joins us to talk about human cloning. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, september 16. on the hill republicans tried to vote in the iran nuclear agreement but democrats filibustered the proposal. mitch mcconnell will continue to push the debate planning more debates of this week. on the house side gop leaders have not decided on a strategy to defund planned parenthood without shutting down the government. they will attempt to vote on 2 bills related to planned parenthood. we will talk about those debates on "the washington journal."

but first, 2016 presidential politics. we want to get your doubts on the leading republican contender, the non-politician. what is the appeal of the out cider. sanders, the non-a establishment outsider, why is he leading? republicans, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. front page of the new york times this morning as a story about poll.test cbs more in the gop are seeing trump as a winner. republicans think ronald trump has the best chance of winning the 2016 presidential election as their nominee as confidence

fades in traditional politicians like scott walker. the billionaire businessman appears to be gaining acceptance as a possible nominee. the poll found 39% of republican primary and caucus voters viewed mr. trump as their best chance of winning the presidency, compared with 27% in august. -- 26% in august. ben carson another republican with no history in the republican establishment is gaining some board. he is running nearly even with mr. trump. mr. carson is a retired neurosurgeon with a conservative message. he had a 6% early last month praisedidely performance in the first

republican debate. what is the appeal to outsiders to you? we want to get your thoughts. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. donald trump talk to the moderator about what makes them different from typical politicians. [video clip] mr. trump: no politicians in my theion, they talk about moon, the sun, the sun will rise, they want jobs. no politician will get this country. i have been dealing with politicians all my life. if you cannot win and make a lot of money with politicians you are not a good. i have been dealing with them, and no one has that with them better. i know them from the other side. millionsee bush as $100

and hillary as $150 million, those people are controlled by the people that gave them money. they are lobbyists, special interests, and donors. i will tell you that they are controlled. when bush has to make a decision, and can you imagine this guy negotiating against china? we have no chance. who'd you rather i have negotiating against china, trump or bush? host: he echoed that message in a tweet a few days ago saying my opponent's big bosses, lobbyists , and donors are trying to do damage to him. they will fail. money down the drain. yesterday a new ad was announced against donald trump. $1 million to target the in iowaire and voters against the billionaire. they convinced donors to attack

donald trump, though many of the donors thought it could backfire. they put out this ad, take a look. [video clip] which presidential candidate supports high taxes, tax care, and the wall street bailout? it is donald trump. nts us to think that he is mr. tell it like it is, but he has a message that is liberal. trump, just another politician. $1 million ad bike club for growth in "the washington post" they note that some of the gop donors were skeptical of the plan fearing that it could fuel trump's outsider appeal. he responded on twitter saying that club for growth asked me for $1 million, i said no. now he is falsely saying that i

will raise taxes and lower big-league with a middle class. he says my plan will lower taxes. willfor growth says i raise taxes, just another lie. we are getting your thoughts on the appeal of the outside candidates. bill in south carolina, republican, you are first. caller: what we are seeing is the perfect evidence of why trump has the appeal. it is the first candidate, democrat or republican, whether you like trump or not, that is pushing back against the establishment and the status quo in washington that has got us into this terrible situation in the country. not only that, trump is basically coming back -- basically, he is the spokesman for the silenced majority.

we have then experiencing over the last 100 years the cultural marxism, which has everyone scared to , and all of the other silencing of people's constitutional rights woman just to go along with popular -- constitutional rights, just to opinion.with popular it is the decline and everyone that has been trying to be nice hasout saying anything now a spokesman. i would tell the democrats and the republican establishment, get your resume published and get ready to go back to the private industry. trump is coming. he is not my favorite candidate by any means, way, shape, or form. with trump carrying a baseball bat to the establishment, i will send him my donation, because i

am tired of this stuff just like other americans are. host: what is it about the establishment? what do you dislike about washington and the establishment? caller: the establishment is pretty much getting into the country club. whether it is getting into the actual country club or influencing the country club through the donor and lobbyist class, the country club is a locked system. people need to get it back into their heads that we are the bosses. the legitimate government of the united states was rounded on the power of the people giving just enough to legislators to do the things we cannot do ourselves. we have lost sight of that. americans, being hard to agitate or infuriate, we have sat back and allowed this to permeate. i think a lot of people are tired of it.

we want the rule of law enforced, we want our standing in the world to be respect it, and we are not a marxist-socialist experiment that has failed with 100 million people dead in the last century. we are the experiment that is a success. you're calling from south carolina, one of the early primary states, why not your own senator, lindsey graham? .aller: i would have a wet rag andsey graham balances on piece of barbed wire when it comes to wanting to be a moderate republican. americans are sick of the armed wire standards. they want someone who gets off of the fence and takes a position, and holds their theiron, and does not put fingers in the air waiting to see which side he can fall on to have the least amount of political blowback. tot: we will leave it there

get in more voices. phil mattingly tweets another w him you are new hampshire -- a wmur new hampshire poll. trump at 22%. carson, 18%. fiorina, 11%. jeb bush, 9%. john kasich, 9%. the others are trailing behind. mark, good morning. tell us the appeal of the outside candidates. caller: what i find ironic is the way that the established media -- they act like they are so surprised. establishment the . they were the first to feel the wrath of this antiestablishment movement. host: the media? .aller: yeah the internet has taken over the news media. now they sound like, we cannot

believe the appeal of mr. trump, an outsider. they were the first ones to get gored. present company excluded. host: thank you. kevin in new york. love this show, and i love watching you every morning. i am all for the outside candidates, because for too many years these politicians have been coming with the same thing every two years or four years. i know they have to work within the system, but they need to say that. we need to work within the system, stopped just giving us what they think we want to hear -- not what we want to hear. trump, fiorina, and a ben carson are telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. i am all for the outside candidates, i wish we had some on the democratic side.

hillary clinton and bernie sanders are the same old same old. we need new blood. host: you do not see bernie sanders as an outsider? caller: he has been in congress for decades. he has the same ideas he has had for the last two or three decades. it is not like he is a new voice. he is just a new person in the democratic party speaking up. him and hillary clinton are not far apart and ideas or policies. blood, new people, new this is america. we need to get new things going, not the same old things we have been doing with the last 20 years, they are not working. berniehat about what sanders is saying. he is asking for political revolution. he is talking about universal

health care, free college for everyone, loan forgiveness for student debt, income equality. caller: those ideas are great, but we know that his ideas will not go over in america. free college, i think that is a great idea, at least the first 2 years, but he was going to pay for that for every teenager in america? free health care should be expanded, that he wants to spend three trailer dollars in eight years. -- $3 trillion, and eight years. that is never going to happen. and: the washington post august had this piece on the peel of the outsiders. the candidacies of donald trump is fueled bynders anger and the desire for authenticity and political leaders. across the ideological spectrum candidates are gaining traction by separating themselves from the system that many americans

view as rigged against them. is that the appeal? for those of you who like the outsiders in the presidential races, is that the appeal? steve, good morning. caller: that is a lot of the .ppeal today's politicians, especially the career politicians, that was never set up to make a career out of. they are only supposed to be there for 8 years, and they are trying to pad their pockets. donald trump has a payroll to come up with every month for the people he has on his budget. the other politicians do not. they are running their mouths, let me give you that and this, let me take money out of the hard-working american people and give it to the people who do not want to work and think they have something coming to them. ant is why trump has such appeal. they know that he has a paycheck to come up with. he knows you can bring this

country back to greatness. like trump said, in a few years 240ill be like greece, trillion in debt. it is hard to keep track of. host: good morning. are you for bernie sanders, what do you think about the outsiders? theer: i heard a lot of other colors talk about revolutionary ideas and outside candidates. abouter callers talk revolutionary ideas and outside candidates. donald trump and bernie sanders have run under the radar, not so much donald trump, for years. they have renovated. -- they have benefited. ofy have seen the stillness the bush and clinton candidates. they are seeing the opportunity to raise their limelight. as i divisions -- i

see them as the establishment. host: who are you supporting in the democratic primary race? theer: i think i called on wrong line, but i'm looking at carly fiorina, because she has a and she has a good sense of command. we need that in the leadership of this country. host: let's look at what the ben carson said about running as an outsider in this race. [video clip] carson: it is a corrupt place. the engine that runs washington, you take a look and your immediate response is to shut it back down. [applause] is pretty: it horrible. there is a lot of interrelationships and

historical things going on. it is amazing to me the relationships that exist between different people. some have said to me, you could not function in that environment, because you do not know all of the intricacies of washington, d.c. i will tell you what i know. i know the constitution of the united states and how things are supposed to work. [applause] carson: what i would do is, obviously, get people who do understand all of that garbage so that they can help disassemble it. i spent decades in the private sector and corporate america, sitting on boards, national and international corporations, and finding out and figuring out and learning how things that work efficiently work. the united states government is

not one of those things. we can change that, and we can make it run like a business. that is important. the american people deserve to have their money spent the right way. carson, who is on the heels of donald trump in some of the polls. he was at a recent event talking about how he will take on washington as an outsider. is it the way they talk, the words they use, that appeals to you? and independent from tennessee, you are next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: ok. i would like to thank c-span for being on, and tell people they need to watch c-span to see who they are voting for and what their ideas are. i will vote for who i think is the best. it is time we got some of the people in washington, it is time we got new ones in there.

i have not made up my mind to devote for, but i am watching closely. we need new congress and senators in there. they are the ones that can run this country. the president is not the top man. it is time the president we have now finds out that he does not run everything. host: would you go to vote in november? are you going to be voting all of the incumbents out in congress? caller: no. we have some that are good. you need to watch c-span. --as appalled at the appalled at hearing what some had to say. isaiah cummings is a joke. host: i don't want to go too far down this road. we will move on. caller: it is me again, sorry. i used to live in chattanooga in the 1990's.

host: moving on to gary. thatr: i want to say bernie sanders is not talking about an idealistic fantasy that cannot exist. the money is out there. it is in the military. it is in corporations. there is money there to do this work if we have the will to do so. it is not a fantasy. it can be done. if that is what the american people want. the washingtont post editorial board say that mr. sanders' generosity, why is progressive to shower benefits on the well-to-do? why is it beneficial to give funds from higher education to the wealthy, eliminating college tuition makes it free for everyone leaving less of the $47

billion to help low income people who struggle to pay for college and needs. drastically reduce the rate of student loans and refinancing existing loans on similar generous terms. plenty of college graduates do not need help with their loans. mr. sanders identifies challenges, and we support higher taxes to meet some, but the political barriers for modest spending is formidable. a progressive agenda would seek barriers, nothose create in title month's for the upper middle class. a republican, you are on the air. entitlements for the upper middle class. a republican, you are on the air. what is the appeal? owns them.one traditional republicans and democrats, the party helps them get elected in their state.

