tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 11, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
field will then narrow. then we move in to early march. start ofsday, the winner take all primaries which mean the delegate count will be critical. if we watch it continue for the candidates, we'll get a better of whose message is resonating and who is on the nomination. live house coverage here on c-span. this hour claim number of the select benghazi committee will give an update on the investigation into the 2012 attack.
brenda lawrence will discuss went water contamination and national water safety issues. , katharine moon. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning, everyone. we are talking to women only this morning on the washington journal. who do you plan to support for president in 2016? whether you are republican or democrat, it is the female vote that is likely to make the vote.ence in the primary in 2008, 10 million more women than men voted. whether you are republican or democrat, start dialing in now. 29,ou are between 18 and
202-748-8000. .0-50, 202-748-8001 .1 and over, 202-748-8002 you can also join us on twitter or go to facebook. you can post your comments there. start dialing in. let me show you the front page of usa today. fiorina has dropped out of the race along with new jersey governor chris christie. they had suspended their campaigns. carly fiorina had a message for women on her facebook page saying "while i suspended my will continuey, i to travel this country and fight for those americans who refused ay settle for the w things are in the status quo that no longer works for them."
we are talking to women only this morning. divided the lines by age. who is your candidate and why? gretchen in new york. are you republican or democrat? caller: democrat. host: go ahead. caller: my candidate is hillary clinton. i worked for her when she was running for the senate. she is the most qualified. forward all myng life to a woman being president. woman, but the most qualified and she is my candidate. host: why do you say all your life? what has it been like? what do you think the younger generation of females don't
understand? caller: they take it for granted. they don't realize the women that went before me worked so i could get where i am in life. and how hard i have worked for them to keep the path going. host: ok. what do you say to people who say that feminism has changed? caller: the soul of feminism has not changed, it's just that the younger women -- i'm the oldest of five sisters. they take it for granted. host: how are your other sisters voting? caller: unfortunately, to have passed away. -- two have passed away. the younger to our may be republican. are may beger two republican. host: are they trump supporters? caller: no, they are not.
they really are undecided. the have not made up their mind. maybe i can work on them enough, they will go for hillary. my whole family knows i am for hillary. whenever there is a family gathering, they know where gretchen wants to talk. host: linda in miami, oklahoma. good morning to you. also on our line for 51 and over. who is your candidate? caller: my candidate is -- host: go ahead. listen through your phone, not your tv. you have to turn down the tv. joann in milford, new hampshire. democrat. 51 and over. how did you vote on tuesday? caller: for bernie sanders. host: tell us why.
caller: i voted for bernie because he is not a politician, he is a true public servant. views andntained his he has fought for his whole entire career. for everybody. i really would like people to look at bernie's record, especially regarding civil rights. they can check out his speeches on c-span.org and get to know what he has been saying. he doesn't blow his own horn because he is a public servant. he is a politician when he has to run for office. host: you like him because he is not part of the establishment? hillary clinton says her gender makes are not part of the establishment. what is your reaction?
caller: my head almost explodes because i have been a democrat my whole life. i was too young to vote for jimmy carter, but i wore my peanut necklace. hillary, i do not trust her. i lost all faith in anything she says. her concession speech on tuesday listed all ofe , she wantsatforms everybody to eat it. i been trying to call into c-span since monday. i could not get through. her speech monday night in manchester come almost the
entire last half of her speech was lifted directly from bernie. i was really stunned when i saw it. i watched it on c-span. i hope people will take the time to think and don't ever think bernie is not electable. he's only not electable if his supporters don't get out and vote for him. -- someat about this clinton supporters, some women of her generation saying they feel an obligation to vote for her? caller: absolutely not. this is why i am so proud of the young women who stuck with whoever they supported, republican or democrat. there is plenty of time in their life for a female president. but we cannot have a female president who is not trusted.
i think it is very telling that bernie has 91% of the people who voted for him was because he was honest and trustworthy. host: right. joanne talking about the exit polls for new hampshire voters. those who said honesty and trustworthiness was important, 91% went for bernie sanders. calling -- she writes this -- stop the insinuation.
bill clinton launching those attacks in new hampshire ahead of the primary there. [video clip] she and other people who --end her [indiscernible] host: that was bill clinton in new hampshire ahead of the primary talking about bernie's supporters, the bernie campaign has been critical of those who have made sexist remarks. here he is on the view yesterday
after the win in new hampshire. here he is talking about those attacks. [video clip] >> i was disappointed in president clinton. i like him and respect him and i hope this campaign is not degenerating -- >> he's fighting for his wife. let'snderstand that, but keep it on the issues, not making personal attacks. host: bernie sanders on the view talking about that attack by bill clinton. who were a major source of winning for bernie sanders in new hampshire. the exit polls. 55% of the voters. 55% of those female voters went for bernie sanders. on the republican side, donald trump also won with female voters.
we want to hear from women supporting donald trump in this primary. if you do plan to support him in the general elections as well. female voters made up 48% in the republican primary. caroline in louisiana. 30-50-year-olds. independent. caller: hi, how are you? host: who is your candidate? caller: i'm a bernie person. i'm feeling the bern. host: tell us why. caller: i've seen hillary clinton. she has too much history. back to whenever bush was trying to convince everybody that we needed to invade iraq. i specifically remember seeing
hillary clinton as a democrat stand up and clapping for her support. bernie sanders did not support that war. too long, she is the establishment, she is the usual. just because she has the same parts as me doesn't mean i should vote for her. i will go for someone's track record, not what they are saying. host: diana in vancouver, washington. democrat. 51 and older. good morning to you. i am a bernie sanders supporter. based on the fact that the man is honest. it is obvious when you look at his history. one thing wrong with the country is the lack of integrity. originalifies the
embodiment of people who are public representatives. there used to be a system whereby they were considered people of honor. that.k he continues we are missing a lot of that. thatry clinton, by saying she is not establishment because she is female? she is doing the same thing what females happen fighting for for be recognized as individual people with merits and value. sex is not inherently necessary for what women happen fighting for. we want to be recognized as people of value, for who we are as persons. to say female makes her not part a the establishment, it is
360. she flips it the opposite way. host: john goldberg writes in "hillary is review being judged as an individual, not as a woman." feel any guilt about not voting for a woman? caller: none whatsoever. none. no guilt whatsoever. anybody who does, ask them to think about it. we need somebody who will lead this country together regardless of sex, gender, black, white. we need somebody for unity of the people and people to take part in the system. democracy is a participation sport. with less than half of us voting, we are leaving our lives
in the hands of cowards that be. of us voted, we would effectively reverse citizens united. citizens united could be reversed because of 99% of us voted, it would not matter how much money -- president obama is speaking in springfield, illinois. muchuld not matter how money super pacs through into the system. host: we covered president obama in springfield he talk about civility in politics. ruth marcus argues that the clintons need to cut the guilt tripping. it won't only failed to convince younger women, it will insult their mothers as well.
feminism does not mean imposing a moral obligation on women to vote a certain way. it means trusting them, not the meeting them, when they choose the candidate they like best, male or female, even if their mothers disagree. we are trying to find out from women this morning how you plan to vote in the primary, the general election. democrat or republican, who is your candidate? we've divided the lines by age this morning. kelly -- port, arizona. republican. 30-50 years old. t, arizona. caller: i am voting for trump.
we need to save our country. we have no borders. i'm really concerned about the illegals. when i moved out here, this is the capital -- this is where all the illegals came. a lot of them have gone back because the recession is so low. williams arizona, the gateway to the grand canyon, look everywhere. fried,-the-box, kentucky the illegals have all our jobs. i have to vote for trump. i love mexican food, they just need to come here legally. host: who is your second choice? caller: ted cruz. after that, rubio. host: is it all because of the immigration issue? caller: i just want our constitution back. this and pasta are in the white house, the angry black man -- this imposter in the white iuse, the angry black man --
wish republicans would reach out more to the black community. we want to get you off welfare. we want you to make more money. you are going to get a house, a car. host: why not jeb bush? caller: i'm sorry. the guy, have you seen him? and jittery.ervous he doesn't seem manly. trump is a man. that guy gets me turned on. i'm site appeared on going to say it. host: we have to leave it there. jeb bush on the cover. bush donors are saying yes to fourth place in new hampshire. it keeps them in the game, it is a reset for him where he has a good infrastructure in the palmetto state and is hoping to do well there.
his camp is thinking he will benefit from carly fiorina and chris christie getting out of the race as well. mr. bush was joined thursday by senator lindsey graham who threw his support to the former florida governor. marco rubio's strategy, he learned a valuable lesson that -- the nextscott debate will be the reset of the campaign, then a seven-day sprint. the primary for south carolina republicans is february 20.
squaring off tonight. hillary clinton and bernie sanders on a pbs debate. that debate is happening tonight. jeb bush is counting on his -ability in south carolina to help them as well. he will be campaigning with the former president. likability in south carolina. >> we need a strong leader with experience, ideas and resolve. there is no doubt in my mind that jeb bush will be a great commander-in-chief for our military. he has dealt with crises as the governor of florida and he did so with resolve, steadiness and a calmness necessary in a good leader. he respects the military, he honors their families, he can make the tough decisions to keep americans safe and our country free. he will be a steady hand in a time of crisis. >> jeb bush, trusted leadership
for a stronger america. for'm the only candidate president running on my record, not away from it. with a plan to defeat isis, balance our budget and grow our economy. i prove this message because i'm ready to lead. -- i approved this message because i'm ready to lead. featuring his brother in south carolina where his brother remains very popular. he will be campaigning with him. the bush campaign hoping that fiorina chris christie have dropped out, he will benefit from that and see a rise in south carolina. chris christie, his statement on why he suspended his campaign --
we are talking to women only this morning about who your pic is for the 2016 presidential race. illinois, 51 and older. the morning to you. -- good morning to you. who is your candidate? caller: i am an independent. i have not chosen yet. host: what do you think about your choices? caller: i can tell you in 2008, i did vote for barack obama. i was one of the independents that put him into the presidency and i was extremely disappointed that he did not even care about the mandate. i did not vote for him again in 2012. host: what do you think about your options this time around? caller: i can tell you positively that i could never vote for hillary clinton.
