rules for powerplant emissions. we will take your calls and you can join our conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. the new york times is reporting president trump approved strikes last night against iran, but delayed carrying out the attacks. we want to get your reaction to the news. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. join us on twitter at @cspanwj or you can also tell us your thoughts if you go to facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your calls in a minute. the front page of the new york times this morning with the headline that the president called for strikes on iran, but

changed his mind. from there reporting, a little more this morning. officials said the president initially approved attacks on a handful of iranian targets. the operation was underway in the early stages when it was called off according to a senior administration official. planes were in the air and ships in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down. reuters is reporting overnight this is what happened according to the headline. tehran received a message from president trump warning attacks were imminent. also from reuters, iran told the united states via the swift ambassador that washington will -- washington for former -- had no

here is how the president sounded yesterday midday in the oval office before a meeting he had with the canadian prime minister on iran's bringing down that u.s. spy drone. here is how he sounded at this point yesterday. [video clip] >> when i came here, iran was in 14, 18 different sites of confliction, extremely hostile. they were screaming "death to america." i think iran made a mistake. i would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down. fortunately, that drone was unarmed -- there was no man in it. it was over international waters, but we did not have a man or woman in the drone.

it would have made a big difference, let me tell you. it would have made a big, big difference. i have a feeling, i may be wrong, and i may be right. i am right a lot. i have a feeling it was a mistake made by somebody who should not have been doing what they did. i think somebody under the command of that country made a mistake. let's see what happens. it is all going to work out. >> are you saying it was not intentional? >> i find it hard to believe it was intentional. i think it could have been somebody who was stupid that did it. smooth. very full a that i can tell you. host: that was president trump midday yesterday on iran, his thoughts on what happened when

u.s. drone was shot down by the iranian revolutionary guard. when you hear the president say it would make a big difference, he was referring to a question from a reporter what if the drone had been manned? that is when he said that would've made a big, big difference. according to the new york times, a strike was set to take place just before dawn on friday in to the minimize risk iranian military and civilians. secretary of state mike pompeo, john bolton, and the national security advisor and gina haspel favored a military response. a top pentagon official questioned -- cautioned it could relate -- congressional leaders were briefed by administration officials in the situation room yesterday. that took place at 3:00 p.m. yesterday with about 20

lawmakers and that lasted about 90 minutes. we are getting your reaction to this news of the new york times that the president called for a strike and then told the military to stand down. good morning, michael. don't see us going in that part of the country again. to call before the armchair generals get on here. would you like your son and daughter to die over there? thank you very much. host: did you fight for president -- did you vote for president trump? caller: yes, i did. host: was part of the reason you voted for him during his campaign when he said we have to end these endless wars. is that is part of -- is that part of the reason you voted for him? caller: yes, it is.

afghanistan and iraq, this has to end. we get in there and 20 years later, we are still there? for what? our sons and daughters are dying , for what? this must end. host: if the president does decide to strike iran? doesn't and let's not hope -- hurt civilian people . the people over there need to look at themselves and decide if that is the kind of regime they want to live with or maybe some regime should be made. -- i we have no chance think that will escalate things in that part of the country, which i don't think anybody will really like. host: robert, independent.

let's get your thoughts this morning. caller: my thoughts are simple. the people in the pentagon are not capable of waging war anymore. 1991.e been in iraq since we have watched iranian skill 200 something marines in beirut. our soldiers in iraq. we have sat back and done nothing about it. the people at the pentagon and the people of this country are not capable, cannot handle the type of warfare this would bring . if you want to deal with iran, you are talking about totally annihilating that country. .uclear war this country cannot handle that. you guys are too soft. they cannot handle a bunch of hotties on horseback.

they were shocked when 19 hijackers came into this country, took down three of our buildings, poked a hole in the pentagon and these guys were not even state-sponsored. the cia has failed us. the pentagon has failed this country. if you want to look at warfare -- how warfare is fought, look at what they did to dresden and germany. right now there is a refinery in pennsylvania on fire. i wonder if that is coincidence. the american people have allowed foreigners into this country. you think that war is not going to come to this sure? then you have you guys in the media who are going to undermine the united states, undermined this country. what the hell is the sense? of theblow the hell out whole place or leave it alone. host: take a look at this out of

the united kingdom, the express newspaper put together u.s. firepower versus iran's firepower. aircraft, 14,000 on the u.s. side. a little over 500 iranian aircraft. ships, almost equal. tanks and armors, 48 thousand over that for the united states. about 4000 iranian tanks and armor and active personnel, you can look at the numbers. 1.2 million for the united states, 500,000 plus for iran. jim in west virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. robert needs zoloft or something. he is all upset, yelling. he was talking about the hijackers. those hijackers are from saudi arabia, trump's buddies. i know itron called off the airstrike. his main advisor, his boss,

putin told him not to. host: why do you say that? we won't find out. we will go to george in michigan. hi, george. called a couple months ago and you were at the end of a five-day run and i said i had never seen that before and then you were on another five day run. i asked if brian lamb was going to give you a raise or a card or something and you said you would show him that piece. did you ever get that raise or card? host: no. still waiting. caller: tell brian lam to open little bit -- as far as does, thet this guy poor guy cannot win.

whatever he does, yes or no, someone will complain about it. i think albert einstein said he did not know what weapons were going to be used in world war iii, but he knew in world war four, we were going to use sticks and stones. we are probably on the path to there. brian lam, open up the wall a little bit. you have to get greta that raise. this is only about the third time since that -- i called a couple months ago, you have been on. you said you were going on a new protocol, but you have been somewhere else. i have not seen you much. host: we were mixing up -- mixing it up for a little while, playing with the format. thanks for watching and thanks for calling. independent. this morning, reacting to the front page of the new york times. reporting -- the

president approved strikes and then called it off. caller: i don't understand what this president is doing. he scares the crap out of me because he changes his mind about everything and then he has got bolton trying to start the war on anybody. i am just afraid for the future of our country, of this world, thisur children because guy thinks he does everything good and right. i really hope congress could stop him if he decides to use the nuclear weapon because i think he is crazy. i think he would do it just to say he did it. i just pray for all the children in the future of the world. thank you. ort: after the president after the lawmakers met at the

white house in the situation room for that 90 minute briefing yesterday afternoon, congressional democrats emerged from the classified briefing urging the president to de-escalate the situation. they called on the president to seek congressional alteration before taking any military action. we are getting your thoughts on that. perspective, the u.n. -- the iran ambassador to the united nations sent a letter droneday saying that this , the united states had been warned repeatedly bore -- before it was shut down through radio. he also writes while the islamic a public -- republic of iran does not seek war, it reserves its right under article 51 of the united nations charter to take all appropriate necessary measures against any hostile act violating its territory and is determined to offend its land,

sea, and air. this is not the first provocative attack by the united states. officially protested the united states through introspection -- interests section in the embassy of switzerland and tehran." the coordinates of that drone and saying it was over iranian waters, not over international waters like the united states is saying and they also say we retrieved sections of the united states military drone in our territorial waters. on iran tb, this is what they are showing. they say this is pieces of the retrieved section of the u.s. spy drone downed earlier and landed in their waters. it was flying over, they claim, their airspace.