they are with the party. in the general election, the primaries, it is the special interest rates, the big they own the candidates. they're not free to do with they want to to do or what they think is best for the country. the outsiders are owned by no one, especially trump who is financing his own campaign. i was not a huge supporter of donald trump, i thought he was a joke. appeal, that i see his and it is appeal that resonates to everyone in the country, we need someone in there that is not controlled. in my opinion, and for many years, it has been a two-party system masquerading as a one-party system. when they get in there they do the same thing. says the washington post it is also the way donald trump talks. donald trump is speaking a different language. everyone senses that trump does

not speak like other politicians. is it just the swagger, the clipped accent, the dismissive tone? engagedems emotionally in a way his competitors are not. he is annoyed and exasperated that rings are not the way they should be yet somehow good humored about it. look at the shape of his sentences. they do not work the way modern political rhetoric does, they work like punchlines. they are short with the most important words at the end. that speech is rare among politicians, not just because showmanship,mp's but because they are careful with their language. they are careful about the ways that they speak may be interrupted or misinterpreted. important situations

where a lot depends on what they say and do not say, their language takes on 2 peculiar characteristics. abstraction, they speak less about particulars and more about legislation and the international community. second, more subordinate clauses and subordinate phrases. and soct, in general, on. it is the language you use when you are aware your words may be misinterpreted or used against you. donald trump does not speak that way. ron? did we just talk to you? let's move on to frank. caller: and this whole thing about the outsiders reminds me network, i am mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore. that is all well and good, but congress is an establishment. obama tried to get good things

past, and the republican congress said no. they are representing the minority in this country for years. until people start voting them out of office and get outsiders in, or people with integrity that care about the country, nothing will change. it is sad and pathetic that people are listening to trump and thinking things will change a few becomes president, it is not going to happen. host: vice president joe biden decries donald trump's sick message about hispanic immigrants. he is saying donald trump's language on hispanics is sick. vice president joe biden making those statements. some questioning whether or not he is taking on donald trump as he eyes a potential presidential bid. good morning. tomer: people should read

bomb.'s debt he explains the problem. the ring of power. a few people in washington, you cannot get them out. they are making the decisions. i don't think donald trump can make it, but i'm or him. the electoral votes from the senators and congressmen put in the president. missouri isfrom aligned with the largest tobacco company in the world. his wife, daughter, and lobbyists.l host: are you talking about senator blunt? caller: i did not mention names. host: there is one male senator from missouri. caller: you cannot get a message into these people. they are locked into the ring of power in washington. they are all lobbyists.

thank you very much for c-span. host: david, north carolina, independent. caller: i think trump would have done better if he would have been an independent. andeed more charts illustrations into the focus of the conversation, like taxes, insurances, and regulations. host: you want to hear more policy? morer: i want to see charts and have more access to the numbers in a graphical content. and use facebook to replace my representatives. host: that is todd -- david in todd, north carolina. we are getting your thoughts on the appeal of outsiders in presidential races. what is it that appeals to you? this is the front page of the washington post. topsecond gop debate, it

pizzazz and focuses on foreign affairs and could test the staying power of donald trump and ben carson. some of the candidates, including jeb bush, are hoping for a more policy discussion and debate with the front-runners on specifics of what they would do. yesterday, a pro-jeb bush super pac released this ad. [video clip] 1.3overnor he helped create million new jobs and be told -- and be towed millions in government spending. balance 8 budgets and strength state government. he took on unions and won. thestate was florida, governor was jeb bush. proven conservative, real results. jeb. add in support of jeb bush from one of the super pac's

talking about his credentials. what do you think about the appeal of the outside candidates? carly fiorina is leading in the and donald trump. on the democratic side, bernie sanders is calling for a revolution. a democrat, you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? i respect your channel for giving people a chance to express their views. i think that the problem, the reason the candidates are appealing, is because people are frustrated with the current system, but i do not think that it necessarily -- needs to make it a family business, and continue on year after year. they are the ones that enforce the policy, agree or disagree. until you have changes with those systems, we will keep

getting the same types of things. louisiana, a republican. what do you think? caller: hello? host: you are on the air. what you think of the outside candidates? caller: iis coming about becausf people like george will and brett just knocking the guy as hard as they can knock them. and i watched jeb bush just flameout and they can't handle it. able toare not being stick their nose in this and telling people who to vote for and how to vote. and as far as ben carson and carly fiorina, they are the only 2 candidates i would support financially and with a vote. otherwise, i'm not it -- even voting. host: are you going to watch tonight? caller: absolutely. host: did you watch the first one echo -- first one? caller: absolutely.

my wife and i watched the first one. host: -- how they went about putting together the stage. this is what they say, that the main event gets underway at 8:00 p.m. the backdrop is a retired air force one, which served seven u.s. presidents. as seen in this time lapse video, crews had to erect a platform over helicopter that was used during the johnson administration so they cap -- cameras could captioned the emblazoned 747. the so-called undercut debate gets underway at 6:00 p.m. and there will be 4 candidates for that debate. they will be about 50 minutes of analysis by anderson cooper, then cnn will go up at 8:00 with the 11 candidates. they will be now 11 on the stage. carly fiorina getting a podium there, as she is third in some of these polls. we are getting your thoughts on

the appeals of these outside candidates. dave in louisiana, an independent. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to be on the show. i just wanted to speak a little bit about the republican party issues. campsk you really have 2 there with those who are supporting top and those were supporting carson. those who are supporting trump tend to be -- those are just mainly antiestablishment, anti-politics as usual. and those who are supporting carson tends to be more of the christian conservative rights. host: ok. bob in california, a democrat. caller: hi. what i think is that outsiders are just that, outsiders. in order for a government to operate, you need people to cooperate with each other.

the republicans and democrats are different, not that much, but one is to the right and one is to the left and we move over time. and you have to have people working together. me, he is kind of like archie bunker. he says a lot of things that people me to say. some of it he means two. occasionally, some of it comes out wrong and it is accidental. but i can't see how anybody will -- would want somebody like him to lead our country. or any business. it isn't a business. it is an international country. it doesn't work by profit. it works within the world. host: and a couple of e-mails from our viewers. the united states is in trouble, and, the minds that put us here are not capable or willing to

help. go trump and sanders. is what steve writes in an e-mail. and this, americans are dissatisfied with the lack of performance by a establishment politicians to waste our tax money on foreign military adventures on domestic needs unmet. they are striking out at this history of neglect. we are going to keep getting your thoughts on this appeal of the outsiders in this presidential race. minutes left 10 for this conversation, but we do want to tell you about other news. what headline is the federal reserve is having a two day meeting. it starts today. of course, the debate is will they or will they not raise interest rates. joining us on the phone this morning is rick newman, a columnist for "yahoo finance." what we know leading up to this two-day meeting about what they may decide and who is for raising and who is against? guest: [laughter]

well, we know that we have been talking about it what seems like forever. it is hard to think of any federal reserve act that has ever gotten so much scrutiny. and i think the creston -- question of what we don't know is whether the chairman of the federal reserve actually wants to raise rates or get started with this tightening cycle. and that is really the key thing. you know, there are certain members of the committee have come out and said, yes, it is time. others have said it is too early. it seems like kind of an even split within that committee, and the one person who has not really said what she thinks is jenny gallon, and her vote is most important. so we will find out soon what she thinks they need to do and went. host: what will we find out and how? and what will it mean for the average american consumer? guest: we find out thursday

afternoon around 2:00. the had will put out a statement, followed by a press conference -- the fed will put out a statement, followed by a press conference. that will be where she explains what the fed just to did or didn't do, and then she will take questions from the press. in terms of what it means, probably not much, honestly, at the beginning. not much is going to change. rates, we does raise are talking about a very, very small increase in short-term interest rates. that may have no effect at all on things like mortgage rates and credit card rates and auto loan interest rates, the swords of consumer loads people by because there is not a direct correlation between the short-term rates and the longer-term rates. over time, as though short-term rates go up, back to something

that is considered normal, that will filter through to these consumer loans. but i think the real thing -- this really is not going to affect the real u.s. economy very much, if at all. impact onave some financial markets, and that means the stock market. so if investors get a little bit unnerved by something that the fed does this week, there will probably be a selloff in the stock market. i don't think there is any reason to think it will be a terrible selloff. seewe are probably going to some jumpy behavior in the stock market. host: the "wall street journal" says the fed is trapped by zero. one of the committee members --

is there a risk of that and what that would mean for consumers? guest: yeah, this is a very complicated puzzle for the fed. deflation sounds like a good thing. that is when prices fall. and do a thing, i would be delighted because then i pay less for everything. , that meansfall wages fall. you are most likely to put off purchases of things you don't need right away. and you are always going to be putting off purchases. that is owing to become a problem that is very hard to fix. and also in deflation, debt becomes more inspection of --

expensive overtime. if wages are following and are mortgage is fixed takes more of your paycheck overtime. we don't have that problem right now. we have very low inflation, which if you are a consumer, that is a good thing. but the risk is that the fed cannot really -- you know -- it doesn't have precise control over the level of inflation, and so that inflation -- let's say 1.5% today might drift back into something that looks like deflation if the fed can't control it. there are a lot of economists who don't agree with the "wall street journal" editorial board. they think the fed has done what they have had to do. nobody -- the fed is in the next ordinary position right now, and even the fed doesn't like being where does because when interest rates are zero, if we have another recession or if they

need to do something to similar to the economy, there is nothing they can do in terms of interest rates. economists are kind of all over the map on this. should the fed have done something differently? shouldn't have gotten off the zero interest rates a lot sooner? it is one of those things that we're ask what is the counterpart, what would have happened if the fed had gone back to normal monetary policy sooner, could that have harm to the economy? a lot going on here. host: by the way, our viewers can read your recent column on this, five things the fed's easy money policies accomplished. appreciate your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: rand paul writing in the pages of the "wall street journal," that he thinks if only the fed would let -- would get out of the way, he thinks the fed needs to stop their monetary policy. the sooner the fed officials withdraw their injections, let interest rates rise to their natural levels set by free

markets rather than government decree, the sooner the economy can return to genuine, sustainable growth. that is the latest on the federal reserve, which kicks off that today meeting today. we will find out 2:00 on thursday whether or not interest rates will go up, incrementally that is. back to our question for all of you. what is the appeal of these outside candidates? democrat,ifornia, a you have been hanging on the line, appreciated. caller: oh, you talked -- host: you have been hanging on the line this whole time. caller: i have been listening to the show, and it is just as enjoyable. host: [laughter] ok. mike, you are next. caller: yes, i just wanted to president like donald trump, he is a president for the american people.