i have been a c-span watchers since its inception. i have watched her career. i don't trust her. i do think she is a liar. she puts her finger to the window to see which way it is blowing. to see which way it is blowing i could never vote for hillary clinton. it doesn't matter to me if she is a woman. fiorina in what she has to 100%. i agree with that mara in citrus heights, california. you are a republican. who is your choice? caller: my choice is donald trump for president. host: tell us why. caller: he is strong, i trust he im when he speaks. he not only channels the issues right on, he also seems to care
a lot about people. i just saw a debate where he is like, are you ok, sir? he really honest and really sincere. isabella in massachusetts. 51 and older. democrat. what do you think? caller: i'm almost 70. i am a strong bernie supporter. king, itmartin luther is the content of your character that matters, not your race, not your gender. playing the gender card is divisive bending the rent as playing the race card -- divisive and ignorant as playing the race card. bernie is just absolutely sterling. that is what people are responding to be more than that or equally important -- what
could be more important than having a sterling character? his ideas are fantastic. he has exposed them his whole life long. he is authentic, he is the real thing. he knows how the system works. he knows what people need. he has it all spelled out on his website. how he's going to pay for it, with education, that will be a tax on wall street trading and so forth, which has not been taxed at all. he will be wonderful for the country. i agree with what joanne said earlier. if all the people who believe in him and believe in what he stands for go out and vote for him, he will be our next president. host: what about the minority vote? let me show you a number of headlines this morning could let
start with the washington post, talking, reporting from yesterday afternoon that the congressional black caucus will formally endorse hillary clinton today. you've got that, then you have this on the front page of the washington post. democrats and buy for the minority vote. for the minority vote. in iowa, 9%. in new hampshire, 7%. , 57%.th carolina rights why bernie sanders after winning new hampshire went right to new york to meet with reverend al sharpton and the former head of the naacp. he met with them yesterday. fronts a picture on the page of "the wall street journal." by coming toaid harlem after such a big victory,
mr. sanders wanted to send a signal to the party's minority voters. i have to show you a piece in "the new york times." the bernie sanders campaign has to know these numbers as well. for mr. sanders is that he does not really have a path to victory unless he can significantly narrow or even a race mrs. clinton's edge among nonwhite voters. mr. sanders one by 12 points in knon iowa. if he wins by 12 points nationally, he would need to close the deficit among nonwhite voters to 20 points to fight mrs. clinton to a draw. if he merely ties mrs. clinton among white voters, he will also need to tie her among nonwhite
voters. the current national polls show something much weaker. he trails by around 40% and even larger margin among black voters. think he is addressing that very intelligently. it is very smart of them to go to new york. also, he has been responding all the way along. into the black lives matter movement by a young woman who criticized him for not or beingrong support sensitive to the issue. he was right on it. she was not on his campaign team. i think that the problem that bernie has had all along is that
that should those of us in new england who have been following his career for decades, he is a new person to most of the country. once he gets out there and meet problems, talks tointo he is wr which are because of racism in , just a very exaggerated version of the american problem. i mean, unemployment is skyhigh. i wonder why there isn't writing in the streets about that. host: to your point, if he does not do that, if he does not reach out, nate says when you look at the numbers, there is a possible path so long as mr. sanders is faring so poorly among nonwhite voters. in florida, republican, hi, there. who are you going to vote for? caller: i am a registered
republican but i am going to vote for bernie sanders. host: tell us why. caller: i am sick of the clintons. i cannot forgive them for what they did to monica lewinsky. i think it is fraudulent marriage and i think they are fraudulent. is a protest vote. you are going to switch parties in protest against hillary clinton and the clintons? caller: yes. their foundation has raked in millions of dollars and i think the thing is they have only built may be about to houses for the poverty-stricken. what they have done is good up towers for cell phones for the poor folks who cannot even afford smartphones. that is all they have done. minoritiesw what think they're going to do for
they have made millions of dollars and they have not contributed to any of their causes. that was susan, republican. by the way, jay carney, who used to be the spokesman for president obama, says obama supports hillary clinton. he was on cnn and says, i don't think there is any doubt he wants hillary to win the nomination and believes she would be the most effective as president and carrying forward what he has achieved. let's go to kathy in maryland? caller: yes, kathy. host: good morning. who are you supporting? caller: first, i support myself. i am a candidate and then after that, i support hillary. host: you are supporting her because of what? worked for her husband and i got a chance to learn a little bit about what
she stands for and she really stands for health care. when i was working with bill clinton back in 1991, she was the one who is trying to push forward that health care. host: what did you do for the clinton administration? caller: i was the supervisor for the correspondent department. we read all incoming concerns from the people. then we directed them to the appropriate government agency. if we could not help them, we sent them to the government agency that could, so i got a chance to read all the letters from people writing president clinton. when he was elected and after, during the transition, and i decided not to go to the white house, but it was hillary who was pushing for the health care. i would go to the old executive office building, right there on
the side of the white house. host: did you get that sense from the letters that she was popular because of that issue? caller: i believe she was popular, i don't know if it was because of that issue, but i know what she was pushing for. i am a candidate, so i had to put that out, kathy johnson. if she does not get the vote, she is putting for hillary clinton. the department of justice is now suing the city of ferguson because the city has rejected an overhaul that the justice department says needs to be done. what they wanted to see was that police officers -- or settlement with the prohibited police officers are making arrests with no probable cause and bar officers from using stun guns as punishment. but after city officials raised concerns about the cost of
settlement, the ferguson city council voted 6-0 on tuesday night to change the terms, knowing that the department of justice had promised to respond with a lawsuit. for city officials, calling the bluff of both obama administration was a risky move. miss lynch and her predecessor, eric holder junior, have brought an unprecedented number of civil right lawsuits against municipal police departments. ferguson's own lawyers has said this will cost them millions of dollars. janet yellen was on capitol hill yesterday and cautioning folks about the economy. she will be back up there today to talk about monetary policy and we will have coverage on c-span3 at sign :00 a.m. eastern time before the house financial services committee -- at 3:00 a.m. eastern time before the house financial services committee. she does not believe they will have to lower the rate despite volatility in the stock market. they will have more to say this morning.
we are getting the perspective a women voters only who made difference in 2012, and we are seeing the big gender gap going back to 2008 or 10 million more women voted than men. who is your pick in 2016? 51 and older,ia, republican. good morning. caller: yes, i would vote for trump because we need to get out of this business of politically correct. and a veteran, consequently, i see that our veterans are so badly mistreated . i am standing up for a man that respects people like general macarthur and mr. patton. i feel like those two generals could help this country more than anyone right now. thank you. host: michelle, los angeles, california.
democrat, 51 and older. your turn. caller: i want to just say that for me, barack obama was such a good communicator, he tried to grapple with all of the ranches of the government -- branches of the government, so i looking for someone with political experience. i don't want someone walking out off the street saying, i am a businessman, i can be a politician, so i like hillary and i like bernie, too, but the callousness from doing the job. i went to see her succeed. arizona, all black people are not on welfare and whatever else she said. i am a black person, i am not on ,elfare, never have been probably pay more in taxes than most people burn in the year, so i think it is really bad when people are always stereotyping us. terrible. thank you. host: before you go, are you
still there? we lost her. we will go to sarah in south carolina, 30 to 50, democrat. good morning. a lot of media attention coming your way for february 27, the primary for democrats. what do you plan to do? caller: i am voting for hillary. host: tell us why. caller: she has a lot of experience. she stands on her record. -- she is aot pragmatist. she will not overpromise, she will do what she says she is going to do and she is for everyone. i am akelly in arizona, business owner, african-american and not on welfare, so as far as she is hot for donald trump, that is your business. don't spread that everywhere, but donald trump saint hillary
is this and that, and then you turn around and vote for donald trump, are you kidding me? stark contrast. she has no record. hillary has a good record. bernie sanders has not talked about any african-americans when he was in congress at any time. all of a sudden, he needs african-americans. that does not fly. i do not believe that. host: what would it mean to you to elect the first female president in our history? caller: it is not just collecting the first female -- not just electing the first female president. it is her record. if you just go through her record and stop judging her by what she has done and what she lied, it is, if she a double standard. none of these guys that run are know,o the same, you
standards as she is. she is held to such a higher standard. they jump on everything she says. host: that is sarah in south carolina who will be voting in the primary process. she mentioned experience. take a look at the exit polls out of new hampshire. 26% of voters said they candidate or the quality that matters the most is the person with the right experience. 84% went to hillary clinton and 50% went to bernie sanders. but you can see when it comes to honest and trustworthiness, those numbers were flipped. hillary clinton did do better with those who said the candidate who can win in november, 79% to 20% to bernie sanders. we will go to marianne in pittsburgh, 30 to 50 years old, republican. who are you supporting?
caller: i am supporting ted cruz. host: good morning. tell us why. caller: good morning. he is a constitutional scholar, believes in the rule of law, hillary broke the law and she got the people to die in benghazi with no help on the way. she never explained her or president obama and they never explain to the american people were them two work or anything like that and they lied to parents when the bodies were coming off the plane. she should be in jail. host: we will be talking about with the benghazi investigation is, coming up with mike pompeo. he sits on the select committee investigating what happened on september 11, 2012 in libya. marianne, he was on fox news on megyn kelly's show last night saying, it is a two-man race between him and donald trump, despite marco rubio and jeb bush and governor race, still being in the
happening in south carolina. also, "the wall street journal" trump in on donald talking about eminent domain. you probably heard his answer saying, you want to have keystone without eminent domain and they say that is not accurate. in the decade since transcanada route, president obama rejected it last year and the company has negotiated ofuntary easement with 96% 2600 landowners across 3000 miles in nine states. host: women only this morning. petersburg, 51 years old, democrat. who are you supporting? caller: hillary.
