrain husband was a private contractor in we also lived in kuwait. countries are very restrictive as far as who they let him. -- let in. a lot of that from my observation, especially in bahrain, where the royal family

is sitting, they like to keep a balance. if you are not there to work and pay all the fees and the other very restrictive conditions, they do not let a lot of people in. it is unfortunate, just like the last caller said. we have issues here with americans, but we are to have to unfortunately be prepared to take them in. host: thanks a lot for calling. it makes me think of a tweet. they basically ask, how many refugees can the u.s. ideally take? do you have a sense of what the capacity of this country is? guest: we are they country and we are blessed with a tradition that has been much more welcoming to foreigners than virtually any other country around the world. the previous caller said, there is a limited number of countries actually accepting refugees for resettlement.

the arab just in world, but in other places where there is the same kind of resistance because they have certain ideas about their own population balance or whatever it may be. the our countries like the united states, canada, and australia -- they are the leaders in accepting resettlement. just to be clear, there are other countries in the region that have rolled up their sleeves and maybe not entirely happily, but they have made room for millions of displaced persons in the area, particularly turkey, lebanon, and jordan. it's not for permanent resettlement necessarily, but they have provided a means to meet the immediate needs of people who fled across those borders. it is a mixed picture. resettlement needs to be an important part of the overall picture, but also the role needs to keep a focus on trying to find resolutions at the source because the entire problem of

syria displacement is not realistically going to be salt i recently people a long-distance way. i think we are seeing pulling back and pushed back in some of the more generous countries in europe. we need to see if focus on the long-term solutions. host: greg is an independent. hi there. caller: good morning. this is exactly why am calling. the first two callers on the same page i am with being concerned about tax dollars. in minnesota, we have a lot of refugees from a lot of different countries. his grandparents came when they were 70 years old and were like a senior. are they eligible for social security for the rest of their life once they come here? can you tell me that? i had this conversation with him at work the other night.

he said his grandparents can receive social security because they are over 65. texture money. wow, that's kind of amazing. coming here after 70 years old and coming and coming in receiving a check for 20 or 30 years. host: david martin. they: i do not believe would qualify for the basic social security system that you and i pay into during our working lives. publicre other assistance programs like to possibly help out with people who are elderly. some kind of be assistance like that, but i expect they came as a much rger family and they would be working and contributing taxes. it would be a fairly small percentage in a situation like what you describe. the really strong emphasis in our program -- and that differs from what other countries do -- is to get people into the

workforce very quickly and make them taxpaying, productive members of our society. here forf they are 30-40 years and retired, they will have paid into social security system. host: in the short term, can they apply for things like medicaid in the states and welfare type programs and for how long? guest: there are possibilities to do that. there are changes to those 1996rements back in 9 that restrictive those abilities. someone who is got here from a very traumatic experience and a fling their country of origin. is a wider array of assistance that is available for the first eight months or so, but i think that's just common sense in light of the flow. not everybody claims that. a love of people get into the workforce within a few weeks of arriving. then there are other programs that are available to help them make a transition.

andr the first five years for some program some years, they are not eligible until they have worked for something like 10 years in this country or become a naturalized citizen. ask you abouto security and a background check for refugees coming to the u.s., but i wanted to show you a short clip from abc's this week program. it was the head of the house homeland security committee. let us take a look. [video clip] that i can be assured these people can be vetted properly, i would be supportive. the problem is that the fbi andified for my committee they all say to me that we do not have the systems in place on properlyd in syria to vet these individuals. we do not know who they are. i visited one of these cantons order -- can't and jordan and the minister of security says he does not know who these people are. mr. clapper expressed concerns

and the fbi and homeland privately as well, saying we do not have the intelligence on the ground to that these persons properly. that to me -- my first and foremost job is to protect the american people. we are a compassionate nation and we have to deal with this crisis, but this could be a very reckless and dangerous policy. host: so david martin, vetting and screening, security, background checks of these folks -- how will they work and how do they work in general? guest: there will be full finger printing. there will be name checks against an extensive array of databases maintained by the national counterterrorism center , by the fbi, by homeland security and others. and intensive interviewing. there are ways in which lies of inquiry -- lines of inquiry have been developed to help this alte facilitate that process. the homeland security officer makes the decision on

admissibility. but congressman mccall indicates , it is true. positiont as in a good as we have with others to have extensive information with previous involvement or relations with a source country. for example, comparing to iraq, where we had been in iraq for a while, for better or for worse, and had a much more extensive array of information to draw upon for the that impede i think it is a mistake to say we cannot do the wedding. -- vetting. thesechallenging and cases will probably take some time to pursue. it is also important to keep that in perspective. congressmanwhat mccall is suggesting. it is not that refugees are really dangerous or subversive themselves. most of the population is peaceful, supportive of similar kinds of values to what we