in other words, only think back to our forefathers, our country was built and established with the united states constitution was thought out, planned, and there was a lot of "in god we trust ago we need a -- "in god we trust." the white house needs to be cleaned out. people don't trust -- like hillary clinton, she is sitting on the tv and the american people fear what the media -- and you can trust that, you know? have to have someone that you can trust. i have not ever really liked donald trump, but i watched a program one-time where he flew over in his helicopter -- it created jobs. that is what american people want. we want to see success. they want to see someone who has a proven track record. this by the way his verbiage is, i think that is disrespectful,

totally. he needs to clean up his language. i think you would have a great president. it is like a football team. you have to train them. and donald trump can be trained to be a very good president, he just needs to clean up his act on his rivage. hashis mindset, he his -- proven he is successful. he even went through bankruptcy, but he has come back. thank you. host: the "los angeles times" front page, the bay area has spent big on republicans.

move onto douglas in the atlantic, a democrat. what do you think is the appeal of non-politicians? politicians --ll you could put a new group in there this morning, democrats and republicans, and they couldn't agree if it was daylight here this morning. unless someone paid them. to tell you the truth, none of them tell the truth. the lobbyists put them on the ballot. they are the ones that are dragging the country, it is not the politicians. they are doing it for the lobbyists. when they get paid for it.

they are the ones that are making the big money. host: ok. tj in virginia, a democrat. caller: good morning. you know, i think their appeal to these new people like donald trump, i think it is just refreshing. i think that's, you know, the citizens, you know, they are so tired of what is going on. but they are complaining about the way our system is. this is our system. this is how it is supposed to work, and this is the way we want it to work. we don't want people like donald trump or ben carson. they are business people. they don't know how politics work. you have all these different people with different backgrounds. in order for everything to work swiftly, you have to do some andkdoor agreements and -- backroom agreements. donald trump, what is going to

happen -- if he wins the presidency, something crazy would have to happen. let's say he does win. he is not good have any friends. nobody is going to work with -- if we think that the people that worked with president obama, they are going to treat donald trump even worse because right now he is making enemies. he is not behaving the way he is supposed to behave. in every workplace, there is a culture. if you don't like that culture, then you can be a part of that culture, but you can't go in and change that culture. and you are not greater change it overnight and you are not greater change it in four to eight years. so i think the people need to wake up and they really need to think about what they are, you know, talking about donald trump and that he is so great. it is not going to happen. it is not going to work. i'm voting for hillary clinton because -- because she has connections. she is going to get things done.

people say, she is not honest. name one politician that is honest. name one politician that we want to be honest. we want them to tell them things we want to hear so we can elect we expect them to go and do the best job they can do, the best way they can do it, as long as they do it legally. so, you know, people need to wake up and stop talking about the establishment. we need people that are going to do this. it is not good happen because we don't want it that way. we wanted just the way that it is. we need hillary clinton. we need somebody in there that has connections to get things to work. host: we will leave it there. we are going to switch gears. one of our callers brought up former senator tom coburn. he will be joining us next. the republican of oklahoma. we will also talk about the 2016 presidential race.

and also something that he focused on, limiting the size and scope of the federal government. and later, representative gerald connolly will be here. migrantabout the situation, as well as iran. all that coming up after this break. announcer: our road to the white house coverage continues saturday morning with the new hampshire democratic party convention, live from manchester. speakers include five presidential candidates. sanders,linton, bernie lincoln chafee, martin o'malley,

and lawrence lessig. onurday at 9:30 a.m. eastern c-span, c-span radio, and [indistinct chatter] -- c-span.org. night, "washington post" reporter on the presidential campaign and the similarities between donald trump and 1992 presidential candidate ross perot. >> the themes are really overlapping. i think perot, he has a distinct personality that is different than trump. the celebrity factor is not there in the same way it is for donald trump. you see people throwing themselves at donald trump for an autograph and a picture. ,ut being outside of washington the republican party's relationship with trump has been rocky this year. they said, can you tone it down on immigration?

trump said, we will see. he did not tone it down. we will see what the pledge is worth. we could see this year what happened with perot will happen with trump. he talks about wanting to be treated fairly. trump is if anything -- announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back with the former senator from oklahoma, tom coburn, represented the state of 2005 2 2015. sir, remind folks why you left the senate and what you're up to now. guest: i left the senate because i recognized in the senate that the problems were addressed in this country went getting addressed. whether it was under democratic control or republican control. we have fixable problems in our country, but we have a political class that doesn't want to address them because they are

more weight about the next election cycle than they are about solving the problems. and america is looking for leadership. we just don't see it. it is really interesting, all the conversation about the presidential candidates. usually what you see now is not what you get 10 months from now. so, it is just a process. to me, what is happening in our country today, we are focusing on republican presidential candidate or the democratic, but we have taken our eye off the ball. so when i left, and i had planned to leave early because i felt there was another way to fix this and our founders gave us way to fix it, and it is called article five, a convention of states. states where we limit the power of the federal government in their jurisdiction. we enforce term limits.

every other business in this country, whether it is a grocery store or mom-and-pop hair salon, would go to jail if they counted the way the federal government does. you have to balance the budget. you can't continue to mortgage the future. and you have to fix the entitlement programs, which everybody knows has to be fixed but nobody wants to fix them. so it is about crating honesty and truthfulness with the american people. they get it. even if you put polls on millennials, 68% of them don't trust the federal government. and that is a group that is highly skewed towards the progressive thought. ,o, we have lacked leadership both parties, to talk about the real problems. and i think one of the things lead isows people to talking to people about what the real issues are. and saying, hey, we have been

living off our grandchildren now for 30 years. the bill is coming due. how do we go about dressing -- addressing that? host: you are a senior advisor. how would this initiative bring trust back to the system? guest: first of all, it would reimburse a lot of what has happened. if you think historically, the congress has given away its power to the executive branch. and if you -- if you go to statehouses and he talked to state representatives and state delegates and state senators, we look at their budget, the only decide about 30% of it. the federal government has already decided how you will spend 70% of your budget. so we have lost the independent at the state level, but we have had people who don't really know what they are talking about making decisions for the state of oklahoma or the state of new hampshire or the state of

alaska, which have totally different requirements. so it is about restoring the balance of power between the three branches, between the courts, the executive branch, and the legislative branch. it is about restoring the balance of power, as enumerated in the 10th amendment and others, that gives back what our founders wanted, which was laboratories of experiment that as long as they are in the confines of the constitution ought to be allowed to do with the want to do. host: which one of these contenders do you think will align themselves with what you're talking about? guest: they all have to answer the question. because that is the true answer if we want to fix our country. it is really interesting, the lieutenant colonel brought this up 2 days before the constitutional convention. onlye said he can't be the one that can put forth

amendments to the constitution because they are always going to retain power. so i left washington washington knowing that washington is never going to fix them. what i think it's at the seat of the problem of this. we are going to have a catastrophe. i don't agree have to do that. says he wantsrump to make america great again, that he wants to fix it. do you doubt that he can? guest: well, he hasn't answered any questions. what does he know about what needs fixing? he has inherited a real question yet, specifically. it is easy to put out platitude. what is your solution? and let americans judge politicians and how they would go about solving you can take social security, for example. this vote is going to be bankrupt next year.

20% cut in pay for people who are truly disabled. to fix social security, one of the things we have to do is you can't live off social security. so we have to enhance the onefit to the poor person social security, activist the benefits for the more well-to-do. that is the first thing you have to do if you are going to keep the program that says, here is our goal to help and retirement for those to be able to subsist and live. ,ost: here's a recent headline tom coburn despises every candidate except marco rubio. guest: well, that is a headline. not sure that that is an accurate quote. heart, i know his speaking ability, his leadership capabilities. i have not endorsed him. i think carly fiorina -- there are a lot of wonderful people out there, but what we really need is somebody that is going to talk about what a real

problems are, not play the game. had a kind of brings me to another point. the reason you had this whole discussion this morning about outsiders, and that is because they don't give a political answer. and people are sick and tired of hearing the political excuse. and that is why a balanced budget amendment is so important because no longer can our elected representatives give you a political excuse. tell me what you want cut, and then i will vote for it. in other words, we need to pin their years to the wall. their earsre -- pin to the wall. host: why is it a reality now? guest: there are two realities. the first reality is that if it -- is that if we don't fix it, the consequences will be tremendous. i wrote a whole book about it. the second reality is it can get

fixed if you send the right people here. but if the goal of the people who are in washington is to stay in washington, their natural tendency is to not make tough decisions that might put that at risk. and it is totally different than our country was founded and how we were in world war ii and the great bravery of the vietnam vets and the korean vets and the people who served. it is, go out and do what is best and what is right. i put yourself second and the country first. that is what we are not seeing. host: viewers have talked to over the years when you are in the senate, so i know people want to talk to now. let's get to it. tom and california, and independent. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to know how come nobody is accountable for what is going on? host: ok, tom. sorry, tom, i thought you were done there. guest: well, how do you hold a member of congress accountable?

you don't reelect them. so that major have to be informed voters. what is the average turnout? 35% teco -- 35%? we have the government we have because people keep reelecting career politicians. you have seen the change in the house. you have a whole lot of new people. i think that is tremendously refreshing. you know, they are not going to play the game. and there are some real patriots that are going to do what is right. accountable -- if they are not having town halls, force them to have town halls. that is the other trick politicians is now is they don't go home and make themselves available to their constituents. i used to do 70 town held meetings year. part of my job was to make myself available to query. host: we will go to randy next

and i will. a democrat. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i really have a two-part question for you and it is because -- i oppose just about everything, or have an argument, for just about everything you have spoken about this morning. first thing i would like to touch on is that it is the republican, and it is the destroying of the federal ,overnment, that is causing creating a bigger welfare state. and i give you the state of kansas. ahich used to be a -- responsible state, but now they get $1.39 for every one dollar they send to washington in taxes. theseof your allies are republican states, welfare states. so if you are a free trader, and

you voted to give large amounts of money to corporations to move overseas to china, mexico, and take these-- jobs, almost 20 million jobs gone over the last two decades and 60,000 factories gone, you and your policies and your allies are creating a welfare problem. would like to hear what you have to say about it, especially about the kansas being the latest of welfare states. in missouri, which is following in its footsteps. host: senator? guest: first of all, i am known for opposing nafta, so i think your history is wrong. we have crated dependency rather than independency in the states. and as the federal government has taken more, when the hand is back out, they hand it with restrictions. 75% of the highway funds in

oklahoma and kansas alike have to be spent -- we have never gotten back the same amount of money we have spent on them, but to come back with restrictions that cause is not to be able to build highways to our standards and must follow federal rules. well, would we build a mala highways in kansas or oklahoma, we are not taking federal money, much to us about 5/8 as bill that highway as it does when we use the federal money -- to build that tie we as it does when we use the federal money. you can label me as a republican if you want, but most of the republicans label me as kind of a troublemaker. the fact is the more involvement to happen the federal government, the less efficiency you are going to have and the less capabilities of actually allowing people to be free and make choices and live and suffer