the pentagon is denying and saying they were over international airspace and landed in international waters. chicago, a democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing? first of all. in 2011 when president obama was running for reelection, the first thing that came out of donald trump's mouth was president obama was going to start a war with iran so he could win reelection. thank god that did not happen. trump should have stayed in that agreement with iran, but he pulled out because it is something president obama got through. anything president obama do, he wants to reverse it. when the guy called in and told you putin told donald trump to step down, if you go back from yesterday on msnbc they said putin did warn trump not to go

to war with iran. go in your files, pull that up. you all seem not to pull anything up when people call in. he did tell trump not to do it. if trump's wants to start a war, i wonder if they will put his two sons, john bolton, put them in some uniforms and lead the charge. why are you starting a war with those people not bothering us and if he so concerned with nuclear, why is he giving north korea a break? missiles.s sending up why don't you use the same bullying tactics with kim jong-un like you do on the rest. we need to leave people alone because our children, not the millionaires and billionaires and people like trump and his two sons, they are not going to war. trump did not go to war, the united states needs to mind

their own business. host: vladimir putin yesterday held a call-in program with russians, over four hours he took questions and he was asked about escalating tensions between the united states and iran and here is what he had to say. [video clip] > the u.s. blames iran. if there is going to be a war, what will russia do? >> indeed. i don't know why they are asking me. perhaps if you don't have a direct line with your colleagues from iran. says the option is on the table. i would like to say straightaway that that would be a disaster, at least for the region. the outcome would be an outburst of violence. the number of refugees would increase.

those who would initiate such an toion, that could also lead negative consequences. it is really hard to calculate what the backlash -- what the ramifications would be. iran is a shiite country. .ake the islamic world they are capable to extreme measures if they need to protect themselves, if they need to protect their country. we could take it to an extreme, but we don't know what that extreme will be. event't really want the to take that turn. we don't want to see that scenario. iran has been fully compliant

with the iaea. have beenons observed, so no sanctions should have been applied against it, it is not justified. host: russian president vladimir putin yesterday asked about u.s. and iran tensions. president trump in 2013 sent out this tweet referring to president trump -- president obama and tensions between the u.s. and syria at the time. he wrote, "what will we get for bombing syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict? obama needs congressional approval." what is your reaction to that? does president trump need congressional approval. ? trump approved a strike yesterday against iran, but

delayed carrying out the attack. in the paper report as late as 7 p.m., military officials were expecting a strike. let's go to randy in new york. caller: good morning, greta. thank you. i am a 22 year air force retiree it i want everyone to calm down. president trump was being presidential. he explained it to iran in advance, they blinked, and that is what we wanted. host: what do you mean they blinked? reported, hes been called them and told them it was imminent, correct? they did something which prevented them from being hit. host: what do you think?

i don't understand. what do you think the president would be asking for to not strike? , but thatdon't know is something we will never know. host: randy's thoughts in new york. chris, republican. caller: thanks for having me on. here is what i think about the overall situation. all these war hawks that surround trump, i am happy he is not listening to them for now. with that situation in general, .ver time, he might tend to so i don't like that. terrible iran, it is a idea to escalate in general. this would be a disaster for america. host: that me read for you and

others, the new york times is saying it is john bolton, the national security advisor, gina haspel all favoring military action. it is top pentagon officials who are cautioning that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for american forces in the region. here is a headline from earlier this week. gop lawmakers telling the hill that some trump officials contradicting pompeo on iran and al qaeda. that is one headline from the hill newspaper. let's go to john in pennsylvania, democratic caller. good morning. i saw on sunday on cnn that germany and iraq -- i mean, iran, were working out a deal to

replace the dollar as the currency for oil. on,t then, the light came we are going to war. everybody that has ever tried to do this has ended up dead. qaddafi, many others in the past . america needs to wake up. witler, as i call 45, he is not my president. this guy is a nut. he has violated the constitution repeatedly and he is scary. host: richard, minneapolis. minnesota republican. your turn. caller: that guy -- that last guy was wackier than looney tunes. the last time i heard the international waters started 12 miles out.

shot down the koreans the plane and the squadron i was in and they were in international waters. if they took care of korea then, we would not have the problem we have now. i think trump will probably wait until the next one and there probably will be a response. host: would you risk -- support that? caller: iranians have been sponsoring terrorism all over the world for years. host: would you support that, if the president were to strike iran? caller: say that again, please. host: would you support the president striking iran? caller: if the iranians are lying as much as they did in that last statement you read -- if they do something again, it probably will gain the support of a lot of people. host: all right, richard.

bill in ohio, democratic caller. you are next. caller: yes. doesn'te our president really think things through. he says things just for .olitical gain a lot of times put a strike on, that probably came off the cuff of his head without thinking about the problems that may follow. i just wonder about him, he has me concerned. host: mike, good morning. caller: thanks for having me on this morning. i want to respond to a question,

you made a comparison between obama in 2013 and president trump at the time, civilian trump. hemade a comment saying should get approval from congress and that is correct. here is what is different, you are comparing apples to oranges, syria did not shoot down one of the u.s. aircraft. they are saying the aircraft iran shot down, no one was in it. iran did not know if anyone was in it or not. there could have been pilots in that aircraft. rightent trump is in his to go ahead and order the retaliation he did. that comparison between what obama said and when trump said he should get approval from congress is totally different. i can't believe you guys make

comparisons like that without really looking into the difference. host: i see the point you are making. let me show you a headline from the new york times. iran has ties to al qaeda president trump is telling a skeptical congress. the point you are making is a point senator lindsey graham and marco rubio and others are making. they attacked the united states. the president's, commander-in-chief can respond. caller: that is right. you asked the question earlier -- you made a comment earlier that in 2013, civilian trump made a comment saying obama should go to congress. host: just getting people's reaction to it. this is something people are pointing to as well to say this is how civilian president trump -- this is what he said in 2013 about president obama. the point you are making,

understand, listen to senator enzi graham. this is before the briefing at the white house with lawmakers. this is after lawmakers received a closed-door briefing on capitol hill. lindsey graham says he has spoken to the president wednesday night and spoken to him thursday morning as well. this is what the senator told reporters. [video clip] >> i think anybody would believe we are one step closer. assethot down an american well within international waters trying to assess the situation. what are you supposed to do? -- ronald reagan took a lot. lot.president has taken a he would like a better deal. it to me it is clear the iranians are trying to break us between our allies and trying to

create chaos and you cannot legitimize this way of negotiating. bomb,korea will explode a shoot off a missile saying that is the best way to get america off the table. host: that was lindsey graham yesterday afternoon. margie in philadelphia, we are getting your reaction to the news, front page of the new york times. the president approved strike and called it off against iran. caller: this is trump's playbook, he set up the same thing in north korea, had the aircraft carriers and everybody over there ready to go to war. he has done the same thing with iran. when he first came to office, he got out of the deal and started putting sanctions on him and the next thing you know, he is setting up a world war with iran. and knockede bait