her because she has all the credibility. they need to stop jumping on the bandwagon about what she has done in the past. she did nothing. come on. she did not kill the people in benghazi. that, thet do republicans did not give support so it could be funded for security there, so why blame obama and hillary? for bernie sanders, he has done nothing for the minority people. not at all. i don't know any bill he passed, but hillary has gone country to country helping people as a whole, black and white. on ouraxine in florida line 451 and over, democrat. good morning. you are on the air. caller: i am voting for hillary. what i look at is basically what
each one of the candidates is saying they are going to do once they get into office. my think is that most of the things that they promise, they are never going to pass because congress is stronger than the presidency. i don't think those things that wille sanders is proposing ever be seen in our lifetime. there is no way if you have a republican house, republican senate that we are ever going to see free education. that is impossible. i look at the things that they talk about, integrity, and trump had the gall to bring it up about bill clinton when here he was having an affair with his second wife while he was married to the first wife, and then
turned around and had a child. you have to measure. things that he is talking about, how is he going to stand out acting like he is the ceo of the world when there are people that feel the same way about their countries as well? i just don't feel heat, or or bernie has the foresight or knowledge to keep us safe in foreign affairs. host: i will leave it there. there is a new documentary out on donald trump and it stars johnny depp as donald trump. out, a parody that came released by funny or die, the website founded by will ferrell and adam mckay, if you're interested in watching that. we will leave the conversation there for now. next, we are joined by republican congressman mike
pompeo of kansas, a member of on select committee benghazi. later, congressman brenda lawrence makes her first visit. a democrat from michigan and will discuss the ongoing flint water crisis and water safety in the country. first, president obama on wednesday returned to springfield, illinois, to address the legislature nine years to the date since he launched his campaign for president. here is a portion of his remarks. [video clip] obama: trying to find common ground does not make me less of a progressive democrat. it makes me -- it means i am trying to get stuff done in the applies tos -- republicans. who, having for bid come up agree with me on an issue. or if i say america is great and decided to stand during the state of the union. it is not controversial. [laughter] you will not get in trouble. do fact that card is hard to
is a testament to how difficult our politics has become. folks are worried that i will get yelled out over this blogger will write back over this talkshow host will talk about me and call me a rhino or, you know, not a real progressive. so when i hear voices in either parties boast of their refusal to compromise as an , i am notment impressed. all that does is prevent what most americans would consider actual accomplishment like fixing roads, educating kids, passing budgets, cleaning our environment, making our streets safe. [applause]
do big things together that we cannot possibly do alone. host: we are back with congressman mike pompeo, republican of kansas. let me tell you about president obama's speech in illinois. if you missed it, go to our website at www.c-span.org. now, let me introduce the congressman. he sits on the intelligence committee and selected benghazi committee. i went to begin with north korea and what happened. you see that as a serious threat? the headlines from the intelligence director the other day was on top the worldwide threat list trade guest: we have lots of threats and north korea is up there. they conducted a nuclear test and the missile launch to advance the capacity to attack
places they cannot previously reach, and they continue to work. the chinese have refused to put a lid on it to slow it down and the president of the united states has refused to take action. yesterday, the senate passed their version of a north korean sanction bill and we will get it back today or tomorrow and we will float and send it to the president. it is a good first step. the leader of north korea clearly tries to advance the great capacities and deliver the weapons to the west so there's a lot more to do to contain this group tyrants. host: where is the solution? does it lie with china? lots of parties with a responsibility. by judgment begins with the united states. the path to keep americans safe falls on our country. we have analyzed in the region to help us, certainly, the south
koreans are concerned. we need to ensure that the chinese do everything they can to put this leader in the box. host: the other threat product during the testimony was isis is plotting to attack europe but also the united states, and it could possibly be that the attack the united states this year in 2016. on the scale of one to 10, how serious is it? a scalet is hard to put on things. i thought the testimony and he is quite right. our intelligence committee has done a lot of work to keep us safe. the threat is real, it is constant and they continue to grow the capacity with westerners heading to syria to be trained, so it is a real threat in the united states. we saw it in paris, we lived in san bernardino, and sometimes they're directed or inspired, but at the end of the day, these are isis radical islamists, the
premise, attempting to attack and destroy the west and we have to be vigilant and ensure our intelligence committee has the resources and tools they need to stop the plots before the explosion takes place. it is a long struggle, one we need to be ever vigilant about in the united states. host: how concerned are you that the situation in syria is leading, with russia getting involved in being on the side of assad, that that is a breeding ground for isis? and then you have the headline in "the washington post," "turkey will not open borders to refugees." guest: all of that is accurate and problematic for turkey and a lot problematic for the people of syria. i care about the impact in the united states. there is no doubt that they have training areas inside the middle east that exceeds the turning capacity that the taliban in al qaeda ever had enough and is done. the problem is real.
we are back to a pre-9/11 risk to respond ineed kind. we need to begin to lead throughout the middle east. it doesn't mean we have to put 1000 soldiers on the ground, but we have to leave the coalition that destroys radical islamic terrorism in the region. host: i want to go to hillary clinton when she was the secretary of state, her e-mails and the private e-mail she set up. she was asked about this at the last debate. talked about her testimony before the benghazi committee, but she also said on this fbi investigation that she is confident that she did not do anything wrong. take a listen. [video clip] hillary clinton: this is not the behavior of our islam or our prophet. chris stevens, a friend to all , although i did not have
the privilege of meeting sean smith personally, he was a valued member of our state department family, and air force veteran, and information management officer who had in baghdad, montreal, and woods workedtyrone for the cia. they were killed by mortar fire at the cia's outpost in benghazi, a short distance from -- from magic compound the diplomatic compound. they were both former navy seals and trained paramedics with distinguished records of service, including in iraq and afghanistan. host: that was hillary clinton testifying before the benghazi committee. guest: i was there. host: you are there for all 11
hours. let me go to what she said at the debate most recently. [video clip] hillary clinton: before it was e-mails and now it is then ghazi. republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that, and i testified for 11 hours, answer the questions, and they notcally said, yet, did gather, it was a political ploy. we had a development in the e-mail matter today. it came out that secretary powell and close aides to secretary rice used private e-mail accounts, and now, you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing that secretary powell and secretary rice's aide that they have been doing to make him which i never sent or received any classified information and -- ande mature -- two they are classifying it. this is an absurdity and i think
the american people will know this is an absurdity. i have no concern about it whatsoever. says she has no concerns and mentions powell and condoleezza rice. lots to say in response, but let's start with the facts. on the private e-mail server that was contained in the clinton home, it was not the government account. we note the intelligence committee classified as many as 32 top secret level e-mails and over 1300 classified e-mails on those devices. we know that those were not retroactively classified. many of them were classified when they were originally sent and we know that secretary least 20 plusat of those so serious today, that they cannot release them anyway, names, dates, but they refused
to release the e-mails in any way. these are serious matters. powell andnt about rice is. it is the difference between a car wreck and intentionally driving into a crowd multiple times. she said that the system that was intentionally designed to circle -- to circumvent the normal process, that is, the gov accounts on official systems. i have not read those e-mails but i have read the clinton e-mails that i referred to, but so they may have been classified information on other folks devices that came across, i think the number is 12 combined between the two as opposed to system that was designed. she did not have a.gov account with no intention to handle the information. host: was it illegal to set up a private server and e-mail?
guest: i will let the fbi conduct and make the judgment about legality and illegality, but i can tell you that had you done it or had i done it, i would be out the intelligence committee, my classification removed. i'm confident the voters in kansas would not reelect me, and properly so, and we would have hired high-powered criminal defense team to make sure our risk was minimized from the actions that we took. ift: what law did she break indeed it is proven that classified information was sent? guest: there are several. all of them deal with the proper handling of classified information. you have a requirement when you're given access to classified information to stay outside and understand that as part of the privilege and the duty to handle the classified information, i will comply with all the american laws with respect to classified information.
there are rules about intent, negligence, and complexity around the law. it is a pretty simple process issued. if you have classified information and i have heard folks talk about whether it is marked or unmarked, completely unrelated if it is marked or if it has classified information, there it be no marking and the words would not be stamped confidential, top-secret or the highest level of classification the government. i would have violated the law and i would be appropriately investigated by the fbi and it would form a decision about whether it was terminally liable. host: do think she violated that law? guest: she clearly violated multiple. host: to colonel powell also violate the law? seen them.ve not what is important to understand is that errors are made, people accidentally permit classified information to move to an
appropriate settings. there could be great debates about this. but this was systemic, 1300 e-mails on a private server and there was no other alternative for those medications. seen them turn them into non-paper and send that information. she directed her aid to turn that information into non-paper. to me, that is intent. host: so the committee is looking into this issue of whether or not she violated the law, correct? guest: i am not sure if that is correct or not, i hope this stays in the right channels. in my judgment, it is the fbi and department of justice. host: so the benghazi committee is not looking at the issue of e-mails, correct? guest: we are looking at things that relate to the death of four americans. it was our committee's work that concluded that when we had asked for documents in the state
department that there wasn't an official account. it was known there was a private e-mail account that she possessed, but what we learned was that there wasn't an official e-mail account in that did not have such an account, so we are focused on our mission and the justice department and the fbi are doing their investigation. host: have you found any evidence that there was wrongdoing on her part that led to the death of the four americans? guest: under the guidance of sherman died the -- of sherman guiding, they are optimistic that we will have the report before too long. we have made a lot of progress since then. interviews dozens of , tens of thousands of pages of documents that no have not
been reviewed by others, and we are finding documents that we were not provided after almost two years of requesting them, so we will get complete and bright and report -- and write report and i'm confident that the american people will find a couple of things. unprofessional, and second, we form judgments purely based on those tracks. no politics, just backs of the law. host: a lot to talk about this morning. norma in florida, democrat. go ahead. caller: i am not from florida but virginia. but i am a democrat. i am voting for hillary. concerned,far as i'm i am into politics and watch it every day. -- ih the benghazi hearing watched the benghazi hearing. bernie sanders, i like him. he and hillary have almost the same ideas.
we need somebody with experience. is not her first rodeo. she has dealt with a lot, foreign policy and everything. withed somebody who deals other countries, foreign politics. norma was trying to call in during our last conversation. i don't know if you want to weigh in. glad norma is engaged. i am thrilled about that. i endorsed sender rubio and i hope you will be our next president. i am happy to talk about that but we are talking about other things. host: we move on to carl, republican. caller: good morning. i have been watching this benghazi think too much since it first started. i would like to know has anybody
ever asked the president what orders he issued the night of the attack? i have never heard a journalist or even people on your committee asked the question, what orders came out of the white house that night? because i can to how you that president obama was sound asleep and so was hillary clinton, and needs the orders from commander-in-chief, so that is why there was no help sent to those people. host: congressman? guest: that is a great question. let me assure you, we have not today,to the president but one of the reasons it has not been asked, although one of our hearings has been -- all but one of our hearings has been behind closed doors. the remainder have been done in the setting that we find very conducive to getting the full truth.
they are long days with questions that are complex. -- we willount account for how the president and his team behaved and we will present all of the facts that lead up to the security situation on september 11, 2012, the night of the events that resulted in the deaths of those for incredibly brave americans, and we will spend amounts of time understanding how the administration got it wrong after the event. host: have you interviewed david cutrer? guest: yes. host: and that was in a closed setting. guest: that is correct. host: you cannot tell us what you learned? guest: i cannot. we have done our best to keep the contents of those conversations out of the public. we will present all the data and facts before too terribly long and the american people can form
their judgment, not only about the work we did that the foreign events. host: why was there a public hearing with hillary clinton and not with director patreaus? guest: she demanded it. gowdy that werey wanted to attempt these two not embarrass -- to not embarrass anybody. to garnerconducive information in a setting where really engage, so we thought the closed-door interviews were much more effective. we would have done the same, i suspect, with hillary clinton which he refused. -- but she refused. host: was it after hillary clinton testified? guest: i believe that is correct. host: on the e-mails, their reporting that the judge in this
e-mail investigation had ordered the state department to release 550 clinton e-mails over president days weekend. allen, independent. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing fine. your question or comment. question ande a comment. number one, these committees spend entirely too much time when they should be working on the important things. second thing, hillary clinton, i will never forget what she said she said when they left the white house, they were [indiscernible] and second of all, she has too much baggage and bernie sanders is on the right track. there has to be a revolution in this country. ok, congressman, what about the money spent on the investigation? guest: i have to say i cannot disagree more. we go, not only the family
members of the four americans to get thelled, answers and the facts, but we still have young men and women, maybe family members of yours, out and serving in dangerous places, asking them to do hard work in places with real risk. we have not had an ambassador killed on duty since 1979. we need to ensure that we could eliminate the risk that this could happen again. one of the functions of the committee is to find out how this happened. senator feinstein, democrat, said the incident was preventable. i agree with that and we need to figure out what the tools have been that could have actually prevented this from happening. i think it is worth the money we are spending, and i think americans not only will find good value, but they will find that we would be ignoring her to the coming up taken this task. -- ignoring our duty had we not taken this task. host: democrats gave thousands
in bonuses while blasting [indiscernible] some democratic staffers received bonuses while democrat lawmakers have been critical. did the republican staffers who bonuses? guest: i don't know the answer to that. [laughter] decisions totheir them and others can comment and critique. i will say this -- i have watched the democrat behavior for coming up on two years now, and i can tell you how disappointed i am. i understand that they are almost all uniform and supporting hillary clinton, i get that, but this committee has conducted one interview with secretary clinton and has spent scores of hours talking to other witnesses, many names that no one watching the show will ever come to know. we have been focused on getting the facts and they have spent two years constructing every celebrity. -- every single effort.