the consequences of those. host: there are so-called homemakers in the house right now. this is the house freedom caucus, who wants the leadership in the house to defund planned parenthood. yesterdaydeo released with one of the officials from planned parenthood talking about a pr issue, if they got out about what was happening there. this is the 10th one. some in the freedom caucus want to defund planned parenthood and their willing to shut down the federal government over it. where do you come down on this? well, i don't mind shutting down the federal government if you know you are going to keep it shut down until you win. obamacare, that was a failed strategy. and this one will be, too. it is a coin flip. they should not be funded stand what they have done. but to say that the only way to do that in this environment with

a democratic president that supports it, large majorities on the democratic side that support, even this abhorrent technique of salvaging parts from aborted babies, have to have a strategy to win. and that one won't win. so you could shut it down, but ultimately it's will keep an open back up. and so you will not have a composter goal, but you will ground -- you will not have accomplished your goal, but you will have rattled a lot of pages. some things you can't fix with present alignment, but you can talk about how bad it is and why you need to have it republican president -- need to have a republican president that will allow you to shut it down. sayingwashington times" they are working to avert a shutdown. the bills up for a vote this week will put a one-year

moratorium on federal funding for planned parenthood and impose criminal penalties on abortion doctors who forced to -- who refused to take my saving measures. now.at is the plan right let's move on to bob in virginia. an independent. caller: hi. , -- to overload the government with every social welfare program that you can. and then when the government goes bankrupt, they take it over and -- as a socialist state. there is another way you need to look at. when the government does go broke, the states for a continental congress again. to theop paying taxes

government, let the federal government go into bankruptcy, let the states operate on their you are trye thing to do is for a brand-new federal government. i don't know what the repercussions would be of our government going broke, but each state could have their own national guard forces and to do away with the federal government for the time being and still have a national defense force with the forces they have within their states. but it is going to come to something like that. that is another option. instead of letting the back tots take over, go the founding fathers and let's start all over again. guest: well, first of all, i am familiar with that theory. number two, a lot of states would be able to accomplish that because of their total dependence on the federal government. number three, a whole lot of things would have to change as

the federal government has reached into the authority and sovereignty of the states. is goingre try to do to do the same thing before it gets that bad, which is the convention of the states, which would limit the scope and authority of the federal government. if you go to the constitution, there is a section that lays out with role of the federal government is. we are totally violating the components of that. and we have done that because we have had judges, in their opinion, not in the opinion of what the constitution says, changed the definitions of weeks of words through the years to allow the federal government to take on a greater role. the best government is the one that is actually closest to you. that is way you have the most effect. that is where we catch most people cheating. so what we are trying to do is head off the catastrophe that is here today.

and by the way, the federal government is already bankrupt. last year, the federal government told you that the deficit was $480 billion. but they didn't tell you that the liability side of the balance sheet went up $5.6 trillion. so actually what we added to obligations for our children last year was $6.2 trillion. think about that. divide that by 360 million americans, and you get down to what that is. about $100,000 per household. that is just what happened last year that they didn't report. so having the federal government have to use generally accepted accounting principles so that they have to be honest with us -- and that doesn't include the $4.5 trillion increase in the federal reserve that will someday have to be paid off, or we are going to see our money decrease in value because of it. host: we will hear from roger

next in wake forest, north carolina. a democrat. you are on the air with the former senator from oklahoma. go ahead. caller: yes, senator, who to talk about sitting on the government, the last time that was brought up was during the discussion about the omnibus bill at the end of last year, which i think is a perfect example of how broken the government is. when you take all these trash bills that nobody wants to vote on, they include things such as giving huge concessions to wall street while at the same type allowedhe laws that retired people's pensions to be cut 60%. i was wondering if you could comment on that amazing phenomena. and that is still going on, no matter who runs it. last year, it was run by the democrats. this year, we will see another omnibus. disasters for the

agencies, and to dig into those bills, you see all this -- actually un-american legislating, what i would call, because you are putting little things and that nobody knows about. there is no transparency and they are discovered months after they are signed and in effect. so i think that having appropriation bills, not doing things that the constitution says, passing a budget on time -- what is not happening today is we are not having the discussion because the next election is so important that we can't there expose anybody to making hard choices. while this country was built on the backs of hard people making hard choices. and the fact that washington refuses to make hard choices today tells you that we need to send a whole group of new people here. i'm an advocate

of hard term limits. there is a lay one of our founders that didn't believe in term limits. and the rest of them believed that you didn't need to put it in the constitution. and that was alexander hamilton, the only one to do believe in them. i find what when on the last three or four years i was there, i didn't get to bring amendments to the floor and debate them, nobody would defend them, we are seeing the same thing now. it is a great disservice to the country. and it is about nonrepresentative government and the hiding of the facts. host: to avoid and on the bus -- , appropriations bills have to come to the floor. what about, though, the fact that last week the senate spent one week on the iran nuclear deal? the proposal,red not allowing it to come to the

floor. mitch mcconnell tries again this week, even though democrat said they would filibuster again. they did so last night. here is the headline, that mcconnell plans to force votes on iran. going to keep going down this road. guest: first of all, you can handle time in the senate that are then any of the leaders have in the past 20 years. the senate has plenty of time. go look onon -- c-span, they are in a phone call most of the time. i think it is a big deal. it is the fact that the president of the united states has refused to submit a treaty that is a treaty of the united states to the standards that the constitution says a treaty should be submitted to. that means it comes to the senate, has to have 67 votes to become a treaty. what has happened is we have set

a standard out that the president doesn't have to do that. you know have a president -- precedent that any president in the future doesn't have to bring it to the floor. that is totally anti-constitutional. so i think they worked themselves into that corner. this should have said, no, we're not good to do this and we will let the supreme court decide. think the have worked themselves backwards into a corner that in the long run has given up more power of the senate to the executive branch. so i'm totally opposed to the process. you are undermining the power of the senate when you have agreed to this deal. when they agreed to the process for reviewing it, the 60 day review -- guest: and then the reverse that you have to override a veto of that, that is not in the constitution.

they are not in effect until they receive that advice and consent. host: the deadline for that 60 day review it tomorrow, the 17th. and then the congress will have the 12 day review -- the 12 day period for the override a veto expires after that. then this iran nuclear deal that the president and five other countries negotiated can start taking place. we'll go to lisa in louisiana, a republican. caller: hi, senator coburn. i hope your health is better. guest: my health is good, thank you. caller: good. i don't really understand, does our votes really count? because i heard on a tv station and i don't understand it, clinton said something about she is going to divide because of superdelegates. -- she is going to do fine because of superdelegates. do we really have a voice deck of -- voice? guest: yes, you do have a voice.

i don't know the context in which she was saying that and i think she's probably talking democratic party superdelegates, rather than superdelegates to the electoral college. the would tell you presidential election is 14 months away. all the press in this country is concentrating on it now. my hope would be is that we would be a little bit more long-term and not thinking and thinking a lot the problems in front of the country right now. having the discussion of why aren't appropriation bills going to the house and the senate. when they do a continuing resolution, it is loaded with junk. and you don't get to see it for years. it takes two years to unpack it because it is headed in. and that's not a way to run a government. it ought to be transparent. and there is a great new website up that is available for you to

see with transparency how things have been sent -- spent in the past, that there is nothing up there for you to see how things are going to be spent this year. you can't read the details until right before you vote on it. and that is a -- that is not representative. host: this fiscal year and september 30. that is the deadline for the congress to pass all the appropriations bills, and come to an agreement on each of them to fund the different federal agencies. they haven't done that yet, so they are heading towards a continuing resolution. dan and wilmington, delaware, a republican. caller: good morning. senator coburn, i really appreciate you standing up for

solving problems at all. and i was just wondering -- well, actually, where i come from, actions be gladder than words. in oklahoma, i'm sure that is the same. but solving problems, you left the senate instead of continuing fighting. -- i just wanted to know note you filibustered the veterans aid bill before you left and you filibustered the haitian aid bill on the floor when they definitely needed its after the earthquake. how does that fit in with solving problems? thank you. guest: all you have to do is look at what happened with the veterans aid bill, and it is a farce. it is failing. i didn't filibuster it, i voted against it. i was on the conference committee that voted out. what it didn't accomplish -- the v.a. is cheating veterans on their vouchers right now, and we

have over 200,000 veterans that can't get care right now, which should've been able to get care under the voucher program. not thataiti bill is it wasn't needed, it is how it was going to be spent and who it was going to be spent through. and was the money going to be sent to people who could get it done versus sent people who had others but hadh no expense in getting it done? so it is a matter of the details a dollar of spent american taxpayers' money, i want to know it is going to get done and do what we say it should do. so i investigate below the surface to look at it. it is the same thing with the veterans. we are still failing our veterans. in terms of veterans health care. and it is a shame. it is criminal what is happening today. and so i voted against the very bill i helped write because they

did not go as far as they needed to go to accomplish what our veterans need. host: you and your staff spent a lot of time looking at pieces of legislation, putting out waste, fraud, and abuse books. who has picked up the baton in congress echo -- congress? guest: there are several who are working on it. i'm going to try another book this year as an outsider, and just put forth so people can see. when youre spending $3.5 trillion and you're spending other people's money, and you see just absurdities across the federal government, i mean, we spent $2.1 million on the zipline at an indian reservation that nobody is ever going to tend. what we ought to do is say, is this the best use of the federal government? we ought to go to the constitution and say what is the role of the federal government? the number one well is

establishing a rule of law. that is what we ought to spend our first money. and then went the second and wonder third and what is fourth? and then everything after that, we ought to say is this really the role of the federal government or is it the role of the states? you look at the projections, they are back to $1 trillion in a year. and if you didn't have falsely low interest rates today, we would add 750 billions dollars -- $750 billion. what is going to happen to the american people when all of a sudden all the lies and all the coverups and all the lack of transparency comes do? -- comes due? the all this comes due, standard of living in this country is going to decline. and most people don't recognize that the average family income and real dollars is the same as it was in 1988.

we have gone backwards for the last 27 years, and no wonder it is hard to climb up. times" reporting this morning, president obama looks to take budget fight to the republicans. your reaction. guest: i think it is a good fight for them to have, but let's have a debate. let's not do behind closed doors. let's have a debate on that issue on the floor of the house or the senate where the american people can hear the pros and cons, rather than a writing in a paper by a reporter that has one

position. let's hear it all. we don't get to hear it all. and that is the problem. there is no transparency. how often do you actually see a real debate on the house or senate floor heard -- floor? not very often. and that is what it needs to get back to. we need all sides of the issues to figure out which way we should go. not just one side because it happens to be our side. host: one viewer wants to know this. would you support an amendment overturning the citizens united ruling by the supreme court? in other words, the issue of money. guest: the application we have made, 4 have already passed.