support. but it is the nature of the refugee flow from a chaotic war situation and situation where people may not have documents for certain about their identities that makes it very easy for a very tiny number of isistives to be planted by , by al qaeda, by other intelligence services. and that is what we have to be on the lookout for. certainly, the government is very well aware that. i know from my experience in the government in the mid-1990's and back again in 2009-2010, the capacities that we have our way beyond what we had 20 years ago. the systems are much more sophisticated. to be applying this. we do have tools that are available. this can be done, but it is definitely a challenge in the government is very much aware of that on the need for doing the copper kind -- proper kind of

vetting. we will be taking tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands. believescenario where i that the risk levels can be managed. they can be completely eliminated. host: morphy headlines this morning on distorted "the new york times" shows that there's a migrant crisis and rails have been cut off. journal,"ll street syrians find it harder to flee the country now. those trying to escape must navigate trenches and bullets coul\. another dramatic photo of syrians leaving turkey. roses: from nashville, tennessee on the republican line. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments. it seems like -- well, last

week, for instance, there were figures released from hhs, which is a government organization -- health and human services. sir, you're downplaying the amount of aid that is given to these refugees. 90% they said were on some sort of public assistance and that includes social security the snapy, through cards, rent and housing, all caps of federal programs that are given to these people. my second comment is -- the boston bombers'family was on years andr years and years and years. so we do not need any more people coming into this country that are being assisted by the federal government, which is our tax dollars. if we're going to take anybody ends, it should be the christians were being persecuted. host: david martin, what do you

think? guest: i'm not sure what those figures cover. there is no doubt that most refugees at some point get some kind of assistance, but you have to think about the situation. we have a refugee program and that is very consistent about the best of our national tradition. we have to provide some kind of transitional assistance for people coming from difficult in desperate situations. in at of the people come some point received some sort of public assistance, that is through hhs and is not surprising. the key question is how long they are on it and how quick of a chins addition they can make. we ought to think also about how can makefetime they major contributions to this country as well. to me, it is perfectly appropriate for a short period of time. the maximum is eight months after arrival for some assistance. people generally become very productive members of our workforce and our community.

it is in the nature of a refugee program that there may be some transitional assistance, but the emphasis still is very much on getting people off of welfare into productive from functioning in our society. host: we have jacking in louisiana. ville?on arnold caller: one small comment -- we have over 40% of our population that does not work at these people should be working before we get additional refugees. these 40% are on government assistance and have been for years. not months. we have thousands and thousands that have come across illegally and those are not deported. we have some that have come on

visas and they are overstaying their visas by years. how can you tell these people are going to be self-sufficient within eight months to a year? how can you possibly tell us that is what happened? host: let us hear from david martin. guest: the statistics bear out that people who come as refugees do that. in charlottesville, we have a pretty active refugee resettlement program. there are you number of local employers very supportive. people get into the workforce frequently. children get into school. people are working hard on learning english. 40% of americans are not working? i think a lot of those are my generation -- baby boomers retiring and people who are older. they are not working by choice. it is important to have people be productive in our society, but i think overall, those who

come as refugees heavily been a success story and have made major contributions to our society. the washington post recently put out a lengthy story about all this. they have a map of the u.s.. getting back to those numbers of which states are receiving what number of people. by the colors here, the pink-red red colors are the bottom 20%. they are the state that take fewer than six refugees per 1000 residents over the two years. ,hose on the land are montana wyoming, mississippi, alabama, west virginia, south carolina, delaware. then they talk about the top 20% , taking in more than 68 refugees are 100,000 over the is ledveral years to it by michigan, kentucky, north dakota, south dakota. we will continue to look at this map as we go to our next call in your city, democrat. good morning to you. caller: just a registered democrat.

i made a comment and i want to repeat it about israel's attitude. interesting the movement that israelis are safe that they don't want anybody else in there? netanyahu said there are enough room. i'm appalled by americans, particularly the man from tennessee. they haveink acknowledged evolution. they just want to keep people out. so much for tribalism. i do not even like the idea of borders. host: let us go to wayne in el dorado, arkansas. you are on with david martin, who is with the university of virginia as international law professor and former deputy counsel at the department of homeland security. go ahead. caller: thank you, dr. martin. i would like to point out there was an extremely pressing a book written in 1975 called "the camp " which in detail

describes the current phenomenon. granted, it was a bit overdrawn because there was a million people who arrive on the shores of france. correct the politically nonsense that we have got going on -- we got to set this and we are all brothers under the skin. our christian ideals require the stuff. it is brought out how senseless is is when you're trying to absorb a million people of disparate customs, religions, and nationalities. the second thing that it points out is that we have seen only this year the first wave of immigrants. i can guarantee and i will put money on it that next year, it is going to be even worse. my question to you is what are we going to do with the second wave of immigrants? thank you. guest: thank you, wayne. inead the book and i was

government also back in 1980 when we had the boat let from 120 5000 people came within a few months and a lot of people set this sounds like that particular book. i agree that it is overdrawn, but it is a problem when there is a massive disorganized flow. ultimately, massive population movements cannot be the main part of the solution to conflict and human rights abuses around the world. we have to find ways is a world community to address more of what is going on at the source. i do not know that there will be a second way. i think what we are seeing just ,ver the weekend in germany changing some of it signals an thatent plans, indicates at least the way that chancellor merkel's promise of accepting several thousand people was interpreted, that that has simply created a very unworkable situation.