out one of their drones. trump is responsible for this 100%. he is nothing but a bully, a liar, and he is dangerous. he goes around to these countries and starts calling them names. the next thing you know, you are set up for a war. he did not pull out of this deal. somebody told him if you don't shut this down, what is going to happen and he listened to them because he does not have common sense enough not to set this up in the first place. he is going to run the united states and the whole world and putin is not going to allow the united states to do what they did in iraq. host: daniel in rhode island, independent. what are your thoughts? caller: i think the american people have a very short memory because the same liars in there

now are the ones that said iraq had weapons of mass destruction. israel has no oversight with their nuclear weapons. i don't see us going to war with them. host: rhonda, new jersey. caller: hi. .ood morning, america we, as a country, need to come calm thisere and whole situation down. i don't agree with donald trump on anything he is doing. him pulling back on this, he has my thumbs up. listen, we don't need a war. we don't even have the cabinet in the white house to instigate a war. nobody has a security clearance,

that is legitimate except for pompeo and the guy who wants this war with iran. our kids will be the ones that .ill die in this war i think we need the 13th amendment evoked immediately and -- take over this country. this man is psychotic and all you people who support donald trump, it is your kids he is going to end up murdering. host: i think you mean the 25th amendment. reaction from capitol hill, we will show you reaction from capitol hill as well as -- the president called for a strike -- military strike against iran and then called it off. congressional leaders were over

at the white house in the afternoon. at 3:00 p.m., they were in the situation room for a classified briefing. following that briefing, chuck schumer, democrat of new york talked to reporters and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i am going to make a brief statement on the meeting and not answer any questions. i told the president these conflicts have a way of escalating. the president may not intend to go to war, but we are worried he and his administration made bumble into a war. the democratic position is congressional approval must be inuired before any conflict iran. one of the best way to avoid bumbling and iran is to have a robust, open debate and congress to have a real say.

an amendment ordered by every democrat led by senator blumenthal which would require congressional approval of any funding supported by all of us. we are asking them to do the right thing and give us a vote on that amendment. thank you. host: in a new york times -- the senate voted thursday to block arms sales to saudi arabia. the house of representatives also this week voted to repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force as part of this $1 trillion spending bill. the authorization does not permit the opening of a new conflict in iran in 2019. trump drew his online

against acting without congressional approval in a tweet in 2013. a similarhen, echoing tweet from earlier, the president must get congressional approval before attacking syria. big mistake if he doesn't. mr. trump faces a crisis in credibility over the wizened is deal.dom of the nuclear over the morality of enabling a conflict in yemen. despite a stated divergent entering another war, he shows little sign of having learned a lesson that it is easy to start conflicts and impossible to predict how they might end. your thoughts on this this morning. this is mattie, independent. --jennifer from cincinnati, independent. caller: what i am worried about is it seems like everybody is

trying to steal all resources. all the countries that have oil are in trouble. we have some sort of war or famine going on. worlde countries of the that have oil. we, as americans, we are going to have to stop this president. i am just totally very upset over this. we just have to stop this president. host: dennis in georgia, republican. caller: good morning. how are you today? the pictures of this drone shutdown is 50 years old, that .s what they are saying this is in the past. aam just saying, this is drone shot down three years ago,

there is no reason for war. is saying this is the second drone that flew into their airspace. caller: since yesterday? host: no, no, no. iny are saying a drone flew three years ago and yesterday, the drone flew into their airspace, they are showing on iranian press tv, debris they are saying they collected in their waters. it has been identified -- verified? host: this is what iran is saying. caller: it is so hard to believe anything anymore. people need to slow down and think whether this is real, made up. overave the white hats there creating problems that aren't even real, they are weak -- making them up. governmentme which

-- governmental organization would you believe? caller: i would believe the president of the united states. in georgia. more of your calls coming up on this breaking news from the new york times about the president calling for a strike against iran and then changing his mind. we will get back to those calls in a minute. lindsay is joining us on the phone, senior washington editor with the canadian broadcasting corporation. the canadian prime minister in washington yesterday meeting with trump in the oval office and going to capitol hill to meet with leaders there. why was the prime minister in town? what was on his agenda? guest: there were two things justin trudeau wanted to do. he wanted to press with the speaker of the house and those

in capitol hill the importance of ratifying the nafta agreement, the usmca as quickly as possible, but he had a big ask for donald trump and that was to get the u.s. president to bring a message to the chinese when they meet very soon and that is detained canadians be released. dustin trudeau has had a hard time getting through to the chinese. canada is in dispute with them ever since the huawei executive was arrested in vancouver on orders from the united states based on an extradition request by the united states. trudeau sat in the oval office and president trump said he would carry that message to president xi saying if i can do anything to help canada, i will. that was seen as a victory for this visit, and an achievement justin trudeau wanted to take

home. that mean fors the prime minister back home? guest: it is kind of a tough ride when you are sitting there looking friendly with donald trump in the oval office because donald trump is unpopular in canada and you don't want to look too close. it is the same thing many leaders had in terms of the dilemma. the fact is if it looks as though there is a normalization of the relationship between justin trudeau and donald trump is significant. it was just a year ago when things really went off the rails after the g7 and donald trump got on air force one and started tweeting against justin trudeau. since then, the canadian government has made efforts to try to have outreach. they dealt with the steel and aluminum tariffs issue, those have been lifted, clearing the path for eventual erratic --

ratification of the trade agreement. i think what we saw in the oval office yesterday was more akin to normal. it even a little bit boring, status quo. they talked about the things you expected them to talk about. the language from donald trump was certainly friendly and as much as canadians don't necessarily want to see their prime minister cozying up to the president, i think there is a realization this is a difficult relationship and canada does not want to be in the bad books, necessarily. host: how do canadians view this trade agreement and what is the process in canada for approval or ratification that differs from the united states? explain that to our viewers. host: right now canada has to vote on ratification in the parliament. that is what trudeau's

government has been. we have seen the mexican government go through and they have already voted and gratified . canada could do that, too and it would pass. everyone is worried about what are the changes the united states is going to make as a result of negotiations happening ? the canadian parliament has gone home. yesterday the house closed up business and the question for justin trudeau is does he then call everyone back and vote on or does he wait and see? the problem with waiting and seeing is we are right up against the canadian election in october and trudeau would like to have this signed, sealed, delivered, done, and be able to say it is an accomplishment for them.

talk would like so he can about it leading up to the presidential election. what we heard from trudeau yesterday is the message he likely delivered to the speaker of the house in the closed-door investigation in that canada is wary about reopening the agreement. it is not necessarily the specific phrasing the united states wants is something they could not agree to, but reopening it changes the timeline and there is a concern from trudeau going back to that mess of long-term investigations could end up with worse outcomes for canadians. he passed that message along to pelosi. the speaker has so many other considerations, not least among them is the political consideration of giving donald trump a victory he can tout. it is unclear whether there was any kind of persuasion on that front from the canadian prime minister. host: the prime minister was in

-- oval law office office when reporters were asking the president about escalations from iran. from your reporting, would canada be a coalition partner with the united states if the united states were to strike iran? guest: i think the language the prime minister used was supportive, as we have seen through the rest of the international community, but much -- like much of the international community, canada is wary of the news overnight and the escalation and they are approaching that like many things with donald trump, with a sense of caution. appreciate your time this morning, thank you. guest: thank you. host: this is what the canadian prime minister had to say when he was in the oval office and reporters asked him about the situation with iran.