would not include that. but there others trying to work to get that as an application. it is race specific the convention works. you have the identical applications. so if you have an application from new york city that was to overturn the citizens united, and have an application from oklahoma that was to have a balanced budget amendment, they are not the same say don't have 34. they don't count. so if the people that want to overturn that gets 34 states, they can have a convention of the states just on that issue. and it only takes 26 dates. states to resubmit it. but we have a lot of problems. i don't think money and politics is our problem. i think people in politics is our problem. i think korea politicians are our problem. politicians -- career politicians are our

problem. so, it is not that they are not great people, but their reference is limited only to politics. they have never farmed, they have never built fence posts, they have never signed a check on both sides, they have never hired and fired people, they lack a lot of what the average americans have done. they have never taught in the classroom. the vast majority, not all, but the vast majority. we don't have the experience, and therefore when you don't have brought expense, you don't have brought understanding. host: we will go to john in illinois, a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, i just want to bring up the point what this man is saying about the government going broke. the federal government can never go broke. when it comes when the federal government spends. it does not come from banks.

when thanksgiving alone, you have assets and liabilities for zero dollars. so when the government spends, it is a good thing. it is government investment in the private sector. schools, if the government then spells -- [indiscernible] government spending is a good thing, and i just want to bring up that point. he needs to get his facts straight and stop spreading these lies, fear, ignorance. host: let's get a response. guest: well, the federal government is broke. trillion in deficits over the last 20 years. we have unfunded liabilities to the tune of $142 trillion. what that comes up to right now -- and the ramifications of the government spending money they don't have on things you don't

absolutely need is the purchasing value of the dollar that this gentleman makes will markedly decline. all you have to do is go study the myanmar republic if you don't think we are broke because the myanmar republic is a classic example of their banking system crating more and more money, but ultimately less and less value. -- creating more and more money, but ultimately less and less value. $142e have created $142 -- trillion of liability, what has been the standard of living change in this country over the last year's jekyll it hasn't -- last years? it hasn't changed. you are taking a government centered -- i agree we ought to be doing infrastructure, but i think we ought to not be spending our money on a lot of things that don't benefit the average american.

and it is about $400 billion a year, which i outlined six years in a row. you can easily see it. you can go to my old website and see all that. and if we continuing -- continue to spend money that we are borrowing against our children's future to me is criminal, especially when it will not accomplish the things we say it will. host: let's hear from cindy, florida, independents. caller: good morning. i am pro-life, and i started -- something about planned parenthood came out. though the republicans are wanting to cut the money to them , they are giving, like, millions a year to israel. and i looked this up because i couldn't believe it. -- [indiscernible] abortion laws in the world.

a teenager does not even have to notify a parent. they can abort up until birth. the government pays for it. and it concerns me because what are we sending money to countries that are doing something we are trying to fight against? guest: that is a great question. i don't have an answer for that. host: why don't i bring up another issue, and that is the execution that is planted a at three clock p.m. in the state of -- at 3:00 p.m. in the state of oklahoma. who is the? guest: he is a man accused of soliciting someone to kill someone else paid and the person who actually did the murder -- someone else. and the person who actually did the murder got a life sentence. there are some real questions as to whether or not he did what he was convicted of. and so there has been a request by several of us that the government delay this until the rest of the evidence can come

forward. i believe in the death penalty. i probably one of the very few who do, but i think it needs to be applied appropriately. and we shouldn't be making mistakes. i think there is a potential for a mistake care, so i have asked the governor to delay it. host: you haven't heard anything? guest: i have not. the former governor has signed onto that. people who have looked at the details of this, most of the time i think they would agree. host: what are you hearing from people and oklahoma? guest: i'm not. i only signed onto this because i think it is a human rights issue. it is a bigger issue, greta. one of the things that is happening in our country today is the undermining of the rule of law. and when you think about why has donald trump got so much acclaim off his border situation, it is not about borders and it is not about latinos. it is about the role of law.

assumed- four years that it applied equally to all of us, then we see examples where it doesn't. and so the border is an example where it doesn't. marijuana, when there is a federal law against it and there are century cities were there are laws against it, they do it anyway. the thing that holds our country together is us all believing in the rule of law, that we will get almost always a fair deal. but we have now governments deciding to ignore the law, or chisel on the law, that really unsettles people. get this response, which i think we ought to be paying we are theo -- longest established republic ever.

issuesc died over fiscal -- republics die over fiscal issues. the man who said you can print all the money you want, no cost with us. it is just not to -- not true. moneyimpossible to print without impacting people and the economy. we are in trouble in a lot of ways and we really need great leadership now. not partisan leadership, but what are our problems, how do we solve them. we need leaders that americans trust and to trust them to do the right thing. host: our viewers know that you have battled against cancer. where is it now, how are you doing jack -- how are you doing doing? -- how are you guest: i have great doctors. i am pleased, i am happy. host: we are glad to hear it.

thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. coming up next we're going to talk to representative gerald connolly. he will be here to talk about the latest with the situation in syria, iran, and other policy challenges. and then later our spotlight magazine continues with a special issue from "the new atlantis" on human cloning. i call it a threat. we will find out why. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are asked to give their attention. >> number 759. >> we will hear arguments number 18, roe versus wade.

>> it is probably the most famous case that was ever decided. as enslavedted people here where slavery was not legally recognized. >> putting it into effect would take presidential orders and the present -- presence of federal troops and marshals, and the courage of children. >> we wanted to take cases that changed the direction and import of society and that also changed society. >> so she told them that they would have to have a search warrant. and demanded to see the paper and to read it. she they refused to do so

grabbed it, and thereafter the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't remember -- imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than to tell the stories behind great supreme court cases. opposedlawsuit boldly the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation , mr. karma two took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often many of the supreme court decisions are was the court took that were quite unpopular. had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. cases's go through a few that illustrate, very dramatically and visually, what ofmeans to live in a society 310 million different people who

stick together because they believe in a rule of law. landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. a new series on c-span, reduced in cooperation with the national constitution center. view it monday, october 5, at 9:00 p.m. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome back to our , member ofd connolly the foreign affairs committee. let us start with the first page of "the new york times." the headline, president obama considering talks with putin on syrian crisis. should he start talking to vladimir putin about syria decker -- about syria? guest: absolutely.

burden ofre i put the the so-called cold war on president obama's shoulders right i think what prudent -- putin is engaged in is reprehensible. host: what does the unit is -- the united states do? theconflict has dominated report -- the obama administration. needs to look at a little bit of history with respect to russia and the former soviet union and syria. syria is the oldest client state in the middle east for the soviet union and now russia. the relationship goes back decades. assad's father cemented that relationship, so the prime military supplier of nuclear technology, supplier of training and equipping of the military in

syria was the soviet union and now russia. it was no coincidence, for putinle, that prudent -- and russia negotiated an them to remove chemical weapons which were the former this -- soviet union and russia. relationshipd, old . they are not going to give up easily on that. problem we have got is even in military,he syrian they are kind of crumbling. assad'ss -- a solid -- position in syria continues to erode. think qiagen --

putin has some motivation in trying to rescue the situation before death collapse or host: so the united states is training rebels were trying to fight a sod -- assad. what is this doing to long-term relationship between the united states and russia? there is really nothing new with the united states and russia being on opposite sides of conflict, and in fact even using them as surrogate opportunities to try to thrust and perry with each other. this is a very different situation -- difficult situation. the russians are replacing equipment. that is not a new thing. i'm not sure it is going to be saw'sient to solidify a assad's crumbling base. half the population is now on the move.

they are refugees are they are displaced in the country. it is an unprecedented situation. and i think the other thing we need to remember is the united the ability of the united states to control outcomes in syria is extremely limited. is soutin has discovered are russia's opportunities for control. to control what happens on the ground is pretty limited. it is not like president obama has liberally ignored a situation and if only he had paid attention we could have had a different set of outcomes. am -- i have been a student of the region for a long time. host: i want to show our viewers a graphic in "the new york times." it takes up an entire page. each of these dots represents a person killed in the syrian war

since its beginning. that is two hundred thousand people. approximately 29,000 have died in shootings and mass killing rate 27,000 died in mortar and rocket attacks. 18,000 have been killed in air attacks. 8800 died after being kidnapped, detained, or tortured. others died after being exposed chemicals. 670 medical workers have been killed. 565 have been killed by starvation, dehydration, or lack of medical care. syrians are leaving in mass. aid groups are criticizing the united states for not taking on more. guest: you mean refugees jacket -- you mean refugees? host: yes. guest: the immediate haven for refugees ought to be the region itself. the gulf states need to step up to this challenge.

and we need to do our fair share, as do europeans. but that also involve careful screening. given the complexity of the situation within syria and just outside of syria, the work we need to be doing is accepting the last thing- we need to be doing is accepting folks were part of the problem. having said that, there is a humanitarian crisis that we have to help, and most certainly we can do more. host: front page of the paper today saying hungry -- hungary stopow erected a fence to migrants who are trying to get to germany and other countries. germany has no call for an emergency european meeting. you agree with this move to try to keep these people who are trying to escape in the area? hungarian officials are saying

is they have made it out of syria to turkey, they are safe. there is no reason for them to hungary. to guest: i would hope that the europeans can come up with a unified, humane approach to this crisis. people are risking life and limb. the image of a young baby facedown on a beach, whose parents were trying to flee -- the violence you just recounted, i think ought to be a very sober reminder are all of us of the nature of this crisis. we are talking about fellow human beings. parochial aside concerns, religious concerns. as people who have a value system that says a human being comes first, let's respond to this crisis. i would hope that this would be the response of european

leadership. hungary is a small country. their resources are somewhat limited. but they are part of the eu, they are part of nato. i would hope that upon reflection the prime minister would join with his colleagues in europe to a more in-depth that addresses the humanitarian crisis. host: our guest is congressman gerald connolly gerald connolly, democrat of virginia. let's talk about domestic issues. anthony is up first in st. paul, minnesota. democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. this with thee on foreign intimacy policy is that we need to start -- what i keep hearing, and don't cut me off, but the united states seems to have this issue with the arabs or persians, whoever, over in

the middle east. enough totupid believe everyone will shoot off a bomb. but we all have to understand that nation means mutual destruction. we give a lot of money to israel and we don't get anything back. thathole argument has been it is their land and they will give it back. we should demand something for what we give, that is basically it. thank you very much. i heard that as an opinion, i am not sure i can comment on it opinion. host: what would you say to him in that we are not risk -- we are not demanding something in return in the aid we give to egypt and other countries in that area? guest: the united states and israel have had a deep and abiding relationship. they are a strong ally. i think that is going to continue. i think israel remains an island of stability in a sea of

instability in the region. and i think that relationship matters now more than ever given what we are witnessing with these neighboring states. that is not a relationship i think we should abandon. as to the question of, do we demand an up of israel, it is a very complex relationship. there is give and take. we receive as well as give. i don't think it is as simple as the caller presented at all. it is a very valuable and important relationship. critical right now in terms of stability. host: are you -- but they are against us nuclear agreement. guest: the government of israel. clarificationat that you just made, you voted for approval? guest: i think the prime minister of israel and his ambassador here in washington is dead wrong.