ultimately, i think resettlement will be a part of the solution to refugee problems. i hope that the current situation will be the stimulus for greater assistance provided by countries around the world, especially including those who are not taking very many people , tout a wealthy countries provide assistance in place in the camps where there have been inetter situation turkey, lebanon, and jordan. and ultimately to activate the world community to find new ways to address the underlying conflict and try to bring a solution there. refugees have often unfortunately played that role in the past. they brought to the attention of the world community conflicts or human rights abuses that have been ignored because some people are showing up in distant countries. sometimes that provides a greater stimulus for

adjusting the root cause. i think we will also see european countries tightening up in their arrangements and trying to shift whatever resettlement is occurring from this unfortunate situation right now, where essentially germany's pledge seem to be dependent on people getting to germany on their own, which means they had to go on foot or across other countries or through smugglers utes. if resettlement countries are going to take more people, they need to emphasize the regions where they are and move them in a more leeway. that will help, reduce the flow and make it more manageable and probably reduce the numbers and i hope turned more attention toward solutions in the region. host: we have lebanon, new jersey on the line. hello, michael. caller: how are you doing today?

i have to take a position that we should be taking a 50 million syrians, libyans, iraqi, and citizens because we have been supporting saudi arabia for the last 10-15 years. we invaded afghanistan. we had faded iraq. -- invaded iraq. we supported the overthrow of the libyan government. we are maintaining a civil war of $1syria because billion of funding who are equipping rebels of isis and al qaeda. hoosiers possible. in total war crime charges are taking against the leaders of the united states, we the americans are going to pay the price of all refugees around the world. --eat federations reparations should be made to the refugees.

this did not happen until we invaded iraq, and try to kill the assad regime, which is the groupolerant religious for christians in the world. host: got a lot out there. david martin, anything you want to respond there? guest: the refugees and lots of those regions well before the most recent u.s. actions. i think it is reducing a very complex and tragic situation. to try to make it look more black and white. i do not think casting blame with that is particularly useful. i think we have to find ways to address quite a number of problems creatively and it will justmix of solutions, not the single set of measures that were mentioned there. host: to the politics, "the lead story --es" syrian refugee crisis a no win for obama. human rights group says that the president's opening bid of

accepting 10,000 refugees is far too timid in the face of communitarian catastrophe playing out in the middle east. his colleagues in congress plan to raise him tenfold, but they bite that the republicans in congress one that the u.s. isn't nearly prepared to that the refugees and says that a glass muslims are certain to use the program to get a foothold in the united states. calling in from maryland on the last couple of calls here. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go right ahead. have a mr. martin, i question -- i have a comment. obama said america is only a strong as its middle class. how can we create a stronger middle class for americans when we allow this assistance to go to the refugees that are coming into this country? saide same time, santorum

a lot of people that are coming into these countries that their visas are not being checked and their overstaying and that is creating a job problem. i will let you respond. issues --re are two one is addressing undocumented migration outside of the law and that includes people overstaying their visas. i would support a stronger package of these measures. we would do more with regard to future undocumented migration combined with some realism about the population that is arty living here. that is one issue. with regard to refugees, again, most refugees come here and find their way into the middle class. if they do not, their children do. they can help support and strengthen this country. i think we have got to lift the refugee program in the longer term cycle. a lot tontributed

society and fulfills a key part of our tradition that goes all the way back to the founding of this nation to provide assistance to those who are in need. we do it in a measured way in a sensible way and i think we ought to continue to do it and we will find that it does help support the economy, the culture, and the richest of this country. host: one last call is gary from asheville, ohio. if you could be brief, we are running short on time. like to know what the ideal population of the united states is. number 2 -- why don't you worry about the people of america, american physicist -- citizens? their ancestors made it to the country before all the free giveaways. what about 46 million people on food stamps and those on welfare? care of to take american citizens before we try to take care of the other people in other countries. host: thanks, gary.

final thought from david martin on this whole program in the process of bringing refugees here to the u.s. guest: i think we need to recognize that this is one very small piece of an overall response in a very difficult situation. countries thater would just mentioned -- refugee resettlement has been an important part of what we've done. s with done pretty effectively in a cost-effective way. most refugees become functioning support of members of our policy. the refugee program has been good for this country and has been designed to keep it manageable and relatively inexpensive. we ought to keep that in perspective and try to find ways to do better and address the situation in the source region. the former martin is deputy counsel from the department of common security from 2009-2010 and is currently a law professor at the university of virginia and joining us from charlottesville, virginia. they say love for your time and information on refugees.

appreciate it. thanks to everyone who called in and post a comment as well on twitter and facebook. we will be back tomorrow for another edition as we are every day at 7:00 eastern time with "washington journal." in the meantime, enjoy your day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: "washington journal" continues. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, the road to the white house this morning. live coverage of bernie sanders at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. the democratic residential candidate will