[video clip] about theconcerned escalation with iran recently. we look forward to discussing --h our closest allies host: that was the prime minister yesterday in the oval office. cnbc is atrts for the white house court every day tweeting out this morning white house official response to my question about president trump's decision to call off the military strike against iran. "we do not comment on preoperational military planning." salmon wisconsin, your thoughts. -- sam in wisconsin, your thoughts. caller: let me tell you why i think we should not attack. it would virtually stop oil

moving through the gulf. any soldier with a handheld rocket could start shooting at oil tankers. that would send oil prices sky high and possibly start a worldwide recession. number two, iran's topography and size. iran is huge and also mountainous. they have a million man army spread out across the region. the solution is we must negotiate and i would finally like to say we must move to other energy sources. we need to create a national energy innovation contest. let's engage our schools and innovators. as long as oil is so precious to to a muslim area that we have to move this oil, we need

different energy sources. then iran -- who cares what happens over there. we don't need oil anymore, we have got to move away from it. host: you and others may be interested in this analysis. ton's risky strategy, trying force the world to reign in president trump. they quote an iranian expert saying creating a sense of urgency among europeans as well --the chinese and russians threats against oil tanker traffic and iran was not behind the attack, would harm the asian a warning to-- american allies in the middle east. this was a direct message that if iran is being squeezed, its share of the oil market is being squeezed and then other oil

suppliers will feel the squeeze. california, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. there is no one on the planet i respect more than the c-span staff. more recently, people have begun to try to attack the people on c-span and i always view that as comparing someone to the nazis. thank you, c-span. i respect you guys the most over any other media source. i just want to tell you i am terrified about going to war .ith iran if we go to war, we go alone. if anyone thinks iran will play between the lines, they will not . soft targets in the united states will be open again for the iranians.

. listen to what leon penn at a said, it is not worth going to war about. upthey attack again, setting thatnding up f-16's and sort of thing, but it is not worth going to war. if we go to war without declaring -- congress declaring war, we are circumventing the constitution. host: there are two points to make. you heard the earlier caller say they struck a drone, they shot down a drone and therefore as commander-in-chief, the president can respond. there is also the argument -- the white house is making the argument and they do have the authorization under the 2001 authorization of military force trying to make a connection between iran and terrorism. caller: that is an 18-year-old

declaration. some of the people fighting are now just being born. that declaration is way too old. most of the members of congress are gone who created that. i think basically what has has givens congress up way too much authority in this round. we broke the deal, not iran. you andt me read for others from this september 18 two thousand one authorization of military force. acts of treacherous violence were created -- committed against the united states and its citizens -- the u.s. exercise its right to self-defense and protect united states citizens at home and abroad. in light of the threat to national security posed by these acts of violence and whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat

to national security and foreign policy of the u.s. where the president has authority under the constitution to take action to prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states now, therefore be it that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or determinespersons he aided the terrorist attacks that orurred september 11, 2001 to prevent future acts of terrorism against the united states by such nations organizations or persons. consistent with the section of the war powers resolution congress declares this is intended to constitute specific authorization within the meaning of the section of the war powers resolution. it is two pages long, just barely two pages long and you can read it yourself. nick in texas, republican.

good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i am a trump supporter and i voted for him. i have lost trust and faith in the man as commander-in-chief. , our alliesen weeks and us have been attacked starting last year in october, greta. we were attacked. we closed the u.s. consulate and moved to the embassy. last weekend we were attacked again. exxon mobil pulled out 20 workers, maybe americans. a rocket landed in the worker .rea the oil tankers, 6 in total attacked. up.price of oil has gone

the oneed to shoot down reaper drone and missed, going over the ships and now the -- flying yesterday, i have lost trust and faith in the man. if he cannot be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the united states of america he should resign and let vice president mike pence take over the job. this is part of the job, mr. president. host: nick in texas, a republican. global airlines reroute flights after iran downs that u.s. a drone. we will go to murrieta, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say, i absolutely agree with the lady from

pennsylvania. threat, the absolute not just to national security, but world security. he is a bully. he has bullied iran since the day he came in. i stand with iran. these people tried to do what they were supposed to do and trump came in and busted it all fist.ces with his vicious everything that drops out of his a lie.s trump is a bully, but he is also a coward. that is why he pulled back on the shooting because he finally figured out maybe i should not do this. the man's development arrested at the age of 10 and he has not

gone beyond that. he is nothing more than an overgrown brat with arrested development. host: just to share more about the new york times piece about iran's strategy. iran agreed to keep its stockpile of energy grade uranium enriched just enough for use in power plants at or below 300 kilograms. in return for this and other restrictions, iran received a reduction in economic sanctions that devastated the economy. a lowering of the threat of conflict to the united states. the trump administration removed these incentives, put pressure on other countries to break from the deal and increased military pressure most recently by deploying additional troops. the administration also curtailed options for exposing excess energy grade uranium. in may, it revoked authorization

for iran to sell uranium abroad. exposed ofan largely uranium by reprocessing it, the revocation underscored perceptions that iran was being goaded into violating the agreement. you can read more if you go to the new york times. david in texas, a republican. caller: good morning. i tell you, it more and more feels like i am listening to a verbal form of twitter when i listen to the program. it makes it really difficult to listen. i wish you could establish some sort of standard when people start calling names, you hang up on them until people learn. andan discuss facts opinions without getting into all of that. host: i agree. caller: i love your program -- i will shut up on that. wouldlow republicans, i

like to address them. donald trump is the first president probably in 100 years who has been able to use every aspect of our american power as part of foreign policy. 1979, it has not been possible to do what we have big without having the and whatpacts of opec happens to oil prices when iran has done what it has done two or three times. what trump has done with foreign policy and -- when he was pulled out of the iran deal, consensus was he could not affect iran because what were american sanctions going to do? people talk about him pulling out of the agreement, there was no agreement, it was an executive order by president obama. they got less than 50 votes for it. -- the only exact

time i think it has been done, it was a vote to be negative. host: we will try to look it up. caller: they could not get enough votes for a majority, nevertheless to ratify a treaty. don't just sign an executive agreement and expect it will hold up. the price of oil, any time there has been any kind of issue in the mideast, the price of oil has gone up 20, 30, 40 dollars. it was $140 at one point during the trump administration. the trump administration has released the ability to be self-sufficient and much more clean. it is going to be used somewhere else in the world whether we are producing it. i guarantee it is being done a lot cleaner here. russians, venezuelans, even the

saudi's cannot hold us hostage anymore and the president is able to use the full power of the united states against. when they pulled out of the agreement they said it was full of and would not have an effect -- said it was foolish and it would not work. as far as my republican friend who was disappointed the president has not ordered kinetic strikes yet, i think it is terrific. he is using, we lost a $180 million drone. it is costing the iranians $2 billion or $3 billion a month. they are down to producing 400,000 barrels of oil a day as compared to normal production of

dropped 4% last year, 6% this year. they will have to come to the table and donald trump is doing an imaginative job of using -- when he says tariffs about immigration, you can only do tariffs on trade. when we are trying to get our way, we use all of our power. i am clear -- proud to have been a trump supporter and to be a trump supporter. there is aeep us -- good chance we will end up in a kinetic exchange. i think it will be controlled. thank you very much. int: "the new york times" 2015, senate democrats on september 10, 2015 delivered a