i have seen in more than a handful of questions that have to related to get into the facts surrounding this event. i think have not done their duty to the constitution or constituents and i know they have not performed their duty to the families of the four slade men in a way that i think dignified as with elected officials ought to do. host: are they planning to do their own report? hopefully, they will sign on to it. i hope the committee can find an amenity around basic facts. is watching in florida, democrat. go ahead. caller: i would like to discuss two things. the first, all the e-mails that are beingeclassified complained about, if those e-mails were on the government computer, they would be in russia right now with edward snowden.
the other thing, then ghazi -- benghazi, it was a cia operation run by the general. the ambassador was that a nonsecure location, he was not in the embassy. if you want the truth, quit have anng petraeus and open meetings of the american people can hear what they have to say. host: congressman? guest: a lot to say there. s is a greataeu american and has kept a lot of lives saved. as for this issue, we have asked a lot of hard questions to general petraeus about what he was doing and what his agency was doing. it was the case that there were inilities related to him benghazi, but the ambassador was at the state department facility.
it was true he was at the facility in benghazi that had inadequate security. the question is how what should we have done differently. e-mailsthe issue of the and whether they would have been a risk if they had been on the .gov account, it has been the case that we have not been able to secure all the american information we needed to them that we had edwards noted steel that information and they should be brought back and given due process. proper outcome would beat the death sentence for having put people at the enormous risk or information he extolled and released. -- information he stole and released. i can assure you that information was a lot more secure in the hands of the secure system that the government has spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars rather than on a private server in the home of hillary clinton.
it is not a close call. there was a reason we haven't said that that way. to transfer information from a secure system to a nonsecure impossible tost do with great intention. someone has to intend to bring out of the secure system. there is no connectivity between the two systems, so someone shows to take them from one place, the place with classified information and transfer it to the private server. the fbi is trying to figure out how that happened. host: he brought up reclassification. is ossifiedormation need to be looked at and changed? guest: yes. it is the case that there complained about overclassification. i think there is lots of information over classified, unfortunately, the stuff on our server is not that. these are special access programs, these are the crown
jewels of american national security, which we keep very close cold. -- close cold. we share it with the fewest number of human beings to keep the risk as low as humanly possible. we are talking about folks who are working on behalf of our want thet to do not bad guys to know are on our payroll because they will be killed and have americans killed as a direct result. were not reclassified. this information was classified from the beginning. it is the case that you could read the material as a professional handler of intelligence and sometimes could debate whether there ought to be classification, but this is not that. there is no way that someone would the experience that secretary clinton had or members of the team have had but handling classified information handle thebly information and not understand that this should be classified.
if it was not marked, they had an obligation to make sure it got back to the proper channel report the leakage. host: i want our viewers to note that you have actually read the e-mails because you serve on the intelligence committee. guest: because i have access to classified information and have a duty to keep them secure. host: were you given access to the e-mails from the inspector general? guest: yes, ma'am. , butnot certain precisely it was provided to the intelligence committee by the intelligence community in a way that we have responsibility for oversight, that is, how we keep our secrets safe and we have the oversight responsibility for how our classified information is stored and handled. host: how do you respond to her saying they have been leaks that are intentionally aimed at damaging her career or her ambition to become president? guest: the fbi is conducting the
investigation. die cig is an obama administration appointee, the icig is an obama initiation appointee and now another has named 22 of the e-mails at such a level of risk that they will not release them now, even years later. these are government officials doing their best. we have soldiers today, in the fields, fighting to protect classified information from getting out. ifines have the duty that the facility is attacked and there is classified information, to risk a lot of their lives to keep the information safe and secretary clinton handled this in a different way. next.luka is caller: good morning. how are they doing today? caller: i am not sure.
i'm interested in how the government here operates. there is so much classified information and public do we have aso double government, one for the people and one for the government? guest: thanks and great to get a call from my district, the fourth district of kansas. there is not a double government , throughout history since george washington, america's first, there are things we want to make sure that bad guys cannot get access to. the goal is not to hide from the american people but to keep things like the way our submarines transit bottom of the ocean, our technology, how good our missile systems are, we could come up with a list of
things we don't want the russians, chinese or iranians have access to to keep america safe. that is how the appropriate classification takes place. is it the case that some will be unclassified, i understand, but there is a set of information that is not made public. host: in illinois, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for your work. two points, one, everyone knows isis did not exist before the country of iraq fell. the second point, which i think is more important, do you think that investigating george bush would be beneficial to the country because everyone knows the invasion of iraq was illegal? there was never one weapon of mass distraction ever found. i will wait for your answer.
thank you. guest: i appreciate that. congress deems it appropriate to investigate, they ought to do that. i think the issue of what was , frankly,as not owned our intelligence committee got that wrong. work but oury good intelligence committee does not get everything right. i think they admit that. we have litigated a lot about whether the decision was the right decision to move into iraq in 2003 and how we handle that. i'm not sure we could resolve that in a couple of minutes this morning. host: baton rouge, louisiana, c.w., independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do not care how much money it takes, keep this investigation going. and other people in this country need to realize that the clintons are not
loyalty. they have to abide by the same laws i do. if i did what hillary clinton did, i would be under the jail and i will not -- and i want something done about it. i suppose.thoughts first, with respect to benghazi and the investigation has gone a significant period of time and we hope to be completed much more quickly. had trouble getting documents out of the white house and state department to answer the very questions that i think american people are demanding and we will keep working at it. i may be too optimistic about when we get completed, but i think we're getting closer to being done. i will assure your listener that we will do everything we can to get the facts and we will write a thorough report. host: not sure if he was referring to benghazi or the e-mails.
on benghazi, are you concerned at all that the longer it takes to put out a final report that it feeds into the narrative that was put out there by kevin thatthy in your leadership this is political because we're in the height of the primary nominating process and we're getting closer to november? guest: i'm not naive about political season. i get it. i feel that. it is democracy in action. we can see it in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina in the week. all i can say is i have watched my colleagues and ours we have put in and the staff to try to get the right answers. -- we cannothave get the white house to agree to get folks to talk to us. we would have led to write the report the year ago, but we cannot get documents. we got documents on new year's eve, documents we asked for 18
months previously. we asked for documents on hillary clinton's e-mail and they told us we had been, and the state department did not know that she did not have an official account. it is incomprehensible to me that you can run an organization and not understand that your american diplomat, is not working inside the system. he finally said, we have not gov e-mails and they begin to scramble. they said, oh, my goodness, and they determined that there was no .gov account for secretary clinton and that 100% of the e-mails related to the state department, 100 percent of the e-mails she sent during her time in service, or on her private server. there is no doubt that it has delayed the ability to write the report, and the daily release it , it will have everything to do with when we are done nothing
with politics. is watchinga, ron us, republican. .aller: thank you, c-span congressman, i appreciate your service. i just watched this since 1991, 1992, these people are ridiculous. anybody that can find a way to try to defend what has happened over the years has to be an idiot, just like the guy, the independent data, it is just one andr another, and another, they don't release it until new year's. care changes on christmas night, thank you for that present. on and on, i don't know why people do not wake up and demand these people to come before these people, their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and the people executed over there,
at the same time, you are e-mailing your daughter or some other leader. she just gets away with more and more. i don't know how anybody could stomach it. it is sickening. host: we will get a response. guest: americans forget to make a decision -- will get to make a decision in the weeks ahead and in november, america will get to decide who the next commander-in-chief is. that i will clear not be supporting secretary clinton. i do not think she would be an effective leader for america and i think, with respect to the milk situation, has demonstrated, at the very least am a bad judgment. i did want to get to something else. americans are treated equally and how we ought to be treated equally, i have great confidence in the fbi. i think they will conduct the thattigation in the way
does america really good turn. i think they will complete the investigation and present the facts. is what they ought to do and when they do, they will come to conclusion about the behavior with the legal weight information not to be handled. i hope they will do it in a way [indiscernible] host: the fbi is investigating the private e-mail address. i went to clarify because davy and has this tweet -- has the committee into the colonel powell who also had his e-mail from his private account reclassified? i want to craft -- to clarify that you are getting a report on this investigation from the inspector general's office, but the committee is not conducting an investigation. guest: because i said on the benghazi committee, too, there is confusion. so, the committee has not asked any of our witnesses about anything that did not relate to benghazi, so secretary powell's
time in service would have predated 2012, so there would be no reason for us to interview secretary powell. on the intelligence committee side, or you sit on the panel, talk about your role in the e-mail. recipientare just the of information from the inspector general for the intelligence community, who himself, was given the task of reviewing the information goes on sector clinton's private e-mail. the inspector general conducted or made a report -- i looked at those e-mails, here is what i found and delivered that to the select committee on intelligence, along with the e-mails he thought were .lassified and has now judged i have not yet seen the information. we may get a report related to mr. powell or ms. rice's work and when we do, we will conduct the process. host: when you read the e-mails
from hillary clinton's e-mail address that were deemed pacify, did you have to read them and get them back? guest: yes, ma'am. i read them in a secure location . i cannot talk to you or your viewers about the content of those e-mails in any way. they were presented to me in a document in the document was then returned to the safe inside. host: no phones. guest: the phones, none of my staff is permitted to come down. i'm permitted to take notes to help myself understand what is questions, and those notes are in the skiff and in the safe. i don't have been with me this morning. if i did, i would have a problem ipo and we spent so much time talking about. host: anthony, new york, democrat. caller: thank you for the opportunity. as i listen to your scrutiny of the benghazi occasion, i would ask c-span to moderate what we
what going up to 9/11 and we have now spent investigating benghazi. that we help to feel have a serious problem in our government. as far as i remember, the last three or four speakers of the house had to resign in some serious form of dubious distinction. there were into e-mails between the bush administration that were supposed to have been turned over, and they waited until the commission expired and they never revealed the interoffice discussions between the bush administration, which was a huge conflict of interest to a lot of the oil and energy sector to rise to power, creating an extreme conflict of interest that brought about an invasion of the country that did nothing to us other than comply with 12 years of sanctions. host: i will leave it there. guest: my only comment is that every government official,
myself, anyone who serves at the pleasure of the constituents you identified other places where that have been a noncompliance illegality. most of the justice department and congress has a duty. identify them and bring them to the public so we can form good judgment and democracy can truly be had. absent the ability of congress to do its oversight function, the american people will not know think they ought to know. whether it's a republican congress or democratic congress. the answer to the american people so the information can be provided so they can make good judgments on the good to the ballot box each november of every even year. host: mike pompeo, former military. graduated from west point. served in the army. now sits on the intelligence
committee as well as the select committee investigating benghazi, and energy and commerce. thank you as always for taking the questions and talking to our viewers. when we come back we will talk with congresswoman riddle lawrence. -- brenda lawrence. democrat from michigan. we will talk about the flint water crisis and water safety in this country. later we will turn to north korea's recent launch of an long-range rocket and how the international community is reacting. we will be right back. ♪
[applause] >> every election cycle reminds us how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> c-span is a home for political junkies and awaited track the government as it happens. >> i think it's the best way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. a lot of my colleagues will say i saw you on c-span. >> there's a lot that c-span does to make sure people outside the beltway know what is going on inside it. road to the white house began in iowa. the caucuses date back to 1972. family moved to new hampshire for the quintessential first the nation primary which is a long and rich history. now we begin to test the candidates and their message. we move south the south carolina for the first southern primary. then to the caucuses in nevada
for the democrats and republicans. we will see a number of candidates probably drop out of the race so the field will narrow. then we will move to early march. super tuesday. the start of winner take all primaries. the delegate count will be critical. we get ach a continue better sense of whose message is resonating and who was on the path to the nomination. >> washington journal continues. host: congressman brenda lawrence, democrat of michigan, welcome to our table. your first time here. tell us about the waters situation in flint michigan. as it stands today, is the water say to drink? guest: no. the residents are still using filters for bathing. it is not good for cooking, for drinking. it has not been given the all clear yet. host: what is the process for
the all clear? guest: because they did not treat the water, the lead in the pipes has been exposed. until they can secure that with treatment or liners or replacing the pipes, there is still led in the water. it takes time and there is a process for the reseal or coat the pipes. they are continuously testing. they are not at a point where it is safe to drink. host: what is the role of the state and local government and the federal government here to fix the problem permanently? to replace the infrastructure and make sure this does not happen again? guest: there is a lot of discussion. some will say we need to recoat the pipes like we did in the past. flinttell you people of do not receive that as a fix.