their solution would guarantee their fears would be realized. the only way to roll back the nuclear capability of iran right now is as agreement. prime minister netanyahu is not has offered an alternative. people as it -- people i respect, like senator joe lieberman, has said say we just cannot sell it. let's go back to the negotiating table and come up with a better idea. furthermore, to me, it is specious logic is not delusional to believe that the united states having taken the lead in these negotiations could say to ,is leadership partners in iran we have changed our mind about

our own agreement. we are going to announce it. come back to the table and the tough new negotiations. either the way, we reserve apparently the really -- the right to resort -- were not sent to. it would erode u.s. credibility. none of those negotiating partners, including germany, france, the u.k., russia, and china, let alone iran, would agree to come back to the table. and the very sanctions regime we are concerned about would collapse. we need to enforce the sanctions , which they have not. furthermore, the agreement rolled back existing capability for the first time. uranium has to be transported out of the country. 3.67%,el of enrichment, nowhere near it. plutonium actually has to be

.ismantled in perpetuity inspections regimes, at the snap of a finger, with the exception of undisclosed sites. what that means is, if somebody says i don't know what is going on over there. maybe nothing. we have to look at it. that has a delay, but it is a delay to review it among our partners, and iran only has three days, not 24, to comply. not to appeal, they have to comply. i think it is a pretty robust regime. so do a lot of back's diplomats, so do a lot of republicans who cannot vote on the deal, like former secretary of state colin powell. they see this for what it is worth, which is a guarantor of a nonnuclear iran. and an avoidance of the adoption

of military insurrection. we will go to michigan, iraq, an independent. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: sir, why don't they use the word atomic, it's that is calling it nuclear? you are dealing with the atomic energy it is an atomic bomb. i think you folks in washington need to look at more pictures of the disaster that we put down on hiroshima and nagasaki with the disintegration of people's skin and bones. you are still paying for it. it caused disaster. bomb, and youc need to look at more pictures and realize how much we have been spending to apologize for what we did, and we said never again. never again means never again. how many nuclear physicist are

there out there who can tell you what enrichment looks like, or what the ingredients are? who are these people who are being trained in the united states for what to look for, showing that we have an atomic arsenal and we have stuff sticking out of the ground? thank you. have a nice day. god bless america. guest: thank you. with respect to who are these , one of these is the secretary of energy to his the -- who is a nuclear physicist. he was very valuable in making sure the technical details what -- were met. z and wesecretary moni are so blessed to have him serving our country. that was a huge asset. if you prefer the word atomics, that is fine. you can call it atomic.

i think it does not matter whether you use atomic or nuclear. it is what we want to avoid. we do not want an atomic arms, nuclear armed iran, capable of having and deploying an atomic weapon. that is the goal. i was proud support the agreement, and as i said, i understand that reasonable people might come to other perspectives about what they might find, but i have yet to hear a single critic offer anything like a tenable alternative. you need an alternative if you want to vote no. host: we go to new hampshire, mark, and atkinson, new hampshire, a republican. caller: good morning. guest: how are things up in new hampshire? nice and cool

this morning. not bad. what happens if this deal falls apart in iran? second of all, you say israel is our ally, but you forget in 1950 they tried to start a war between us and egypt. 67. they tried it to blow up our uss liberty. they were trying to start a war between us and egypt. i will leave you with that thought. guest: i think you meant in 1956, the suez crisis. yes, look, we have our , but weces with israel agree on a lot more than we disagree. obviously the obama administration has been pushing the netanyahu government, the current government of israel, to be more forthcoming about settlements, more forthcoming about a two state solution, more forthcoming about engaging with the palestinians to achieve that.

we also have been prodding the who unfortunately pulled back at the last moment in terms of sitting down and having real negotiation with the state of israel. that is a challenge as well. no relationship is without problems. every family has its differences. sometimes they are pretty severe. that does not mean we are not family and that does not mean we do not share a lot more in common than not. i think that characterizes the relationship we have. host: jorge is next in albuquerque, new mexico, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to point out the fact that the syrians, and really all people, have only two options. fight or flight. int is why i thank god here america we have the second amendment, the right to bear arms, so we can protect ourselves and our property. thank you.

guest: i don't know. i don't think the lack of weapons, because of the lack of a second amendment in syria is the problem. i think quite the opposite, there are too many weapons floating around. i agree with you, the options are pretty limited. fight or flight. that is the tragedy of syria today or it but what caused that? the lack of any political base. the lack of these people to express himself openly. the lack of free expression with respect to the ballot box to elect a government of their choosing. havethat happens, when you percent a long. of time and authoritarian s,ctatorship under the assad that always breeds extremism. that is that we are witnessing in syria today and it is destroying the country as we know it. host: los angeles, eddie, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple questions to

ask. one is about the israeli thing. they received the largest amount of our foreign money, but they are also the largest contributor to our government. it is like a kickback. you speak of the humanitarian thing, what is going on in syria , but they did not have a problem about blowing the both of with the libyans coming over. tell me the difference of that? is it race, or what? as a been on, -- as a vietnam vet, with what they did to the uss liberty, i can't see them being an ally. could you explain that please? the liberty thing occurred in the midst of a war. accidents happen. .ook at for example ourselves friendlye killed with fire because we called in a bomb

strike and got the wrong coordinates. that is the official version of what happened, and obviously people can draw their own conclusions. with respect to aid to israel, we do provide a lot of military aid to israel. over the years we have provided economic stability funds as well. investment in technology and in self-defense for israel? importantnk is a very investments. technology that we have used has protected israeli citizens and communities from rocket attacks from the gaza or

from other parts of the region. it has worked. it is technology that actually has a lot of promise in terms of self-defense technology. street.it is a two-way i think we benefit from it, and clearly the israelis do as well. it is a relationship that is not without problems, but it is a relationship that i think we need to undergird. host: "washington times" front page this morning, iran and north korea cooperation. what is your reaction to that?

concerned about this going forward? guest: all the more reason why we need a robust inspections regime, and we need a robust nuclear rollback agreement, which is precisely what has been negotiated. a disagreements that will go forward. i think it is precisely what is needed to make sure that that kind of thing is known and prevented from having any material effect on iran's nuclear capability. proliferation proliferates in secrecy. the whole point of this agreement is to put a lot of sunshine into what is going on in iran so that that kind of secret development can no longer occur. going to see on the agenda when the chinese president comes to washington later this month? guest: there is a cannot play of issues -- there is a panoply of issues.

intellectual property protection, chinese hacking into including the breach of 22 million federal and retirees. all that has to be addressed. it cannot be annoyed -- ignored. there are human rights issues in china that have to be addressed. there is provocative action by china in the pacific basin that relationshipss with south korea, the philippines, vietnam. of buildingactivity up atolls and coral reefs to become military bases and airstrips, it is a very alarming thing. way to resolve

international, territorial disputes, and that behavior is extremely bothersome. i think it is unsettling in the region. it is an opportunity to talk and ,o exchange i hope candid views and to try to get some commitments out of china. there are also air is bank of -- areas of bank -- cooperation. china is one of our partners and had adhered to agreements and been helpful more often than not in this project -- process. we also need china to help deter the north korean issue we were talking about a few minutes ago. the only relationship a have is with china. it is frayed, there is a lot of difficulty right now. china is the one place we can go

to to try to get some helpful morevention to just her extreme behavior by north korea to be try to get them more cooperative in terms of international norms. host: another common ground appears to be climate change, "the wall street journal" this morning with the headline that president obama and the chinese president are advancing a climate deal. go to richard, an independent. caller: hello there. how are you doing? guest: good. caller: what you were just speaking of is of great importance to me, but what i actually called about is these refugees. when you see them, there are children and women. i don't see a lot of old people. people 20's, 30's, 40's that are actually in good shape. very good shape. why wouldn't they want to go to

baghdad? or to jordan? to join forces against this, rather than run away and leave ?heir country behind i can't relate to that. that it would be better for them to try to get rid of their problems rather than run away from the problems. eventually down the road this will cause political and other hardships when these countries taken large quantities of these people. host: do you have any thoughts? , i think most human aings want a better lives -- better life for themselves and their families. i don't think they want to be engaged in military conflict or hostilities. they don't want to sign up for that. certainly going to another country, like iraq, is not a

particularly viable option. there is no clear signal they would be welcome. they have their own violence and civil conflict. why would you go from the fire back to the frying pan, if you will. i think they are seeking a modicum of safety, ease, and opportunity, and they are fleeing a source of violence that is life-threatening to them and their families. that is a very understandable human reaction. the numbers we are talking about, greta listed the deaths, but the refugee numbers are enormous. syrians, maybe as much as half the population, has fled from the violence. that tells you a lot. not an easy alternatives within syria.

we are trying to create one, i am not sure that is going to be successful, because the radicalization of the conflict has proceeded at a pace. we have seen that in other parts of the world as well. withutions often start very noble, visionary, all touristic sentiments, but then cynicism sets in in terms of who and otherhe conflict agendas come into play. we have seen that time and again, and we certainly have seen that in syria. i'm not surprised that most of the people fleeing the violence don't want to go back into the violence. they wants to get away from it and try to protect their families. and tragically, they are looking for opportunities and alternatives that can protect them. i think that is a very understandable human reaction,

and i don't think that is an outrageous goal or desire on the part of those refugees. we'll go to john in beaverton, oregon. democrat caller. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: hi. caller: next thursday you are going to have an immigrant visitor to congress, and i'm just wondering, do you believe that congress is going to be able to listen and really listen of careupon his message for the poor, care for the environment? peace. for do you think they are really going to be listening to him, or do you think it is going to become a media event? ensuretizens how can we that congress, senators, and so on hear the message and work towards that message? guest: what a great question.

certainly i think congress will listen. the second part of the question is, and act upon. that is a different matter. unfortunately our politics are so polarized that people will hear what they want to hear. what theytake away are predisposed to take away. certain talking about aspects of catholic doctrine, that will fall on certain parts of the hall and the country. and if he is talking about the other doctrines of the church that you cited, that will be heard by others. the famous expression, who am i to judge. well, he is pope. if he is not supposed to judge,

then who is you are -- who are you or i to judge? not everyone is comfortable with that. it -- his encyclical, the first one he has written, was devoted to climate change and the environment. i made some people uncomfortable, but that is very much part of catholic teaching. i think it is very significant but that is the topic you chose -- but that is the topic he chose for a teaching document. he has an intriguing figure. i think a breath of fresh air on the international scene, a very human person with a human touch. i am very much looking forward to seeing him, greeting him, and listening to him. journalhe wall street those quote says it is one hot ticket. if you can get into see the pope -- do you have a ticket?