major victory to president obama when they blocked a resignation, ensuring the landmark deal would take effect without a veto showdown between congress and the white house. a procedural vote fell two short needed to break a democratic filibuster. it culminated hours of debate in the senate and capped weeks of discord since the united states, written, france, germany, russia, and china announced the agreement. mary jo from virginia beach, independent, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. based on the information of what you just read us, that was my point exactly. i save all these little snatches i read. basednder the impression on what my memory is telling me that i had read previously, that in fact number one, iran never

signed this agreement, never agreed to all of the stipulations in this agreement. it fell short, and that may have been one of the reasons why they had such a time with that in congress. you keep hearing how we withdrew from the agreement. how can we withdraw from an agreement that has not been byhorized by iran and signed the united states to start with? it is not an agreement. i would like some clarification from c-span if you can find it. thanks again for all you do at c-span. host: we are going to take a break and when we come back, we will ask val demings of florida about the president's decision yesterday, his reversal on striking iran. we will ask about the mueller report. the epa moved to replace the

obama era clean power rule. we will get more from buddy carter from georgia. we will be right back. ♪ >> join american history tv sunday when we mark the 50th anniversary of the stonewall riots, 18 -- key turning tight in the gay rights movement. frome live with this story mark stone. we will and serve your calls and tweets from the stonewall national monument in greenwich village. at 4:00 p.m., two gay rights films.

"the, the 1968 film, second largest minority." [video clip] -- everybodyerican remembers concert does homosexual and forgets -- >> followed by the film "gay and proud." be youmany years have been homosexual? >> i was born this way. i was sorry to see that there was not some politician with us today. they should have made it a point to be with us along with possibly some of the gay rights organizers movements. >> this sunday on c-span3's american history tv. "washington journal"

continues. host: congresswoman val demings at the table. your reaction to "the new york times" reporting the president called for a strike against pacific targets and then read first -- reversed it. guest: what a critical time in our nation. i was surprised at both pieces of the news that the president had called for a strike on iran and then if that decision was made, and then recall that. -- recalled it. we have been mulling over this the last few days, and the iranians have admitted to spiking our drone. i think we have to remember that iran is a hostile foreign power. they are not a friend of the united states, and we have to hold them accountable.

however, we had a deal with a run and all indications are -- iran and all indications are that they were living up to the deal. other allies who are a part of that were comfortable with where we were. we also have to remember that while we hold iran accountable, it was a drone strike. no american servicemen or women were killed. there were no casualties, if you will, of that strike. we have to be really heads up. say,cretary mattis used to clear eyed about our response. if we would have struck iran last night, what is next? they are not like syria. we better be prepared for the next death. while not necessarily knowing -- i have no intelligence why the

present -- president made the decision to withdraw -- we ought to be prepared for more than just one strike. we are at a time where we do not have a secretary of defense, when -- i cringed secretary mattis left. he served the nation well and deserved to retire, but we need someone that is focused, clear eyed, and knowledgeable. we don't even have a secretary of defense right now. the men and women at the pentagon are capable, but if we take action, we better be clear on what we are doing. part, wey this last should increase our military presence in the region. i know we have done that. sometimes increasing our presence can have a tremendous effect. as we prepare militarily on what to do, we need to confer with our allies because diplomacy has

to be a part of our answer. host: according to the reporting, the president was going to hold iran accountable by striking specific targets like radar and missile batteries. it was going to happen at dawn this morning and iran, -- in iran, to reduce civilian and military casualties. is that an appropriate strike and what that hold them accountable? guest: we have to be more concerned not about the first irane, because as i said, is not syria. their capabilities are much more sophisticated and so if we an airfield inck syria in 2017, if we strike we better be prepared for the next move. if we are not ready or prepared for the next move, chest has to send an even more powerful message, we need to be strategic

-- which has to send an even more powerful message, i need to be strategic. host: does the president need approval from congress to strike iran? guest: when we look at painnistan, iraq, and the of those wars that we are still in, i just think the president would want approval from congress. this should not the a decision that he would want to -- not be a decision that he would want to make by himself because when america goes to war, when the president makes that decision, all america goes to war. we send our sons and daughters to fight for america, so with that decision, i don't understand why the president would want to make such a critical decision by himself. i think leaning on congress if there ever was a time, when you are contemplating sending

american sons and daughters into war, that would be the time to lean on congress. let us do our job. host: walter, butler, indiana. caller: good morning. how are you. guest: i am good. how are you? caller: i am a happy man, you miss -- u.s. army veteran retired. guest: thank you for your service. caller: i had nothing else to do. they paid me to blow stuff done touch up. -- stuff up. guest: and for good cause. caller: i love my country and you turn on the boop tube, all of the presidents -- all of the republicans hate trump and the nice to haveit is a democrat take a measured response.

one of the things about the iranian deal, because i love watching tv, as we had -- the deal we signed into said we could not inspect military bases where they possibly had the uranium and that stuff developing. that being as it may, i think if donald trump stays and listens to the voice in his head, his voice in his head has been, i don't want to be an interventionist and rebuild countries, but for whatever reason he surrounds himself with these hawks, bolted, pompeo, lindsey graham, they are already to go to war but they are not sending their children to die. as long as we follow through with trump's gut feeling. how come every big decision like this, whether we are going to do strikes are not, the next day it

is splattered all over the news? i don't know necessarily if everybody has to know those things. the third and final thing is please, do me a favor. continue working with america, and i believe you do, america's ideals and safety first. if we do that as a country and come together, i think we will be all right. i would rather lose a stupid drone for $180 million then go to war. -- until wemore have to go. god bless you, keep up the good work. like rodney king says, why can't we all just get along? we should put away our nonsense and just look for the good of the country. host: thanks, walter. guest: thank you so much. you hit a lot of good points. are believe that -- we

dealing with a lot of issues. many times when we are working on the floor with our republican colleagues, we don't always agree on a lot of things, but you are absolutely correct. protecting this country and our sons and daughters who serve in our military, if there was a time we ought to be able to come together, it is that time. if we made the decision to go to war, and i believe america has the most powerful and capable military in the world, and if we go to war and we send our sons and daughters into war, we need to have every piece of information possible to protect them, keep them safe as possible. so doing our homework, if you will, is critical to that. we need to continue to do that and congress needs to be a major part of that. in terms of the iranian deal, i will just say this.