talking to the people of flint in the mayor, they want the pipes replaced. there is a cost to that. there is a plastic liner you can put in the pipes. that is an alternative as well. the governor is coming out with funding to address it. the federal government has been asked by numerous members of congress, including in the senate, both of our two senators and others in the house. we are debating that. the pipes must be fixed. host: the price tag is $155 million? guest: yes. host: i saw a report on cnn this morning that the vacancy level of household in flint is quite high. guest: there are so many levels of this crisis.
first there is the human element. lead poisoning. children are affected of the most. the elderly. then there is the economy. there are restaurants that are closing. who's going to go to a restaurant in flint? then there is the housing. if i did not own my home or i am renting, i would choose another place to live. if i'm living there, who is going to buy my house? the trust of the people is going to take a long time. that's what replacing the pipes makes a lot of sense. in the trust will be restored and people will feel safe again. had: senator john cornyn this to say. "while they all have sympathy were -- for what is happening in flint, responsibility mainly lies with state and local government in michigan. given that we have $19 trillion in debt, i think it's fair to ask, do we want the federal government replacing all the if
a structure put in place by cities and states all across the country?: " guest: i want to elevate this conversation. i was a mayor. we fought for infrastructure investment. this led issue -- washington dc a few years ago had a lead water issue. members of congress alone of the country are talking about the water infrastructure. there is a concept i really want to debate and that is affordable safe water in america. we are going to have to invest in our infrastructure. there are still places where we have led pipes, but we have found had a coat the pipes or treat them with chemicals that will seal the lead so it is not leach into the water. eventually we have to stop kicking the can down the road and start investing. i want congress to have a conversation. but i want us to start talking
about what is safe and affordable longer -- water in america. it's a basic need and what our government through our epa, through the clean water initiative, they have made a promise to the people of america and we need to keep that promise. host: how much is the price tag replacing the infrastructure across the country? it's not just flint were people have old homes with lead pipes. guest: that is really to ship comes in. i'm never going to fix any infrastructure because it cost a lot of money. you plan. you say this is the cost. say prioritize those areas free have children with lead. you are testing in c high levels of lead. invest in those communities first. allinfrastructure, railroads, our bridges, our streets, we can't just keep saying it costs too much.
you will have to plan and we will have to invest a we're going to look like a third world country with our infrastructure. it is past the point of discussing the costs. planet out. it may take us 50 years but let's start doing what we must do. host: we want to get michigan residents involved in this as well. .202) 748-8003 republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. beau in ohio. caller: good morning. i'm under the understanding that this problem in michigan started to save money for the government. my question is what is our government going to put more importance on, human life or
money? i was take human life is more important than money. when does the money and people things start? that's my question. guest: thank you for your call. unfortunately it is true. it's a financial decision that was made to switch from a source of water that came to the city of detroit, that served the community without lead in it. clean, safe water. to an alternative water system, the flint water system that was not treated. the decision was based on a financial decision. the failure came when they switched the water ended up treat the water. , it wast water came in not treated. the lead in the pipe started leaching into the water.
the other failure of our government was notifying the residence and stopping them -- letting them know to stop thinking the water. those were the failures. right now there is an absolute need for acceptance of responsibility for the federal government, from the state of michigan. the state of michigan made a decision. say thataws that federal dollars go toward natural disasters. this is a man-made disaster. the state of michigan, the governor has announced he is investing funds into fixing the pipes. it's not enough to fix a problem. there is a lot of discussion going on here in the federal government. how much should the federal government contribute to this? we can't sit back and say we won't contribute anything. the president did step up and
submitted and approval for funds. he could not release the amount of funds that would have gone towards a natural disaster. it's man-made. the state of michigan is going to have the brunt. there is a surplus and our state -- in our state budget in that must go towards flint. host: from the detroit news, the two senators from michigan. enoughters and staff stabenow, the amendment would provide up to $400 million in federal emergency funding to the epa to help fix went's -- flint's water supply. they face an uphill battle where gop members are pressured. the drinking water revolving one
fun program at the mast dollar by dollar by the state of michigan, whether it is $50 million or $400 million. does michigan have that money? guest: michigan does not have a lot of choices here. the governor is going to look at the budget. i know there is $50 million there. we are going to have to prioritize the investment. there is the pipes. then there is the treatment for the children. early education. we will have to invest in mandatory early childhood development because the only way you can counteract the poison and the damage that led us to a child's developing brain is nutrition. early childhood development. they need counselors and nurses. these are things that are not optional. you have a whole city -- think about this. teacher in a classroom. a whole city of children who have been affected with lead poisoning.
it comes at a behavior. it comes out and challenges in learning. so people: special ed. -- some people call it special ed. then there is the psychological effects of that. there have been studies on lead poisoning. you go to a prison, you will see a large number of the prisoners have lead poisoning. there has been discussion about mr. gray who was shot who had lead poisoning. somebody discussions happening here. the infrastructure is only part of the issue of the funds we had to address. host: the latest from governor snyder on this. he said out a tweet late last night saying he never ordered the deq to withhold information about lead in flint schools. what is your response to that? guest: they did not release the information. this is a delicate balance. you have asked why are
finger-pointing? we failed as a government. i sit on oversight. that is my job in congress. i'm the ranking member of the interior. epa, clean water. they should never happen in the united states. we failed. we need to know every step. who made decisions? who made -- who did not perform their job? who was notified? when did you react? we need to fix this. i'm so proud of congress. says one, hr 4470 that cpa -- once epa becomes aware of contaminants in water that they must inform the residence. what happened in flint is that yes, the michigan department of environmental quality was aware
there was led in the water. epa tested the water in said wait a minute. your water levels are not correct. in the michigan department of environment of quality center they were treating the water -- said they were treating the water. epa tested again. they said something is wrong because elevations are going higher. all this time they are talking to each other in the residents are drinking the water and that is unacceptable. collectively as a congress we that whenevere epa tests water, they must and -- and it is not safe to drink, whoever had primacy, whoever the responsibility for treating and informing the residents that the epa must overstep them and notify the residents so they can stop drinking.
host: the governor saying my budget proposal invests a one -- an additional $198 million to help flint families. caller: good morning. everything you are saying sounds good so far. the question i would like to ask there was a stopgap for the naacp? where was the black caucus? organizationsse to set up -- step up to ensure that public safety is as it is supposed to be? guest: thank you for the question. we do not know. understand this was an inside baseball. who ishe pediatrician what we are calling a civil hero
started screaming that these children i am treating in flint, thereby levels are too high. understand what happened in flint. you had an emergency manager drinking the water in saying citizens of flint, colin down. this walk -- calm down. the citizens were being told that professionals and those who are in charge of the government and emergency managers, they take away all local home rules and they are in charge of all the decisions in the city. they report directly to the governor. this person was telling the community that the water was safe. it was a pediatrician who --tinuously treated these tested these children and said this is not normal. she and the parent and the scientist, the three of them
enough that we get acknowledgment from the professionals in the city of flint that the water is not safe to drink. that is when everyone started coming in. i would have to say the naacp, the congressional black caucus, we have been very loud on this issue because we found out about it. like the people of flint, it breaks my heart. this city is majority minority. the city has 40% poverty. we are looking across the country. places where people are poor. places where there are large thatations of minorities you see what we are calling environmental injustice. if not acceptable anywhere. but this case in flint has made of whatlaring example
happens when your government fails. something thaten has happened, that i as a member of congress on oversight never want to happen again in america. these children will never be able to remove the lead in their brains. host: we will go to michigan. jim is calling. an independent. caller: i really think it is time that democratic party candidate fors the democratic presidential thatation finally admits local government failed in flint. as it did in detroit. and many other michigan cities. governor republican that ran it into the ground. thata democratic regime
don't know how to run local government. you want to blame it on the republicans, you are wrong. you have been a mayor. you are wrong. host: let's get a response. guest: thank you for your call. i want to be very clear. i was a mayor for 14 years and i never had a deficit. anyver had to have situation where financially my city did not survive. i have a very vibrant city that i transitioned on the congress. there are a number of strong cities led by democrats. let's talk about what happened. local government, the city of detroit went under a financial situation. emergency managers. at any time of the people in the city of detroit poisons with lead in their water? if you want to have a conversation about cities that
are failing, they are failing all over the country. look deeply emily are talking about. we are talking about basic human rights, drinking water. and a financial decision was made by the state government because in this situation, whoever you want to say, the democrats, i'm not sure who all of their political affiliation in flint. however, in the city of flint a financial decision was made. was made to say we will save money if we stop using this water system and use a different one. which was not a big issue. but the fact of the better that happened and they did not treat the water and actually poisoned people with lead is unacceptable. whether you're a democrat, republican or independent. never again in america should that happen. guest:
host: you are supporting hillary clinton for president. she went to flint michigan and met with residents. she called it immoral. the congressional black caucus is endorsing her today. are the two related? what she said there. how did the cbc come to that decision? guest: the cbc is endorsing hillary clinton. this is bigger than flint. this is a candidate that if you look at her resume, no one who is running for president can touch it. you cannot find a better qualified person. if you get the call in the middle of the night or you have to negotiate and use diplomacy to help this country as we navigate through so many threats, so many changing dynamics in our economy, she is the best qualified. the other thing i want to point out -- why did she go to flint?