have one ticket, and my wife made it quite clear that that ticket is going to her. i have another ticket for the stand up to greet him. we are actually going to go through a number of firsts. be reaching out to catholic parishes in my district to see if some of those folks would like to avail themselves of this very limited number of tickets. host: you yourself are catholic. guest: i am. host: how important is this to you? your wife made a close -- made it clear. guest: i was 10 when john kennedy ran for president. headlines atr the the time saying, can a catholic me president? ,n other words, our loyalties our patriotism, was under question.

that was so offensive to me as a young boy. so i am somebody who really is quite aware of a large part of american history that discriminated against us as we were suspect. we were a foreign religion. we are a mainstream religion with the largest and nomination in the united states. i think that question has been put to rest. but to have the pope, for the first time ever, address a joint session of congress, in many ways says a lot about the maturation of american democracy. about diversity, about immigration. i'm just so excited that this historic figure can play that role as the very first to do so. and that my country has come to grips with putting aside the suspicions of the past. we will move on to harry in dallas, pennsylvania. republican.

good morning. caller: congressman, i would like to thank you for your support of the iran deal, i think that was the proper thing to do. guest: thank you. caller: the idea that ashton carter went over to israel and give them 1.8 elaine dollars in military aid on top of the tenant half-million we give them every day, well we have to borrow money from china, really perturbs me. when a previous color use that israel does plenty for us. i would like to know what israel does for us. withse the way i see it both the iraqi freedom and desert storm -- war, not one israeli soldier served in either war. now take this refugee thing. all these dictatorships have been not -- knocked out of the box by the israeli millturn. is it not a fact that the israeli government controls the united states military. well, where did you

get that? that is a big assertion you are making that they control the u.s. military. you have to have evidence of that. me ask you, congressman. do you take money from the jewish lobby? that's right, coming off. host: you are still on air harry. guest: i don't stake money from eight jewish lobby. .ost: he is referring to apac think they give money to congressman. i am aware of them, i am aware of j street. harry, the jewish community was as split on iran as anybody else. , werelationship with israel have economic ties with israel. we have cultural ties with israel. bonds betweenlogy

a very vibrant technology community in israel and here in the united states. hasome county of fairfax been very active in dealing with technology in israel. cooperationmilitary , you said that no israeli soldier fought in the gulf wars, well that was because we did not want them to. you may recall, take the first gulf war when president george h w bush was president, we went to great lengths to try to provide defensive protection to israel when saddam hussein was sending -- scuds intorael israel. we needed to make sure that did not happen or it and to israel's credit, they exercise in or miss self-restraint -- they exercise

enormous self restraint. the bond is deep, it involves technology, the economy, military. i think a relationship of in a sea of ac -- instability in the region. we need to find a path towards these. of time onnt a lot that process with the netanyahu government. his commitment to peace was certainly in question during his reelection campaign because he denounced a two state solution, which is the official policy of our government and his. that created some real problems. i hope over time we are going to be able to work this out now that this iran agreement is behind us. leah is watching us in rosenberg, texas. a democrat. you are on the air. caller: yes, good morning.

leah, i am so glad to hear there are democrats down there. caller: i am a very strong democrat. my question is this. does israel wants to it -- wants to attack iran? think about it. we never saw the treaty. they said that is not good, not good. they never think any treaty is good enough. they have only one thing in mind. they want to destroy iran. ok, so that sounds like more of your opinion than a fact. we will have to congressman jump in. i think think what --

the lying you are referring to is the police of prime minister netanyahu has already decided a priority. that any solution to iran is a military solution. i must confess i have that impression as well. when that agreement was negotiated with iran, it has been in place there for two years and has worked. prime minister netanyahu criticized it, call the an existential threat to israel, it wasn't worth the paper it was signed on. in this agreement he has said, as an alternative, why not just extend the existing agreement, the one he denounced two years ago. so with credibility is somewhat questionable with respect to this issue. not his commitment to israel. his sincerity about protecting israel, i don't question that at all. but i think that his attempt to undermine this agreement here in

the united states, the activity of both him and his ambassadors. the last time i can think of in american history where, for example, an ambassador has played that kind of role, delivered lead to undermine the government,cy of a was someone during george washington's term in office. and i don't approve of it. everyone gets to have their own and take in to come the eye of the president of the to undermine and to denigrate an agreement at that point not yet finalized -- not proper. i don't think it has caused any good. i think that is true if you look at the results.

it certainly did not have a great impact on my side of the aisle with respect to erosion of support for the negotiation. the vice chair of the new democrats coalition. this is a headline, you plan assertive new action in the house. what are you planning on? guest: the new democrat voice is sympathetic to a relationship with business. it is a high-tech coalition. generally a pro-free trade .oalition it wants to see the united states be competitive for the next generation. that means we need to make investments and research development, investments in education, investments in infrastructure. any greatcritical for country to be great and stay great. we are retreating on all three as a country. so we are trying to foster that agenda and to play a

constructive role within our party and with the other party. on tradele, the vote promotion authority was a vote largely negotiated between the new democrats and speaker boehner and republican leadership. a very mutual situation. it saves the day. we worked on a bipartisan basis. it was very effective. i think we are known to step up to the plate, respectfully, we are democrats, committed democrats. we share democratic values. we also believe in compromise and in working with the other side when we can. we think we need more of that, not less of that in today's political environment. all right. we will leave it there. host: all right. we will leave it there. only come back we will continue

with our spotlight magazine series, "the new atlantis." a look at the issues with cloning. we will be right back. >>'s signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of fairs and festivals from across the country, with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule. in end of september we are new york for the brooklyn book festival celebrating its 10th year. in early october it is the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that we are live from austin for the texas

book festival. and near the end of the month we will be covering to book festivals on the same weekend. from our nation's heartland, it is the wisconsin book festival in madison. and back on the coast, boston book festival. at the start of november we will for wportland, oregon ordstock followed by the national book awards in new york. and then we will be in miami for the miami international book fair. our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues saturday morning with a new hampshire democratic party convention live from manchester. include five democratic candidates, former secretary of state hillary clinton, vermont senator bernie sanders, former governor of rhode island lincoln chafee, martin o'malley, and harvard professor lawrence lessig. saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on

c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. taking you on the road to the white house. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesdays in our last hour we take a look at recent magazine articles. byay a special issue i -- "the new atlantis" taking a look at the issue of human cloning. of "the new editor atlantis" is here to talk about it. so what is going on with human cloning right now? guest: human cloning was all over the news 10 years ago, it was really in the news until 1997 when the world first heard dolly theation of sheep. in the last decade or so it has really faded from the headlines. i figure there are two big things that people really don't

understand about human cloning. one of them is that human cloning has happened. human embryos have been cloned and stem cells have been cloned. i think most people probably that longize that expected milestone has already happened. the other thing most people don't know about human cloning is that there are no national laws against it. there are laws in a few states, but there are no laws of the federal level. attention toring both the science and where it now stands, how it has changed in the past two years, and to bring attention to the legal situation, the policy situation, " have"the new atlantis published this special issue dedicated to is going science, ethics, and policy. host: why do people not know? guest: that is a great question.

say, the news of dolly just exploded. there was a huge controversy that erected. president clinton made statements, the united nations made statements. the press went on for several years. but we have seen it kind of faith from the headlines for lots of reasons. it is not really clear, we can try to explain why. it is clear that the american people are still strongly opposed to human cloning. the most recent gallup survey to look at this which was in 2014 showed that americans are very strongly opposed to cloning. one of the surveyed options that gallup asks that had the most disliked possibilities. the american people are generally opposed to human cloning, especially human cloning to create children.

who is -- host: who is doing this science? it something under the radar. guest: it sounds like it, it is really not that secret. it is just not making it into the popular press. it is appearing in scientific journals. is just nothing at the scale that there had been years ago. the chief research team, i guess you would have to say at the moment, is a research team out in oregon. they have for the past two or three years been making real headway in human cloning. it is that team the first managed to obtain embryonic stem from aor make cloned -- cloned human embryo and that work has since been replicated elsewhere. stands where the science . it is connected in interesting ways with other morally

controversial areas of science as well, including the possibility of genetic engineering children. but did get some attention and headlines over the course of the past six or nine months, and deservedly so. they were breakthroughs in genetic engineering that well at the service might seem like a separate issue, genetic engineering, creating children whose genome you might prefer, it is actually quite closely related to cloning. is this science, the research that is happening right now, getting federal money? who oversees this? moment there is a law that prohibits the use of federal dollars to support cloning research, to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes. you cannot use federal dollars. that is the only federal law at the moment on the books that really affect human cloning.

prohibited, you just can't use federal dollars to conduct the research. that does not mean that you cannot get other government dollars, other taxpayer dollars from the state level. indeed there are several states that support cloning research with taxpayer dollars. host: because they see a benefit, corrected? guest: that's correct. host: what are they trying to achieve? what is the benefit? broadly speaking there are two categories when we talk about human cloning. very closely,ed but they breakdown in this way. we is what in the report call cloning for biomedical research. that is cloning that would be used to search for cures, for any number of different diseases . cloning that would be in some way attempting to help people, heal people. at the same time there is, closely related to it, this cloning that would be creating

children, to bring up into the geneticchild who is a pit of an existing -- and eggs -- a genetic duplicate of an existing person. people are pretty strongly opposed to it. as members of congress are pretty strongly opposed to it, or is not -- at least when it was last openly discussed on capitol hill. the question of cloning for biomedical research, we sometimes call it therapeutic mostng, i would say members of congress would support. but in fact both forms of cloning begin with the same act, which is creating a cloned human embryo. each of us was an embryo at one point, so you are creating a cloned human organism. in the case of biomedical research cloning you then destroy and dismantle that human embryo for its stem cells, or

for its constituent parts. it raises one set of ethical questions. cloning to create children create a separate set of ethical question. in this report we create -- we treat them separately. to a report,ording the pros of human cloning include faster recovery from , and defective genes could be eliminated. you call this a threat. guest: it is important to mention that the potential outcomes, the potential benefits of research cloning, cloning for biomedical research, are all very speculative. we are not talking about cures that are right around the corner. in fact one of the most distressing aspect of the debate about human cloning back when it was really at its peak was the

frequency with which researchers and advocates of human cloning would promise that cures for diseases c would you right around the corner. i think more levelheaded observers would say that even for human cloning to proceed, even cloning research to proceed, even if that were to have the happiest possible outcomes, cures would not be right around the corner. i should add, one important if you were to have a situation in which human cloning could really bring the kinds of cures that people are talking about, you are talking about a situation of cloning on a mass scale. you are not talking about just one or 2, 5 or 10 human embryos that are being closed, -- that

are being cloned, you are talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of egg cells would have to be harvested for women. they would have to be turned into clones and send those embryos would have to be taken apart for the stem cells that could be used to produce these kinds of cures. host: you are talking about manufacturing? guest: manufacturing is a tricky word. we are talking about manufacturing with biomedical research. if you were talking about cloning to create children. host: let's see what our viewers think. areer: i want to ask you, psychiatric drugs, do they had anything to do with the process of cloning? action seeing much local

federalws allowingnt of the -- the scientists to clone? drugs about difference of that might be injectable, there are not nothing. most of the cures there would be related to cloning research are still speculative. as far as local action, there isn't much to say that is happening. it hasn't been a lot happening at the state and local level. laws at allno relating to human cloning. no laws supporting or attempting

to regulate or prohibit it. the report that we published in "new atlantis" contains an appendix that offers a state-by-state breakdown. you and other callers could go on to our website, look at the appendix and see whether your state has some sort of laws relating to human cloning. your state does not. 106: take a look at page1 of "new atlantis" report. washington state, no laws. west virginia, wisconsin, wyoming are there any laws to prohibit human cloning. guest: there are seven states that prohibit cloning for

biomedical research and cloning to produce children. an in between option. they tried to permit cloning for biomedical research. dubbed thoseave laws clone and kill. forbidden to implanting that into the womb. host: we're talking about human cloning. "new atlantis" magazine calls it a threat. what do you think? eastern part of the country, 202-748-8000. mountain and central, 202-748-8001. mike in atlanta.