as i said earlier, iran is a hostile foreign power, and having the ability to monitor them in some way and having the checkups to see exactly what they are doing, i think is better than not having that ability. so we pull out of the deal and now here we are contemplating more. host: jimmy in birmingham 10, missouri, democrat -- birmingham, missouri, democrat. caller: this is what i believe is a democrat. i think at the moment we should all be supporting our president instead of looking like little kids arguing so the whole world can see that we are not united. this country is not about who was in charge of what. this country is about a system

and our system is a beautiful system. this is why everybody wants to come to this country. that is the only reason why we are here, all of us, to vent -- different ethnic groups. i would like for you guys just to think about it, that instead of looking like full stew the world, you should -- fools to the world, you should be united with our president. guest: i spent 27 years in law enforcement. i could not tell you the political parties of most of the people i worked with to keep my community safe. what mattered was making sure we were able to fulfill our mission. as i said to the previous caller , if there was ever a time we should be able to come together, it is times like these. think, if we have to go to war, and i pray that we do not, we want the president and congress to make that decision

together based on all of the information that we have. we don't have a secretary of defense right now, and i know there are capable men and women at the pentagon who are carrying on. one of the things secretary mattis you should -- used to say is we need to be clear eyed. just think about that. when we go to war in america, we need to do it with the support of our allies, because we should not go to war alone, and we have to be clear eyed. we have to know exactly what we are fighting for and why. i will go back to iran taking , where there was no casualties to americans. i think we need to be very clear eyed about what our next move is , and if that next move involves a strike, then we better be

thinking about now what is ahead? host: as a member of the intelligence committee, are you concerned that iran was able to shoot down with this type of precision, this drowned? how do you know they knew it was unmanned? guest: we could speculate all day long and that gets us in trouble. we know it was not manned. there have not been many questions about iran's capability. that is why i said earlier but they are much more capable -- and we have known that for decades -- than say syria. our response has to be appropriate and that is a decision the president should make with congress. host: ronald from boston, republican. served me and my brother in the three major airborne units. guest: thank you. caller: if you don't have a

leader -- the president has got to be a leader, has got to have served in the service to send troops over and do what he is doing. you can't do that. guest: let me say this, first of all. thank you to you and your brother for serving. i don't necessarily agree that the president has to have served in the military to understand the critical decisions as it pertains to the military, but what i do agree with you on is that he has to surround himself with people who clearly understand that when we send our men and women into war, exactly what that means, when we make the decision to go to war, exactly what the consequences are. he has to surround himself with a capable team, and my biggest

fear is the president does not have a secretary of defense. he has a lot of acting people in positions and he may not have the support and infrastructure around him to make this decision , have the information he needs. that is why it is critical to have congress' input and approval. host: karl in colorado, independent. caller: i think it is bad that we have a law that says the attack on the offensive. he should only be able to make a law and go to war if we are being attacked, not shoe down -- shoot down a drone, but being attacked. other than that, it should be up to congress. host: can you expand on that? guest: the president is the commander in chief.

and i know that there are some decisions -- and you framed it nicely for me -- because we are currently -- if we are currently under attack, and our servicemen and women and civilians are being killed, that is a decision i think the president of the united states should have the authority to make those immediate decisions, because any hesitation could cause additional casualties. that is not the situation we are currently in. in most and since his, the president -- instances, the president has the opportunity to come to congress, and let's make this decision together. host: you also serve on the judiciary committee. hicksicks was on -- hope was on capitol hill. what did you learn? guest: i was glad she decided to be on capitol hill, let's start

there. we know that attorney general barr and former white house attorney mcgann chose not to show up. so she came, and how far we have come in this country when we are grateful that a person under subpoena decides to come to congress to testify. hope hicks has known president trump long before he became president. she worked in the trump organization and she said she met him before working with the trump organization. we know she worked on the campaign and also in the administration. the white house attorneys were there with her, and every time a member asked a question about any involvement in the white house, even if it was where was your office located, they objected. i spent a long time in law enforcement and i have been a detective and have been with

haveneys and not, and i never seen anything where the attorney objected to so much to questions that were even just helping frame the discussion. i believe we were able to gain some additional knowledge about jeff sessions' recusal, james comey's firing, and other instances like that where hope hicks,because of -- hope because of her relationship with donald trump, was able to fill in holes. we talked about the trump tower moscow deal. the question, russia interfered. did the trump campaign assist them? if the trump team -- campaign assisted them, what would be the motive? understanding the president's efforts or desire to build a tower in moscow was critical.

we still have a long ways to go and i think ms. hicks will be back on the hill along with special counsel mueller, again, and attorney general bar. .- barr host: she said trump's campaign sought relief from the wikileaks week. guest: she tried to clear up, if you will, but the president did see the information as helpful to his campaign. he was looking for dirt and he wikileaksail dump by as helpful to his campaign. itelieve when she said sought relief, she was saying that in that context, any dirt

from any source on hillary was good news for him. post""the washington saying as a member of the committee you will hear from a russian real estate developer about the moscow project. tell us about who he is and what questions you are hoping to ask. guest: i cannot tell a whole lot about it, but if there is anyone we believe knows more about the origin of the trump moscow tower deal, it would be him. he was intricately involved in that process, was kind of the middleman. we are hoping he will be able to, as we go back to the why would president trump not hold -- or number one, assist in russia interfering with our election?

that was the question in the mueller report. then, what was the motivation? since then, the president has not taken any great efforts to hold russia accountable. when he was on the stage with vladimir putin, the russian dictator, he did everything but ask him for his autograph, i believe. we have seen him take the word of vladimir putin over his own intelligence officers and law enforcement officials. that is all very strange to us, and we want to, from a counterintelligence standpoint, understand why the president is not holding russia accountable. york, athleen in new democrat. i keep listening to everybody talking. much for this so

country. i truly believe that trump's agenda was to undo everything donenything that obama has , and says to help this country. he comes in, does not know how to talk to people, does not know how to talk to foreign countries. i have so much inside of me, i just can't get it all out. i am 57 years old. host: we will take your point about reversing what president obama put in place. guest: when i was sworn in, in 2017, i was so honored to be in congress, the the people of the 10th congressional district of florida would send me to

represent them. i know it is difficult to get things done that the american people care about. i thought that an infrastructure package would be a great way to start. how could you not have bipartisan support for that? chosestead, the president to try to repeal the affordable care act, which was extremely disappointing. i do believe -- and this is val i believe itng -- was a clear effort to undermine yet again, anything that president obama had done. so we found ourselves instead of working on infrastructure, which we have not gotten there yet as you well know, we had to fight to keep health care for over 20 million americans. at the end of the day, the american people sent a clear

message to the president and anybody else listening, that to remove their health care without inadequate replacement was totally unacceptable. we know the affordable care act is not perfect. we need to continue to work on it, to lower the costs of prescription drugs, which are through the roof. that is a whole other opportunity to bring me back. we need to make sure insurance companies cannot sell junk plans to unsuspecting patients. i agree with the caller that maybe the president attacked the affordable care act because it , but itident obama's protects over 20 million americans and he represents the american people. host: on iran, writers is isorting -- reuters

reporting they refrained from shooting down u.s. airplane with 35 aboard, accompanying the unmanned drone. it entered our airspace and we could have shot it down but we did not. guest: iran has certainly claimed responsibility for shooting down the drone. they did indicate they did that because it invaded their airspace, so there is still an ongoing investigation to find out exactly what happened. , we they could have done have to go with the facts. the facts are that they shot down and unmanned or unstaffed drone. there were no american casualties. if we make a decision to respond, we better be prepared for the next response. host: from victoria, texas, republican. caller: how are you doing today?