that is the person she is. she believes fundamentally that those without a voice, those who have been trusting in our government and we failed them, someone has to go and fix it. she has been there. she came to listen to the people of flint. she is actually engaged. the children's fund in new york, she asked him to go and help flint. she came with resources. that is what i want her to be my president. i don't want someone that does not understand the needs of the people in america, especially when it comes to those with the smallest voice because they are not rich and powerful. they are people who normally are minorities that people do not hear. i want her to protect everyone from wall street to the homeless person on the street.
and hillary clinton is the person that has the ability to do that, and the desire and the passion. re has beenel moo very vocal. this is a racial killing. 60%, michigan is black. when you knowingly poison of laxity, you are committing a version of genocide." caller: my head is spinning. this is such a simple equation. only it has happened over a long period of time. brenda is misleading herself as you think that hillary clinton is going to be the salvation to flint, michigan. bill clinton brought us nafta. and nafta brought us the big suck. the evacuation of manufacturing from michigan. the auto industry.
since free trade has become so prevalent and tax cuts by mr. foryn, who refuses to pay his own corporate welfare that trillion isn $2 sitting offshore because they won't bring it back because of tax dodgers. there is a cycle here. it all evolves around free-trade. that is when deficit started becoming relevant. problem.he host: congresswoman? guest: thank you for calling in. i represent the city of detroit. i am very clear what happened with nafta. tpp unless wet address the currency issue. if i can make one statement, i'm
voting for hillary clinton, not bill clinton. hillary clinton is the person i'm looking at her resume. i have sat down and talked with her. she is not supporting tpp either. we have to move on. the reality is she is married to bill clinton. the bill clinton is not on the ballot. hillary clinton is and i'm looking at her record. where she stands on issues. i expect her to move forward when elected as president to address these issues i agree on. host: lansing, michigan. shirley is a republican and on the air. caller: i thought we were talking about the flint water crisis, not doing publicity for hillary. mike question goes back to a statement you made. was the governor of the state of michigan on the board in flint, michigan that made a decision to
change the source of the water? was the governor of the state of michigan the one who decided not to treat it? averal weeks ago i heard representative from flint say the problem has been evolving for years. lead pipes, water pipes, they are ancient. did the governor of the state of michigan make those decisions? the truth will set us free. we have a horrible situation in the city of flint and all over the country i believe. let's get to the truth. stop the campaign for hillary this morning and get back to your subject. .hank you, miss brenda i'm glad to get back to
issue. thank you for calling. be clear that will be talk about the governor makes a decision. mayor, if something happens in my city, i have a responsibility for the reset -- decisions i made. when you have an emergency manager, and if you live in michigan you should be clear about what emergency manager means. the city is in a financial situation. the governor sends in a person that the governor approves to go in and take away all the home rules of the mayor -- and the mayor and council cannot approve decisions. pointre deemed at that when the emergency manager comes in totally powerless. the decision was made. a financial decision was made to switch the water. again, that was a financial decision. that would not have been the
decision, the problem came when there water that they start using was not treated, and that there was a cover-up -- then there was a cover-up. some will say the governor did not decide not to treat the water. the governor did not sit there and switch this switch. that shenor has said will -- he take -- he will take over a city and the emergency manager does not report to the people. the emergency manager only reports the governor. when the people come in and say we don't want you to switch our water, it does not mean anything, because it is always -- the only person an emergency manager reports to is the governor. the question becomes, at all those levels, during this time when there was a cover-up, at aware?int did he become
i know the governor, i know he did not sit there and intentionally harm anyone. i would never say that. the reality is, a decision was made and some people say this is just pointing fingers. i'm trying to get the facts. give us the information, so that we can fix this, so that those who made this decision can be held accountable, but we cannot just say don't talk about what happened, let's just fix it. it could happen again, and that is why i'm proud to say that in congress, we have started fixing this. i stood on the floor and asked my colleagues on both sides of to aisle to support 4470 ensure the epa that this would never happen again in america. the epa is aware that the water is undrinkable and they pass
over states, cities, whoever and stop the water from being distributed to human beings so they will not be harmed. host: this is the safe drinking water bill? guest: yes. host: it passed? guest: yes. host: do you think the president will sign it? guest: i do. host: this is a headline that the governor, rick snyder, maybe recalled under his -- over his unconstitutional takeover of schools, apparently by the board of education -- they said that the governor's office -- andsion to close schools to bringchool staff -- the office to reform schools under control of the state department of technology, that that violates the state constitution that does not provide him with direct control over public schools. not related to the flint
situation, but how power was consolidated in the state. guest: this whole emergency management issue in michigan, which was put on the ballot and the people of michigan voted it was signed into law, attaching appropriations so we cannot vote on it. this is something the people of michigan did not want. the same emergency management that was in flint was given a overtion and sent to be detroit public schools. he has been over those schools and you talk about enough blame to go around. he has been over the detroit public schools since 2009 in the schools have failed miserably. it is sad because you only get one chance to educate a child and if a child does not have an
education, we know what happens. they will not be successful because in america, without education, you don't have a lots of choices. labor jobs are disappearing, the whole process of finding employment while being uneducated is slim to none. here we are with this same concept of authority that the governor only is the reporting authority, that we are failing. we can't have this conversation without talking about that emergency manager process. being a mayor, people paying their taxes, they should expect the government to work, and the state stepping in to say we that,ask the finance of if i can have my input, i would say the emergency manager should be financial only and that the home rule and the people who are elected should still be in place
and be accountable, but have an emergency manager that deals with the finance and gets the city back on track, financially. host: we go to michigan, dorothy, democrat. caller: hello. i would like to thank you, mrs. lawrence, for continuing to work on the water crisis in went, and to let you know, we appreciate you hear and what you do in congress, thank you very much. guest: thank you so much. host: we go on to matt in new hampshire, independent. caller: good morning representative. i watched this closely and i'm following a family in flint. the city of detroit had no giving the red wings
$200 million for a new arena, it should have new money -- they should have money for new pipes. epa tested the home of a single mother three times and they reported that she had 33,000 parts per billion -- per million of lead in her water. that is compatible to nuclear waste, that is considered toxic waste, it is so far above levels, unimaginable and i am -- i also want to mention that i have a sick child who is 19 years old who is affected by that who was affected by lead when he was a child. he's educated to the level of a greater, he will never drive or be employable, people really need to realize. what led does we have all the money in the world for pro sports teams but we don't seem the money to help the
industrial cities that built this country. host: washington post headline, flint victims face high hurdles in court. caller: very high hurdle in the federal court system, but i'm fortunate, one of the few private individuals who never argued a case in front of the supreme court, not as an eternity, but as a private individual and i have won two of the three times i have, so i do have legal knowledge and a background. hurdles, buty high there are certain points i've been taking up out of case law that definitely pretty substantial case or a long-term venture and i have a friend in new hampshire who says they were influenced. host: why don't you jump in? when -- i wanted to paint this picture and i want
people to understand how critical the situation is. and was the mother breast-feeding my child, i am told to hydrate and drink a lot of water. lead feeding my child the that i was ingesting. fixing formula for my baby, you have infants and these small children going to school, drinking water and in some cases, bathing in the water, this is just horrible. the effect of lead on a developing brain, we will have to invest in these children at least 10 years out to try to mediate it with nutrition, counseling, early childhood development, and we still don't know how it's going to play out. host: what about epa and the safe drinking water act that was passed decades ago? are inepa and where they
the will writing process when it comes to lead pipes -- role writing -- rule writing process when it comes to lead pipes. there are chemicals that you can put in water level coat pipes so that led will not leach out. we had this conversation earlier. we are replacing these lead pipes that we know are all over the country, and that is where i want to take this conversation, because people have this conversation about affordable water and decisions are made all the time. i'm asking, when will we know if this water is safe? there is never been a situation documented where water was switched from one source to another and allowed the lead -- to leach into the water.
this is something we are learning, firsthand, but we talk about the clean water, epa has been treating the water so it has not been an issue. this was the first time a government did not treat the water. has rules and regulations in place and the rest of the states and cities across the country are following those rules and link did not -- flint did not? guest: yes. host: is there a violation there? guest: that's a good question. that is why we need answers and i have been criticized for putting out a list, saying that from the governor down, we need to get the information down because there is a federal investigation with the justice department, the fbi, on the state level there are investigations. oversightibility on is to make sure epa and the clean water act is strong enough
that this does not happen again. there are numerous lawsuits. whether there is criminal accountability, but there must absolutely be accountability for this situation. host: what is happening next on this situation? guest: the funding issue is going to be discussed and debated. the state of michigan bus stand up because this is a man-made disaster. the amount of money that it will take fix this is that moving number, we must solidify it, how much money do we need to address the investment in the children? this will not be a long time -- a one-time fix, fix a fight but these children will need treatment for their lives. was also lawsuits, accountability, the failure of our government, this must all be
resolved. the primary thing right now is taking care of the people of flint. host: there is a committee set up in washington to investigate, what happened? guest: the justice department, the state attorney general has called for an investigation, we investigation in oversight and with that, if a decision is made, we have not had that conversation. january was when everything really came to light. do,: what more can congress legislatively? eva must tell citizens whether drinking water's are contaminated, what else can congress do? guest: we need to start investing in infrastructure. we must decide as a government -- we we cannot continue to just kick
the can down the road. roadck the can down the with infrastructure. we finally funded a transportation bill for 10 years out. people used to ask me as a mayor, what keeps me awake at night? when you flush a quilish it and don't think about it, whenever a water main breaks, that is a failure of infrastructure. when we had that huge power outage that took out half of the northeast part of the country, you know what we did? portable batteries on the water systems because if we lost power, the water becomes contaminated because we don't have the infrastructure. we had to immediately go address the water. the country needs to wake up and no that we will need to have a plan for this. host: i saw a figure at $1.5
billion, was that just to replace pipes in all of michigan? people were talking about 550 million. guest: there are a lot of numbers floating out there, a lot of data attached. passion, andt of that is what i want happening right now is for us to really get our hands -- get data, get the professionals out there and assess this situation so we can put the proper amount of dollars around this. i don't want the republicans or democrats voting down funding because they say it is too much, but if we give them the data that this is what it's going for, it is like we in a bipartisan way, just pass this will for the epa, i think we can put our arms around it.