leave? have you been on i have a question for adam. does this have to do -- is this going to hurt black people? they don't want the black baby with the black genes. how does this affect black people? how do you order your magazine? where do you get it from? welcome back, greta. " can behe "new atlantis found online for free at newat lantis.com. you can order a subscription to the print edition. you can buy back copies. it is all online for free. about the matter of race and

research hasedical a long and complicated history that does overlap with america's troubling history with matters on race. there are ways if you want to trace back some of the origins of some of the wonders that we are grateful for in biomedical research, you can see that in the early days of the 20th century. however, by and large, the s orted history is largely a matter of in the past. cloning is not talked about as a matter of race. peopleu hear about who might like to clone, they will talk about people who may well

be black. the possibility of cloning, say, michael jordan or some other great athlete or thinker. the transcend racial lines. it is complicated and troubling. you are talking about the possibility of creating a clone of a person who already exists. that would not be fair to the person who is being cloned if it is being done without their consent, and for the child who is being created. it is a profoundly morally troubling. " focuses on modern science and technology, but not

in the way we think about other magazines. sometimes it is the ethical and policy aspect. sometimes it is more literary and cultural issues. some of what we do is investigative reporting. we published a report on ebola that investigated the way that the government handled the ebola crisis last year and into this year. there was some mismanagement and some misspeaking on the part of dc, so some of what we do is investigative reporting. social,o explore the philosophical implications of modern science and technology. it is produced by a pair of think tanks in washington.

now.any years old center for the society.technology in we have done this issue in partnership with a bioethics body, the witherspoon council on the ethics and science, a group of experts and academics hwwho have expertise in the law and othere and medicine and fields as well, theology, political philosophy. host: this issue of human cloning that adam keiper cited earlier. gallup has tracked your the leafs on this. 34% find human cloning morally

acceptable to cloning animals. most people are opposed to this idea of human cloning. jeff his next in hawaii. caller: i am amazed at the advancements medical has made an it must've been vast amounts of money. what is the most outrageous thing you have heard about with this industry is doing? guest: good morning. it is very early in hawaii. good to talk to you. kansas has no laws regulating human cloning, ally also has no laws for bidding or encouraging human cloning. most't speak to the

outrageous story or suspicion related to human cloning. i would prefer to focus on where the science is. at the moment, we're talking about the possibility of creating cloned children or cloning human embryos and destroying them for research. the premise is morally troubling. host: cap much money are we talking -- how much money? guest: it is not funded by the federal government. some funding does come from state governments. some states have programs sest ut up to encourage human cloning . there are dollars coming in from private companies. that money is not publicly trackable.

we do not know. we could be talking about something that is a small number over the course of the past 17, 18 years since the news of dolly , or numbers could be in the billions. it also depends whether you include stem cel researchl. host: what industries want this science? guest: sure. generally medical research. it is difficult to tell where it will be rebounded to the benefit. there are biomedical firms that have been interested in this since the dolly days. others have just didn't created. most of the interest is still in the academy. there is a possibility that a range of biomedical companies

could start to capitalize on this. there is a real overlap with the ivf industry. the first test tube baby was born in the late 1970's. the rise of the in vitro fertilization industry, which has helped thousands, hundreds of thousands of couples with fertility problems to have children. there is some overlap. proceed towhere to create children, that industry might begin to offer that as more of a slate of options. connected inis complicated ways to the provision of eggs that could be used by researchers. host: jeff in frederick,

maryland. caller: i have two questions. could you explain to the listeners the process from start to baby of cloning someone? ct of there not be a se people that could be immune through cloning to all of the chemical weapons and radiation that are bad in the world? host: ok, jeff. guest: sure. thank you for your question. to wouldn't use cloning attempt to create a subgroup of humanity that would be in some way immune to different dangers. you might see such scenarios in

science fiction. they are somewhat far afield from where the science would be today. the question about cloning. -- we fine cloning in define cloning in general terms. there are several methods you could use to clone an embryo. you could clone -- there are several different techniques. the main technique is called nuclear transfer. explanation is egg has the nucleus removed and into it is put the nucleus of a different cell, a donor, that comes generally from

an adult. it would be coming from the cells that make up your body. the e andinto thengg it is stimulated -- egg and then it is stimulated in some w and begins toay divide -- and begins to divide. after some number of divisions, you would dismantle the cell and use it for stem cell research. if you wanted to do the same embryo presumably without that much difficulty from the way other techniques, you could and plan that human embryo in a

womb. if you bring to term the pregnancy, you are talking about a clone of an existing human being. host: bob, you are on the air. mentionedam had disease cure would be done by being millions of embryos dorted through and worke on. in order to produce the large number of cloned embryos you would need in order to make

possible some of the more starry-eyed speculation about the cures, you would need to create the clones. a very larged number of eggs. described,i you would take out the nucleus of the egg. thousands,ens of dundreds of thousands of clone human embryos, you would need a large number of human eggs. host: monrovia, california. you are next. caller: good morning. guest: good morning.

caller: gwendolyn from california. host: you are on the airhost:. caller: question. many states, same-sex marriage is now wrong. it appears the cloning process -- they do not go through the regularmail- female -- male-female reproduction process. coupleshey are same-sex who choose to use technologies to have children. they do not need cloning to have children. person whore, a wants to have a child, might wish to use human cloning to have a child that is genetically related to himself or herself.

that is a possibility. if you would be doing that, you would create a child with one genetic progenitor and doesn't have a mother and father, in the sense that we have understood the word and that all humans have had a genetic mother and father. you would create a child doesn't have a genetic mother or father but a genetic progenitor, somebody who came before. that is morally troubling whether the end result is to create a child in a same-sex union are just an individual who wants to bring a child as a single parent into the world. host: joanna, welcome to the conversation.

caller: good morning. thank you so very much. i believe it is up to god. we are not god. he is the great creator. he is the one that can be born again and can live forever. host: a question of religion. guest: religious concerns are the most important aspects too many people. to be able tot make accessible arguments. are groundeds that in an understanding of the science and offer an ethical argument and look at the policy questions. would welcome people who have different views on any part of this, weather it

is religious motivation, and feeling strongly like joanna felt. we need to make publicly accessible arguments. host: we have about 10 minutes left about this idea of human cloning. "new atlantis" is that with a special issue which they say is a threat and where the science is. phone lines will be on your screen. let's go to william. ly and move on to john. hi, john. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman. if you read the book about the boys from brazil after world war hitler. guest: thank you for callingguest:.

there is a novel that john is referring to, "the boys from brazil." it was turned into a movie. if you have netflix, you can see it through netflix in the united states. hitler isvie in which cloned and there are some dozens of young boys around the world who are genetic copies of hitler. part of a scheme in the novel. severalone of depictions of cloning in fiction raise thenk helped to awareness to the possibility of cloning and to confuse the issue. the science is not always

accurately explained in these novels and movies. the novelization of cloning goes back decades. you could argue the novel worldve" depictsw a cloning scenario, and up to the present day. host: next to texas. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i was curious if you are familiar with a doctor. hello? guest: could you say the name again? the is from north carolina.

printers to print organs. u are shaking your head yes. guest: this is a very interesting question. they are attempts to create organs that can be transplanted into people that involve in some cases cell lines that have been cultured and are put up by printed.ng or 3-d this is very early work. it opens the door to the possibility of dealing with a shortage we have in the united states for printed. organs for transplant patient. they were waiting lists for ailing ino are this research. researcherike this

may be doing this and it opens up the possibility for great hope.we have a weet from one of our viewers. where to other countries stand? guest: it is worth mentioning there are several countries that prohibit human cloning. we should say that in some ways you could argue we are behind the curve in regulating prohibiting human cloning. canada, germany, italy. these countries have much stricter prohibitions than the united states has. that is discussed in this report. there are some countries that do not have laws regulating human cloning. there are some countries that are required to encourage human cloning.

situation.orrisome just because a country maybe proceeding does not mean that we ought to be. we ought not to simply follow the pa moral leader on the world stage. host: al, good morning. what do you think? caller: interesting and good morning. i am curious about your explanation, the process of cloning. s it a fertilized egg cell? and many companies are involved in cloning? guest: their research teams in universities chiefly.

it would be difficult to know how many if any companies are engaged in this. companies have talked about their work and many have faded and disappeared. the funding situation has disappeared. it is hard to know. the egg that has i nucleusts removed is not a fertilized egg. its nucleus is removed. and a nucleus from a donor is inserted in its place. host: bill is next in chicago. hi, bill. people do notize

understand. you can genetically maybe clone someone. you cannot clone obama. places,ot clone people, things. you cannot clone those things. guest: you are exactly right. if you create a clone of a human being in hopes of bringing the second coming of a person who already existed, you are going to be stymied by the fact that the new person is not going to be living in the same circumstances as the forbea rer. if you want to clone your grandfather who grew up in the

depression, the major up to be a different cloned person. a very large part of who we are is influenced by our genetic makeup. to some extent, the created clone would have striking similarities. to could create a twin born later. host: i want to quickly ask. what is the worst scenario here? guest: i guess i would say the worst scenario would be human ed children are created widely and they live lives that rped by the way wa fact that they only have one genetic progenitor and they have

to live in the shadow of someone else who existed. host: so much more to talk about. adam keiper, thank you for your time. "new atlantis." you can check it out on their website. we take you live to the armed services committee. there holding a hearing to counter the islamic state in ira q. the goal is right. many of us agree with the military strategy that seeks to empower local forces in iraq and syria to combat isil. with u.s. and coalition training, equipment, assistance and airpower. one year into this campaign, it seems impossible to assert that isil is losing and that we are winning. and if you're not winning in this kind of warfare you are losing. stalemate is not