guest: great. caller: good morning. i am calling about iran. iran has not killed anybody yet. it is a scrimmage over there, to me. it is a topic for today. ist we have going on now infiltration of this country. it is happening in front of our eyes. killers, drug dealers, everything else in this country, now they are going to give them free -- they are going to give them drivers license when american citizens have to part-time drive in atlanta, georgia, or houston. these people, they keep packing them in because they can vote. more your point is we have pressing issues here like

illegal immigration? caller: illegal immigration is illegal. they can come into this country like they are supposed to and be american citizens. they are trying to overthrow the american citizens. host: we will leave it there. guest: we are a nation of laws, no doubt about that. i enforced them for years and now i am writing them. we are also a nation of immigrants. people, whether they come from the north or south, east or west, people have risked their lives to get to this country for what america has to offer. have a that, we need to comprehensive immigration plan that allows undocumented persons in our country a path to legal citizenship. that we hearrisis wasuch at the border

manufactured because the president of the united states created a zero-tolerance part -- policy that ice or customs and border patrol or the secretary of homeland security or anybody else was prepared to handle. we were never prepared to deal with thousands of families at the border, many of them seeking asylum. we were never prepared to deal with children at the border and what to do with those families. children you interject and children dying at the border , that is a losing situation. i heard the caller talk about the drug dealers and rapists and other things, repeating the language of then canada trump, but if you look at statistics, violent crimes are committed hundred times more by u.s.-born

citizens than any undocumented person coming across the border. maybe we should spend our time working with south america, for example, providing aid to south america and having a better understanding why families would risk their lives, traveling thousands of miles with their children, what is the crisis that they are fleeing from? i will end this where i began. we are a nation of law but we are also a nation of immigrants, and we need to have a comprehensive immigration plan that allows undocumented persons to get their citizenship. we also need to allow asylum-seekers to do what the law allows them to do. host: congresswoman, thank you very much for the conversation. guest: thank you so much. host: when we come back, we go

across the aisle with buddy carter of georgia about the epa move to repeal the clean power rule. ♪ i view political cartooning almost like advertising on television. you have about five seconds to caption the viewer's attention, five seconds to sell the product. the difference is with television, you are selling a product. political cartoons, you are selling an idea. >> pulitzer winning cartoonist michael ramirez on his cartoons. are probably my favorite political family, and i won my first pulitzer on the back of that administration. when you take the character of someone, you are taking the dynamics of their features to make them into a cartoon and to

show the dynamics of their personality as well. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. inday night on afterwords, her latest book, a former cia analyst offers or insights into the innerworkings of the agency and her work tracking terrorists. she is interviewed by andre carson of indiana. >> most people know who osama bin laden is. there was another figure you had a connection to. experienceut your tracking him and those around him. >> initially, i was charged with looking at and evaluating whether or not iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and al qaeda. we had been writing products for policymakers and briefing them. our bottom line was that a rock

had nothing to do -- iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and al qaeda. after the invasion, when i he had risenicer, to prominence because he was attacking targets and then joined al qaeda and created al qaeda in iraq. my job was to dismantle his organization and leadership. at 9:00 eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back to the table congressman buddy carter, republican of georgia. i want to get your reaction to president trump deciding and then reversing himself to strike iran. what is your reaction to that decision by the president, and to -- do you think he needs

get congressional approval for any strike? guest: it shows great restraint on the part of the president. he should be applauded for that. it would have been easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and think, we are going to bomb them, but the president showed restraint. we don't understand all the details of what happened, why it was called and then called off, if indeed that was the case. nevertheless, the president is to be applauded for how he is handling the situation thus far. at this point, i don't think it's necessary for the president to have congressional consent on what he is doing. if we go further and get more into this, i am sure he will consult with congress, but the president needs to have the thisty to deter and defend area in the interest of the

united states. 's -- thus far, he has performed well. host: let's start our conversation about the clean power plan. remind our viewers what the obama administration put in place and why you want it reversed. guest: not only do i want it reversed, the supreme court said it needed to be halted and they halted it. the clean power plan was put in place by the obama administration and was going to kill jobs. it would have cost our economy a lot of money. epa has reverse that and with the clean energy role they came out, it is a much better rule. it will give states the certainty and guidelines they need, and let them implement them. at works a lot better and will

serve the american public better than what was in place. host: the clean power rule required states to meet targets. the goal was to reduce the u.s. power sector emissions 32% by 2030. the affordable clean energy rule was lower power sector emissions by 11 million tons by 2030, between .7 and .5%, and eliminate the target requiring states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. you said the dutch supreme court said this was not constitutional. -- supreme court said this was not constitutional. guest: the supreme court halted this rule, and donald trump campaigned on this. we were going to get the government out of the way, and

this is a perfect example of that, where the previous administration said this is what you will do and how you will do it. we are going to obtain higher goals by setting the standards, by cooperating with states, working with states, letting them come up with their plans. i have gotten so frustrated. i tell people when i got to washington, d.c., i was frustrated the first afternoon i got here and the frustration continues because the people in washington, d.c. feel like this cookie-cutter model that we can use, what is good for this will be good for every part of the country, that is not true. that is what the administration and the epa are trying to do, trying to cooperate with the states and work together to lower these emissions. we can do that together. the obama

administration wanted to lower emissions 32% and this ace rule 1.5%, how at .7% to do you respond to critics who say this will increase emissions? guest: the rule will not increase the emissions as much as allow the states to implement their own plans. erroneous, very erroneous to think that republicans do not care about our environment. it is erroneous to say the president does not care about our environment. we do care. we have different ways we might meet the end result. unfair toly wrong and say that we don't care about the environment and we don't acknowledge that we need to do something. the goals epa rule, is to reverse the trend of coal

power plants closing down? guest: i think the goal of it -- and again, you will have to speak with the epa to get the details on this -- but the ultimate goal and comprehensive goal for all of us is to affect our environment without destroying our economy and jobs. that is why the ace rule is so much better than what the clean power plan was in the past. host: politically, on republicans and your actions on the environment, how do you respond when the speaker of the house says -- as rising temperatures, surging sees, and ravage disasters communities everywhere, the trump administration puts the rights of polluters above other people.

the american people are demanding an end to the corruption and denial of the fact but the white house refuses to relent. guest: that is a ludicrous statement on the part of the speaker. that is not the case at all. what the united states has done since the early 1970's, we have decreased our carbon emissions and we have grown our economy. ,hat is something that came out the department of energy produced that during the obama administration, and they did not want it released. these scare tactics that we see the other side using, the green new deal, i don't know whether you have had an opportunity to read it. is only 14 pages, but it is hilarious. it is such pie in the sky that it will not be achievable and will destroy the economy. we believe we can reach these goals and protect the

environment without destroying the economy. i believe in climate change and the climate has been changing since day one. i am old enough to remember in the 1970's when we thought we were in another ice age. have the honor and privilege of representing georgia and i take that seriously. over 100 miles of pristine coastline, it is where i have lived my whole life, and i will protect that coastline. we have to do a number of things. we have to have mitigation, adaptation, and innovation. we have barrier islands on the coast of georgia, and when we are building bridges to those most popularof our islands is tybee island in savannah. we are talking about building a road and that road floods four or five times a year.

we need to mitigate this and adapt to what is happening. we can do that if we are smart enough to build it up. another example, if you build a house on a slab next to the marsh, it is probably going to flood at some point. build it up. we are trying to do that. we have grants available that will assist people raising their houses and building them up. being smart and adapting to climate change, we can do those things. host: call men in tulsa, -- oklahoma, aulsa, republican. caller: you are fighting a propaganda machine in the socialist democrats that want to -- poor, innocent co2,

absolutely required for all life glutenh, and they get a and put the government in charge absoluteting this requirement for life on earth. this is all about just a propaganda attack. the republicans have a big job, because it went from global warming to climate change because there wasn't sufficient mobile warming to confirm al gore's predictions. i am proud of what you were telling the community because the people of the usa was going did katend by the u.n. and government control -- dictate and government control. i appreciate you trying to democrathe media college propaganda machine.

host: congressman? guest: thank you for those kind comments. i make the point that we all understand the climate is changing and it has been changing since day one, no question. host: is it man-made? guest: man can have an impact on it. because of our economy doing so and and because of the tax jobs cut -- tax cut and jobs act, co2 has increased as a result of more manufacturing going on in our country. we understand it has an impact, but look at what we have done. we have made tremendous strides in this country and we continue to, through innovation. the greatest innovators in the world are here in the united states of america. i am excited about what is going to be happening in the way of

new energy, new mobile energy. it will be a tremendous opportunity for us, the great innovators and scientists, to help this world. it is a worldwide problem. 20% of the pollution in california comes from china. that is why i was so pleased and an agreement with the president for pulling out of the paris climate accord. it was unfair to allow china to continue -- and china and india are the worst countries -- to allow them, and hold us to certain standards that would harm our economy, that is not the way to approach this. if our innovators and scientists will come up with some of the greatest inventions and new technologies that you will ever see, we will be able to market that. host: rockville, maryland, immanuel, democratic caller.

caller: i just wanted to make a couple of comments and listening to the gentleman speak about repeal and replace. it is unfortunate that you guys have always, since president obama left office, wanted to repeal everything he has. the epa don't have any standings even under the republican congress because children in flint, michigan, you did not do anything for. i was highly disappointed. to say that you have a better plan to do something for the environment, that is what you call ludicrous to talk about. second of all -- and this is my last comment -- the one thing you cannot repeal, that he was a president of the united states, he was a black president and you cannot repeal that. you might take away everything else the man done, but you

cannot take away that he was the president of the united states. host: ok. guest: i have never tried to repeal or deny that barack obama was president of the united states. i served my first session in congress under president obama and i did my best to cooperate. i did not agree with his policies, but i respected the office he held. unfortunately, i don't think our current president is getting that type of respect from his adversaries. it is very sad. we have had a big swing. we went from one extreme to another. sometimes that is the way it happens in washington, the way it happens in politics. we shouldn't be making this personal at all, because the color of one's skin or it was this person or that person. it is a dramatic shift in

policy, and we all understand that. at the same time, we are all americans and have to come together and work together. val mentioned about infrastructure, and there are things we can work on together and things we do work on together. i am the only pharmacist serving in congress and prescription drug pricing and the opiate crisis are very important. i am proud with what we have done with the opioid epidemic in a bipartisan fashion. addiction does not discriminate against anyone. it is not worse with republicans, democrats, or independents. everyone knows someone who has been impacted by addiction, and that is something we need to work on, prescription drug pricing. i never said, are you a republican or democrat? the price will depend on that.

we have made some progress on ,hat and we need to continue to infrastructure another example. host: david, los angeles. caller: mr. carter, i am sitting here watching the tv and i want to pick up a lock and throw it at the tv. take a field trip to any power plant in the united states. most are installing catalytic reduction which reduces emissions by 90%, and you are telling me we cannot apply that template throughout the united states? that is not only ridiculous, it is asinine. please, do yourself a favor. educate your coworkers. go down to any power plant, particularly california. host: i want the congressman to have a chance to respond. guest: the coal powered plants that exist now have scrubbers on them.

they are much cleaner than they were. many of them are being taken out of production now and taken out of use now and going into other forms of energy. made great strides. yes, we need to do better and we can do better and will do better. at the same time, i applaud the energy sector and what they have done thus far. does that mean we rest on our laurels? no, it does not. when i served in the georgia state senate, i went up against arguably the strongest lobbying group in the state, georgia power, and insisted they embrace solar power. now they have embraced it to the point where georgia is one of the top 10 states in the nation using solar power.

company ceo of southern his owns georgia power, salary is tied into how much renewables will be used. we are headed in the right direction and we will get there, maybe not as quickly as we would like, but i am happy with what we are doing. host: new york, steve, republican. haver: first of all, we volcanoes that have been inactive since we have been taking stuff from the ground. we have magma in the earth that if we are burying stuff, it can be affected by magma and throw up billions of part -- particles. we may have some man-made stuff that this was controlling, but nature will kill us all faster than we are killing ourselves.

that is all i have to say. guest: that is a good point. let's face it, it is all over .he board . am not a climate denier one of the worst natural lostters in terms of lives happened in the 1890's on tybee island. ,he intensity of the hurricanes the highest intensity happened in the 1950's and 1960's. there is an argument that this is just typical. have said before, the climate has been changing since day one.

we understand that. i don't think that means we ignore it totally and don't do anything. we can do things. i look at it from a perspective of what a great opportunity we have. florida, carrie is calling, a democratic caller. caller: what gets me is the hypocrisy of this. every year, we have people graduating and buying more cars and that produces more carbon in the air. but to say rolling back regulations, and it is going to help us in the long run for people making money, that is fine. we are also killing our earth. sayingst right there is there are all full power plants, but we have a president in power talking about we want to bring

back coal power plants. are we for cleaner air or against it? you cannot say we will wind up doing both when the president is denying climate change. tell us about when you go into session. guest: i subscribe to and all of the above type energy strategy, to have affordable and reliable energy. we have to have an all of the above approach. there is no question, we will have to use fossil fuels until we can get to the point where we are totally reliable and we can rely on renewables, but we are not at that point and will not be at that point in the very new future, so we have to rely on fossil fuels. the fossil fuel sector has done a great job of cleaning it up. it is not nearly as bad as it used to be.

i have seen the carbon fracking and have seen what they are doing. i have visited houston and seen some of the results of what they are studying over there, and trying to do, and they are making great gains. that is the type of thing we need. the thing that the government is going to be the one to dictate that you are going to do, this will be driven by the private sector. most of this will be driven by private business. host: congressman, you serve on the climate crisis committee, a committee formed by democrats when they took over the house. do you agree with the existence of this panel? guest: yes and no. i served -- serve on the environmental subcommittee and we have jurisdiction. the speaker was the one who appointed this committee, created this committee.

it is important for republicans, for our voice to be heard and to make sure that we are having a reasonable, rational ball -- rational, sensible approach to these things. congressman buddy carter, republican of georgia sits on the energy and climate crisis committee. twitter.ollow him on we thank you for the conversation this morning. the house is coming in at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. we will bring you there live gavel-to-gavel coverage on c-span.

>> the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain. >> let us pray. god, our father, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of the people's house as they gather another week in the capital and the graces needed to attend to the issues of the day with wisdom. the results of their effort might benefit citizens of our nation and the world. we also ask your blessing leading into this weekend, upon a world both celebrating sport with the women's world cup competition, and facing