conyers -- cummings. chambers is the chair of oversight, cummings is the ranking member. they have been working to gave and i am soether proud of the leadership. congressman cummings has been such a champion of this and chambers choked up during the meeting, he said his daughter was moving to michigan. said member of congress what if this was my community? this is america, not a third world country. i'm strongly optimistic that when we get the real numbers and real data, we will move forward and take care of the people of flint. host: lauren in minnesota, republican. -- warren in minnesota, public
and. -- republican. caller: are the -- is the poisoning from the pipes or from the river? for environment, where is that river running through? are we worried about cleaning up that river? nobody of water should have -- no body of water should have led in it. guest: thank you so much for your call. in the clean water act and the environmental responsibility, we do have the responsibility to protect our water. i want to give you another scenario that is so telling. there was an automotive factory in flint that stopped using the given to theit was
citizens because it was too corrosive for them to make cars. think about how bad this water was. there is another telling thing, that there was water brought to the state department, drinking water, because they want it to make sure that the state employees at alternative water. -- had alternative water. we have a responsibility to fix our water. michigan has the largest supply of fresh water with our five great lakes, but all of our because ofbe treated pollutants in the air that washes down, because of the pollution that we are finding and tracking and monitoring. who is putting chemicals in our water? we are constantly on that. companies,nd these
any water we drink must be treated, to ensure that it is safe. host: wanda in michigan, democrat. caller: in michigan, in flint, i consider this the governor's problem. he is the one that appointed the emergency manager and said in his state of the state that the buck stops with him. he is -- has really messed with the people of michigan. andas done so much harm boasted about being such a businessman and can make deals and do all kinds of things. this is what happens when money becomes more important than people. we have a governor who has lots of money, and he should be charged and this money come out of his own pocket. he needs to be jailed.
terry,et's get in stevensville, michigan, democrat. me,er: the lady just before i think she read my mind. thatt to make the comment whence neither was elected, the first thing he did was cut taxes andthe wealthy, $2 billion they asked him how he would replace that money and he said no worry, we will get it. our roads are horrible, that one theer that was talking to lady on whatever, republican, that is the attitude you get, a really arrogant attitude and i think they all got robbed. guest: i just point to make the theent -- want to make comment that the governor said he apologized, but said the buck stops with him and this is
extremely important, that as we in michigan look at this emergency manager form of government, it is not working and it is -- the school system in detroit, it has not worked, it has failed and the city of flint, there was a failure that now has impacted the lives of those citizens. that must be fixed in michigan, and the governor said the buck stops with him. lawrence, democrat from michigan, sits on oversight and government reform, thank you for answering questions. we hope you come back. guest: i will. host: we will take a short break and went we come back, we turn our attention to north korean ship -- north korea and its recent launch of a rocket. we talked to catherine moon after this break. ♪
to do with that? >> what is important to me is the national debt because it affects us teenagers and what i find most important is not who you are voting for because i'm not endorsing anyone, i want you to get out to the -- to the polls and use your vote because it is your voice. ismy number one issue getting big money out of politics. citizens united needed to beat -- needs to be overturned. until we address that, everything else is going to get worse. making number of people decisions about what happens to the rest of the population. i believe it is every american citizens duty to be politically active and vote in elections. as a first-time voter, i'm trying to figure out what i like. i'm bouncing from campaign to campaign and i'm here at marco rubio's pancake breakfast.
i believe there is a candidate for everyone and i'm excited to find out who i like. continues.on journal kathy moon is with us, an expert on eastern asia to talk about korea. what exactly did north korea launch? what theylaunched call an observation satellite. was a propulsive and mechanism -- propulsion mechanism that was redone in order to accommodate a waters -- larger satellite, twice the size of one that its end up in 2012 and as of now, u.s. strategic command leaves it is in orbit, although we are not able to pick
up signals. host: is this a threat to the u.s. and its allies and the countries close to north korea? guest: it is a violation of u.n. sanctions and un security council resolutions prohibiting north korea from conducting such launches. the reason why the u.n. and other countries have been so worried is because a satellite launch can be deemed as a icbm tol launch of a reach the west coast of the united states. we think that that is their ultimate ambition. it is not there at all, any stretch of the imagination, but every time they cast, the fear is that they will learn and improve the technology. host: i want you to tell us what
the u.s. about what ambassador had to say on sunday, after the u.n. held an emergency meeting on north korea. >> north korea's launch yesterday, using prescribed ballistic missile technology, undermines regional stability and violates the dpr case obligations under four separate security council resolutions, demonstrating again that the dpr k will continue to escalate tensions in the absence of a strong and forceful response from the international community. the accelerated development of north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program poses a serious threat to international peace and security. to that these and security not just of north korea's neighbors, but the peace and security of the world.
pyongyang claims it launched what it called a peaceful earth observation satellite. fooled.s space launch vehicles are the same technology as ballistic the souls which are prohibited by multiple security council resolutions. host: what stands out to you about what you heard from the u.n. ambassador? guest: that the international community has to pull together to send a forceful message to north korea to make it stop. the problem is, the international trinity has done this over and over again. i just wrote a piece called the thendhog problem -- groundhog day problem with north korea and how to escape it. them doing this over and over and us responding the same way. i don't see them caring very much about international sanctions or condemnation.
north korea is taking advantage of u.s./china tensions in the south china sea. it is taking advantage of the u.s. election cycle. it knows how to play a very smart game. we either need to come up with other measures in addition to tightening sanctions, or we will just continuing in this merry-go-round chase. the second thing that is interesting is that i think it would be an unusual step for north korea to assume that the u.s. and other countries would be able to team up together for any long time to sustain pressure. communal, could get a coordinated pressure on north korea, the question is how do you sustain it?
that north korea is also betting on the fact that any coordination that occurs in the near term could all a part. -- fall apart. host: the house passed some sanctions, and the senate. marco rubio and ted cruz came back from the campaign trail, bernie sanders did not come back but he said he supports more sanctions. you say it is not enough? it is necessary, especially targeted sanctions to prevent that prevent the transport and trade in nuclear parts, technology, etc. the problem is, the u.s. can't control all the other states that are involved in either allowing it to happen, allowing the diversion of technology and -- many countries don't have the capacity to control their exports into the north. host: what countries?
guest: primarily china. they suffer from a heavy dominance of shadow banks that cannot be controlled by the central government. china, true for all of it is not just relative to north korea. we have structure will, systemic problems in china that allow for the kind of diversion of funds and good into the north -- goods into the north. southeastern countries do trade in certain consumer products and what's interesting is that we should not just target the high end luxury goods that service a very small number of the hiring elite of the kim jong-un regime. there is a growing new rich class in pyongyang. they are not as close to the theyning elite, but
benefit from the increase in trade that north korea has opportunity for. they have to have quite a lot of money. what do they rely on? they like the new lifestyle, drinking coca-cola, imported by italy, our brand and product, imported by italy. malaysia and southeastern asian countries send in fruit juices because north korean beverages are not as tasty. there are everyday products that we can also target that would of away at the privileges what we call the new rich in north korea. host: then what would happen? would they undo the government? guest: that is a good question. we don't expect any group in north korea to overnight, under -- undo anything. that in and of itself could create some chaos.
there is a belief that this new rich growing in pyongyang which asnot beholden -- not beholden to the regime as some of the hyper elite, that they want to make money and they want a new lifestyle. if those two things are cut off to them and if support for the regime, or their tolerance, it will be undercut. host: let's get some calls, john in massachusetts, independent. korea worth --h is it really a threat to us? all the submarines and missiles, i'm sure, but if those are targeted, those people are crazy, so i really question how , is of a threat they are this a pressure plate for the spun -- hunting on military
spending? is not nearlyorea a threat the way that the soviet union was during the cold war or that china may become if it increases its military standing and reach. north korea does not do anything like russia in terms of encroaching upon ukrainian or georgian. these are obvious violations of territorial sovereignty. however, it is not because i believe that the regime is crazy. i think they are quite rational and predictable. they are quite smart. they are dealing with a timebomb. if you have nuclear ambition, the question is, what do people want to do with nuclear power, nuclear military? the tendency is to want more,
faster, bigger and possibly to use it. north korea is also involved in the proliferation of nuclear technology and parts, something that the u.s. is absolutely it just analyzes the east asia region. the other thing we have to keep in mind is that if north korea continues in this kind of behavior, south korea -- south koreans are increasingly calling for their own nuclear arsenal. this could be a real problem. we do not want to see nuclear proliferation in east asia. this would alarm the japanese, which would also alarm the chinese. it would be a mess. host: kim jong-un is smart? guest: i think so. he has managed to stick around after being put into office after his father's death at a
very young age. he was stuck in that position. able, through brutal methods, assassinations, etc., consolidate power. in terms of knowing how to play a game that he can try to control. i also think that he has -- he takes a good temperature of the geopolitical tensions, weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the east asian region. where i question his ultimate smartness is, does he understand that weaponry -- building nuclear weapons and having a diplomatic and strategic goal need to go together. we are not quite sure what those goals are. host: here is the headline to go the this, south korea and u.s. start talks on antimissile systems.
we go to melvin in south carolina, democrat. caller: good morning. my believe is i think that we should watch all of these coincidences. the testing of the missile. talking our ship out and in mediterranean. you have them spying on us know the cuban borders. is are no coincidence. could be loaded, i think we need to go ahead and put some fire on them. guest: let's -- host: let's take that point. the u.s. government like many governments always says that all options are on the table, but i think everyone who takes a very responsible position regarding the use of weapons knows that a u.s.
military intervention, confrontation on the peninsula could be really messy. easte dealing with a major asian ally, south korea, we have treaty obligation and our own troops stationed there. risk our own to people's lives and south korean ally's lives. we don't want to hurt south korea or japan's infrastructure. provokedon't want to any kind of military reaction from china. if the u.s. tried to go in and do something to north korea, china's that would be up -- back would be up and that is not a risk we want to realize. host: does china feel a obligation to north korea? guest: they have an alliance, but the chinese are also sick and tired of the north korean.
no one should believe that the chinese love north korea. they have had it, they feel disgusted with the way that the regime has treated beijing, very disrespectfully. time, what china fears is any kind of a border crisis where we invite a refugee crisis out of north korea. millions of people pouring into south korea or china or elsewhere, and possibly a two, potentially in north korea, there is so much pressure building and that can lead to military infighting, a civil war, and we would be exacerbating the problems on the peninsula. it -- new mexico, republican. have watched this situation and i was curious because i have heard this once or twice, that iran has some kind of connection with north korea. i know that we just passed --
the senators went out and tried iranrt north korea, but if gets in, we just gave them some 100 or so billion dollars, is there anything about iran using north korea as a surrogate to develop these terrible things like the missile and the nuclear business? what are we doing about that if so? guest: that is an interesting question. i don't think we need to worry about iran using north korea this way. north korea is still at a very rudimentary stage when it comes to building something like an icbm. key differences between the iranian society and the north korean society is that the iranian society is much more open than north korea.
iran has dissidents, vocal dissidents. the also have much more access to the international community, , theyobal economic system actually want to participate in some of this, where is north korea is much more closed. it does not have the kind of public dissidents that iran has. there are no other contenders for political power in north korea, who can never come forth because their heads would be chopped off. that is not the case in iran. we are dealing with different kinds of societies and historically speaking, iran has much more cosmopolitan periods in its history, whereas north korea has not. in those regards, i don't think iran would necessarily benefit from relying on north korea and right now, a ron is very serious about trying to make the deal
with the u.s. work, so i think we need to watch and see what happens. some of us had hoped that the north koreans would learn from the iranians and make such a deal, but they have made it clear they do not want to. host: if i could add one thing, we are focusing on the rocket launch, but i think what is particularly unnerving about this satellite launch on february 7 is that it came just about a month after an alleged hydrogen bomb test by north korea on january 6. already, they were upping the ante by testing, allegedly, they said it was successful, the rest of the world believes it is not, they are trying to test a hydrogen bomb, which is much more unstable and could be much more dangerous, devastating as a weapon, then a regular nuclear weapon.
time, they goth's off and launch a satellite. before the u.n. can come up with a body of sanctions. we find this disturbing that the north koreans are in a rollout situation, and there is talk about a fifth nuclear test that is in the wind. all of these developments make people very concerned about the u.s.lity of east asia and commitments to allies and the u.s. role in that. region. host: that is why you are here, to take comments and questions about what is happening, not just with north korea but happening in the region. the north korean government taking advantage of tensions between the u.s. and china. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.
we have our guests here for about 20 minutes before the house gavels in. ken, you are next. caller: the cat is out of the bag. nobody is afraid of the u.s. anymore. they havetesting and some friends. they don't want normal relationships with the u.s. he may treat his people cruelly, but he is doing just fine. the days of the past are the days of the past. , butdoes not have a weapon i think they already have one. guest: a lot of people worry about if the u.s. power is declining, but in my view, this is not something i would worry about. the u.s. is still very much the top dog. some people may not like it, but
economically and in terms of military power and our cultural products, the american label and the american ideals are still very highly desired. as much as china is rising, nobody wants to create another china. jody wants to live in that political system without the freedoms that are available -- nobody wants to live in a political system without the freedoms. are though china and russia asserting their economic and military power, they aren't necessarily going to be role models. in terms of north korea, many of us believe, many analysts on the republican or democrat or whatever you want to call them, many of us believe that north koreans genuinely are afraid of the united states and historically speaking, that has been true. they know that the u.s. has overwhelming military and other forms of power and the u.s. also
is a gatekeeper to many international institutions that could provide economic aid to north korea. on many levels, the u.s. is still the prime target of north korea in terms of getting the u.s. attention. why do they keep provoking? many people think it is so if and when both koreans can sit down with the united states at a negotiating table, that they can come with a strong position if possible, because it knows it is on absolute terms, weak. host: charles in virginia, republican. caller: i have listened to what there arehas said and also a few friends over there in korea. most of those guys are 85 years but i think we still have
150,000 soldiers over there on the dmz. when they get ready to watch the guards, -- my question was, and that we ended got into this so-called police action with north korea. i never understood why they say that world war ii never ended. could you please explain that? host: thank you very much. guest: just to respond to your concern about american soldiers, yes, we do have american soldiers, service personnel, based in south korea, but we have about 28,500, so much smaller than 100,000.
we also have a large contingent in japan. if there ever were a war with north korea, both the u.s. japan and south korea would work together along with south korean military. as far as why people think that the korean war never ended, there never was a peace treaty that was signed form -- to formally end the war. the hostility stopped due to an , and this isuce something of the north koreans gripe about. --y say the only country they say they are the only country the u.s. has fought with and do not have a peace treaty after 60 years. thenically speaking, peninsula is still at war, north and south. technically speaking, the u.s. , the u.n. troops who fought against north korea with
the united states, we are technically at war. it is legal terms we are talking about. host: california, josh, democrat. caller: good morning. let's not forget the fact that it is a strategic move. [inaudible] it is the benefit of the united states to include the troops we strategic purposes, it gives us a foothold in the region, especially among those totalitarian regime that threaten that only south korea but the stability of the region. guest: thank you. you are right, the korean peninsula and the u.s. military isition on the peninsula
strategically important, but i would add that the primary reason for the united states peninsula in 1950 had everything to do with the invasion of the south by the north. we were fighting the korean war, involved in a direct violation, we were trying to respond to a direct violation of mortars -- borders. in terms of the strategic importance of -- importance of a u.s. military position, japan already serves that role because we already have more facilities and troops based in japan. south korea primarily as for the assistance to south korea if there were to be another major hostility. again, the past and the present are in a strange way, circling
around, because when we started our action on the peninsula in the 1950's, it was because of the soviet union and the cold war as josh said. now, everybody is concerned about the rise of china and given that we are not sure exactly what china's larger intentions are in the region, the u.s. is in a sense, buying a insurance policy. republican., ohio, caller: i'm curious. maybe i have not heard the whole conversation, but i'm interested in what the south koreans would like to accomplish. i live in ohio, if indiana was ,onstantly threatening my life i think we would form an army and would take care of indiana. [laughter] ,ost: we will hear from martin
independent, new york, then you will answer. caller: despite the horrible conditions for the korean people, they seem to have a adoration for their leader, i was hoping you could tell me why. guest: thank you, short and sweet. as far as the first question by justin from akron, that is a good analogy. and ohiohat indiana get along quite well but at any koreans and north koreans have been living in this situation are decades now, well over half a century. south koreans, many of them originally lived in what was the northern part of a unified, a whole south korea. sometimes i think of it this
way, it is as if -- when you go to the dmz, it is like seeing one body but half of it is split, so the left side is functioning in the right side is somehow miraculously functioning, that is still not hold. whole. this hard to see authorized border, this dividing line between a whole body. historically, the two koreas have been a part of a common history of a country for a very long time, hundreds of years. there is history, family, kinship, and there is the nationalistic sentiment that it is one common people and that this is an unnatural thing, to have a divided body politics, even if they are in to political systems. socially, they are of one kind.
it has a lot of psychological, emotional issues attached to the geopolitical issues. young south koreans no longer have a romantic vision of northern korea, or they don't have a sense of kinship, they look at it as a strange country that is doing unpleasant things, so we might see changes in the future. we have time for more calls, so keep telling him, 10, republican -- 10 -- keep calling ken, republican. caller: i had a three questions, the first may give your interpretation of the perspective on the north korean nation, and direct -- wonder if you would recommend three books that would give us a better perspective from your point of view, you have kind of an
accurate angle on how we could interpret north korea and the reactions and a leadership -- and their leadership? with this presidential election right now, it scares me to think of what bernie sanders or north -- donald trump would do policy wise toward north korea. i wonder what people like marco rubio, who i think is a prospect -- i don't think the country will necessarily elect him. i wonder what your thoughts on -- where do you see north korea in 20 years? guest: you should give a whole lecture. all, on north korean society, it is a huge topic, but i will just say this because i think there was a previous color who also asked, or north koreans simply isolating and worshiping the regime, even though they are suffering. the answer is yes and no to that, the people in pyongyang,
they are a minority and they and theytively well are different than the rest of the country. there is pyongyang, they have access to technology, better foods, better cars, but the 99%, probably more than the rest of the society, they have a very difficult life, they eat out an .xistence homage toorced to pay the regime, morning, noon and night, they are mandated and if you don't, you are in trouble.
as far as books, i could suggest one book on the north and the south by -- the second edition came out. it is an excellent primer, really good on both of the koreas, contemporary history and in north korea, hazel smith, a british scholar who has spent a lot of time working on food aid and as antarian aid, academic in north korea, he wrote a book that is outstanding as an introduction, so he's all smith. host: let me get in a couple of calls. bob, a democrat. caller: good morning, i was wondering how the japanese feel about what is happening now with the missile launch. they don't have a military, are
they planning on raising one to protect themselves from north korea? guest: we take that after robbie in florida. caller: bernie sanders was asked about which country was the most dangerous to our safety and he said north korea because of his destabilize a really important region of the world, what do you think of that? guest: japan is preparing interceptors as well as ship destroyers in order to shoot down any kind of incoming rocket from the north. what is dangerous is under the current prime minister, who is
-- also could be very destabilizing, the chinese do what -- do not want to see and the south koreans do not want to see a japan with a stronger military because of japan's colonial era actions in the --ion that are still so causing so much pain in historical memory. as far as presidential candidates go, i think the u.s. in general has made a mistake in -- weking north korea have had so many issues that we had to manage, but we need to
make north korea much more of a haveity because while we had our eyes on other hotspots, especially in the middle east, north korea has been increasing more,pacity to build bigger, more powerful and faster, and that in the long run situation.midterm one of our callers asked how with the president of candidates respond in the future, i say they should pay more attention to north korea. notow republicans are willing to do this and many democrats are not willing to do this, sit down with them, i think the u.s. has to at some point sit down and work this out, diplomatically. host: what are you watching for next? guest: folks say there is a fit nuclear test, and if that
happens, the world will be up in arms against north korea. i'm watching for how china could serve as a pressure point on north korea, but china will not do anything that publicly, it will probably use very quiet but pressing diplomacy. i think the u.s. elections will also play into this, if we look several months down the road. host: where are the pressure points that china could apply? guest: china has access to oil and energy supplies and other kinds of consumer products. ofna is the main provider these goods for north korea, and it has the ability to shut them off. , shutting up completely could create disaster in the north, on the other hand, trying to use a moderated, gradualist approach could be more effective, but we will have .o see
host: that does it for our program this morning. we will be that -- we will be back tomorrow morning. we now bring you to the house session. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. february 11, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable barry loudermilk to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will recognize members from thelies submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority