2015. on our three-hour program this morning, we'll be talking about police reform, u.s. national security challenges in the middle east, and the state of the u.s. auto industry. but we begin this morning with the renewed debate in the country over the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. with republican presidential candidate donald trump and several of his fellow gop contenders now calling for an end to the practice of granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on u.s. soil, we're asking our viewers to weigh in on this latest debate over immigration policy. should the u.s. end birthright citizenship? if you think yes, the number for you is 202-748-8000. if you say no to ending birthright citizenship, the number is 202-748-8001. we also have a special line this morning for americans whose parents were foreign born, those first-generation americans can call in at 202-748-8002. a very good thursday morning to you on "the washington journal." we begin this morning with a concept of birthright citizenship, that if you're born on u.s. soil, you're a u.s. citizen regardless of the legal status of your parents. it was a debate that's been renewed in this country ever since the release of a position planned by republican presidential candidate donald trump in which he said in that plan that birthright citizenship remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration in this country. since that plan was released, several republican presidential contenders have also jumped on to the concept of ending birthright citizenship. here's a tweet from republican governor -- former louisiana governor bobby jindal. he says, the need to end birthright citizenship -- we need to end birthright citizenship for illegal imgrantedi immigrants immigrants, in his tweet from earlier. ted cruz also with a statement last night that's making headlines, saying, i absolutely back birthright citizenship. but it was donald trump who has spurred the debate over birthright citizenship. he talked abouted aboutalked ar this week. >> bill, i think you're wrong about the 14th amendment and frankly the whole thing with anchor babies and the concept of anchor babies. i don't think you're right about that. >> i can quote it. you want me to quote you the amendment? if you were born here, you're an american, period. period. >> but there are many lawyers -- many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this. what happens is they're in mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby. they're saying it's not going to hold up in court. it's going to have to be tested. regardless, when people are illegally in the country, they have to go. now, the good ones, and there are plenty of good ones -- we can extradite it when they come back in. bill, we have a country. you need borders, and you need laws. we have no law. >> that is republican presidential candidate donald trump earlier this week talking about birthright citizenship, using the term there anchor babies, a controversial term as noted in "the new york times" in their coverage of this story today. they noted that when a reporter asked him last night at one of his events if he knew how offensive some people found the term anchor babies, he was incredulous, "the new york times" writes. quote, what else do you want me to say? i'll use the word anchor babies, donald trump said in the quote according to t"the new york time times". the debate happening at dueling town halls last night. donald trump and jeb bush squaring off at two different events during the same time. we're getting your thoughts this morning. should the u.s. end birthright citizenship? we'll start this morning with joe from georgia on the line for those who think we should not end birthright citizenship. is this joe mccutchen? >> caller: john, i strongly love c-span. i've been calling your great network 35 years. you're doing a great job. i strongly support ted cruz. i think he'll be the best president in history. i agree with his thoughts on this birthright 100%. i think that we just can't afford -- john, we have a $18 trillion debt. we have to crank down and stop somewhere. i think ted cruz is exactly right. >> there's a headline in today's "orange county register." their lead story noting trump has gop on a risky path, tough talk on immigration might hurt in 2016, according to the experts. what do you think about this kind of talk about ending birthright citizenship, what it will mean for general election? >> caller: i think the american people support it. i think they're on the side with cruz, and i don't think -- i think it's going to -- i think cruz's position is going to help him be elected president, and i'm so fired up i'm having a hard time sleeping at night, john. >> that's joe in georgia. long-time viewer and caller to this program. we want to hear from our viewers this morning. lines for those who think we should end birthright citizenship in this country, those who think we shouldn't, and for first-generation americans. john's up next, stafford, virginia. also believes we should end birthright citizenship. good morning. you're on "the washington journal." >> caller: good morning. john here. >> go ahead. >> caller: no, i think we should end birthrights because those are rules. little rules, big rules, what's the difference? is it okay if i rob a little bank versus a big bank? it's got to stop. >> john, your thoughts on the reading of the 14th amendment. would this need a revision, the 14th amendment, to make this happen? i can read the 14th amendment for our viewers, noting that it's the first section of the 14th amendment. all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. >> caller: i would give them the piece of paper saying they were citizens, and then if they're families, i would make them move out. if they want to come back legally, then that's fine. i don't have a problem with that. >> all right. john in stafford, virginia, this morning. this debate also playing out on our facebook page. it's facebook.com/cspan. you can participate in a poll that we're conducting there. should the u.s. end birthright citizenship? currently those saying no are ahead of those saying yes in the responses so far. you can also leave a comment with your response, including william woodburn, whose comment on facebook was, my no is a qualified no. i'd favor it if it could be rewarded -- sharon below that says, there must be changes made to this law because of the terrible abuse of it by illegals. if someone is illegal, should their children be legal. tracy hall, above that, says, it's funny how republicans are always screaming about protecting the constitution until it's an issue they want changed. they're always screaming about the second amendment but are now trying not to recognize the 14th amendment and actually want to do away with it. you can participate in the debate there or give us a call this morning. we're getting your thoughts. lines for those who believe we should and shouldn't do away with birthright citizenship and a line for first-generation americans. on that line for first-generation americans, don is calling in from henderson, nevada. good morning. >> caller: good morning to you. >> your thoughts, sir, on ending birthright citizenship. >> caller: i think they ought to amend that amendment to exclude illegals or include illegals to the effect that any children born of illegals cannot be citizens. they have to go through the procedure just like everybody else, stand in line, go back to their country, stand in line, and apply for citizenship. as one of your e-mails showed, the illegals are abusing our system to the hill. >> don, let me ask you, those who are not in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship say doing so would make children responsible for the sins of their parents. what do you make of that argument? >> caller: i think that parents that are citizens, legally came to this country, went through the process, i think the children should become citizens, naturalized or by birth. >> and don, you're a first-generation american. how did your parents come to this country? >> caller: they came in through ellis island. they applied for citizenship. they couldn't even speak english. it took them four years to pass the test in english. therefore, we became naturalized as i was under a certain age to be a naturalized citizen. there's one thing that you got to understand in this country. we cannot make illegals legal. those are two definitive words. illegal and legal. >> that's don -- >> caller: evidently our government doesn't understand the word illegal. >> don in henderson, nevada, this morning. mandy is up next in homestead, pennsylvania. you don't believe the u.s. should do away with birthright citizenship. why is that? >> caller: i absolutely don't agree with donald trump and the other four gentlemen running for president. we are supposed to be a country that welcomes people. i am of the school that the more immigran immigrants, whether they've come illegally or not, help ultimately our economy. it makes it better. it makes it stronger. and it shows the world that we are accepting of everyone. i want to make one other point. the republicans have spent the last 15 years redistricting everything so that it helps them succeed in the congress. it's manifested itself very well in the senate and house of representatives. now they want to get rid of all the people that don't either look like them or act like them or talk like them so that they have their 49% re-elect a republican president this go around. and it's not going to happen. if we don't -- i'm talking generally now. if we don't change the way we are viewing everything, we are going to have incredible class problems in this country ultimately. we're going to have the haves and have nots at war with each other. and i guess that's what the republicans want to see happen because we can see it in the economy, and we can see it in all the policies they're putting forward. oppression against women, everything. this donald trump thing has gotten so wound up, and everybody is buying -- not everybody, but a lot of people are buying into his rhetoric. but it's inflammatory. it's insensitive. and it's also downright disgusting. >> that's mandy in homestead, pennsylvania. mandy mentioned four republican candidates who have gotten on board with this issue. according to "the new york times," it's more than that. their lead editorial today talks about republicans' anti-immigrant race. as part of that piece, the editorial board writes, as mr. trump swells in the polls, his diminished opponents are following in his wake. several have jumped on the boat, including governor chris christie of new jersey. that's the editorial board of "the new york times" this morning if you want to read more of their thoughts. we'll go to betty waiting in illinois on that line for those who think we should do away with birthright citizenship. betty, why do you think? >> caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i absolutely believe that we should end birthright citizenship. i'd like to say to the last caller that you had, i don't know what planet or what rock she's sleeping under, but donald trump is the only person who has brought this thing to the forefront. this birthright citizenship and illegal immigration is destroying this country. the 14th amendment really came about because african-americans were involuntarily brought to this country, and they had children and the 14th amendment was written, giving those children the right to live in this country. had nothing to do with illegals crawling across the rio grande, coming here to suck all the life out of this country. their whole idea is not to assimilate. they are here for the sole purpose in their minds of taking back something that they never lost. so, yes, absolutely, we should have never went along with this birthright citizenship. we are the only civilized country left on the planet that's doing this stupid stuff. we really need to get a grip. there's no way we can keep these people in this country. they talk about how much money it will cost to send them back or to deport them. just like they came, they can leave. they are here illegally. i don't understand what it is that people don't get when you hear the word illegal. illegal is just that, illegal. they need to be deported back to their country, and we should be the ones who decide who's going to come into this country. we're not getting the best and the brightest from there. we are getting the dredges of these mostly latin countries. they talk about diversity, but there's no diversity here. the majority of the illegals we have in this country come from mexico. >> betty, you said a minute ago that u.s. is the only country that does this in the world. there's actually some stats on that. several countries in the western hemisphere use birthright citizenship. here's a map from the center for immigration studies. their report noting that 30 of the world's 194 countries grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born to illegal alie aliens. of advanced economies, the united states and canada are two countries that grant automatic birthright citizenship. that from cis. a researcher at cis who has appeared on this program actually testified before the judiciary committee earlier this year, specifically on birthright citizenship. according to his numbers, every year 350 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the united states. to put this another way, he said in that testimony, as many as one out of ten births in the united states is now to an illegal immigrant mother. that from cis, if you want to check out their website. we're taking your calls this morning on this idea of birthright citizenship. bob is up next in cincinnati, ohio. bob, do you think the united states should do away with birthright citizenship? >> caller: i don't think so, and as the previous caller was saying, it would cost way too much. i believe $200 billion to $300 billion. and secondly, it bugs me that republicans are so for the constitution and for the traditional way that the government was founded in the 1700s, and then when it comes to their xenophobic stuff, they just falter. and i just don't understand why they can't just take what we were founded upon and stick with it. >> bob, in terms of the costs that you're talking about, some liberal columnists noting that such a policy is doing away with birthright citizenship would cost republicans politically. here's a column by paul waldman. the headline of that piece, did republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship? he says it sends a clear message to hispanic voters. it's possible to argue you're pro-immigrant while at the same time saying we should double the size of the walls and border control. indeed, many republicans do. that's paul waldman's piece from august 18th if you want to read more on that. let's go to jacob waiting in ft. george in maryland, a first-generation immigrant to the united states. jacob, your thoughts on this idea of ending birthright citizenship. >> caller: hi. good morning. thank you for having me. i think that this whole debate is stepping around the real issue. the real issue is that here in the united states, there's a person who could potentially be deported because of their parents' illegal activity. it's morally reprehensible to give them citizenship -- to give the citizenship to a child of individuals who because of their status here should be deported. people who are here on visas, people who are here in a legal way and have a legal way of staying here, there shouldn't be any problem with them being able to have citizenship for their children. but having citizenship should be given to people who are believed to stay, to have a vested interest in the united states and people here. >> what's your story? you're a first-generation american. talk about your immigration story. >> caller: so i think that got put down wrong. my grandmother is german. my grandfather, he was in the air force and met her overseas. she came over here on a visa, and my father owes his citizenship to the fact that, you know, she came here. however, i think they both had visas. it should definitely be legal. a visa is someone saying, i'm here, i want to be part of the united states, i want to be active in the united states. but two individuals or one individual who comes here illegally, they're saying, i don't have an active interest in the united states. i have an active interest in my children and the people after them. if i get deported, you know, i'm okay with them being pulled out or potentially us being separated if i get thrown in jail. it's not the way. >> that's jacob in maryland this morning. as we said, much of this debate over birthright citizenship focusing on the 14th amendment, which reads, all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and the state wherein they reside. that's part of section one of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution. for more on the legal background and history of this, we turn now to jonathan turley, law professor at george washington school of law, frequent guest on this program. good morning. thanks for joining us. i want to ask you, how clear is that language that i just read? how clear is the 14th amendment on this issue of citizenship? >> -- amendment is clear as to birthright citizenship. that's not seriously in doubt. what is a question is whether the language that you just read of subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a qualifier. some people view that line as saying that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right until that is amended. it's something congress can change that was not intended to cover foreigners who are illegal in terms of their status. and there's some support on both sides. the irony about all this is when the 14th amendment was debated, there were different views at that time. senator jacob howard of michigan seemed to suggest, and he was one of the key drafters here, that this would -- this language did not extend to what he referred to as foreigners. on the other hand, you had members that seemed to give the other view. so the great irony is this debate has been with us in the 14th amendment since its very concepti conception. so the big issue then to follow up on what mr. trump has said is if you want to end birthright citizenship, how do you do it? thereto is a school of thought with some academics who believe that congress can do it. they can pass a law using that clause to say that excludes illegal immigrants. if that were to fail, if the courts were to reject that, then you would have to go and actually amend the 14th amendment. so those are the two options. >> and you talked a little about the history there. why did this issue come up in 1868? one of our previous callers was going through a little bit of the history of the post-civil war era. can you take us back to why it was happening back then? >> yeah, the biggest reason is really the dred scott decision where the stream court said slaves could not be considered citizens. that led to efforts to deal with not just the citizenship status of slaves but also what were called black codes, which were limitations being placed on now-freed slaves. so the 14th amendment was a response to that. not just that but other issues of equality so it it was passed. what's fascinating is the supreme court did actually suggest that it agrees with this interpretation of birthright citizenship in 1898 in a case of chinese immigrants. the supreme court suggested that it viewed the language as covering everybody under birthright citizenship. having said that, this is not an issue that the supreme court has rendered very clear and decisive opinions on. so there is still a question as to whether congress could step in and try to do this. what would happen is congress would pass a law. it would be very likely immediately challenged. and it would be reviewed. if it failed, then congress and the country would certainly know that they would have to amendment the constitution to make any such change. >> and you talked about the process of amending such change. politically, do you think it could be possible in today's political environment? >> you know, that's really not my -- but i have to say it could very well pass. you know, i generally don't support constitutional amendments because i'm worried that mischief comes about when people start to mess with our constitution. the constitution works extremely well. so you have to be quite leery. on the other hand, there's obviously a very significant level of support, particularly on things like birthright citizenship in this country. we've seen it in other countries that this immigration issue has actually propelled individuals and parties into power in europe. the other thing is that, you know, i think we can have a civil debate about this. the united states is in the minority when it comes to birthright citizenship. there are good arguments on both sides. most countries do not recognize birthright citizenship. the united states and canada have very liberal views of citizenship, and that indeed does reflect our history as a land of immigrants. but i don't think it's necessarily true that people are anti-immigrant if they don't support birthright citizenship. the vast majority of countries around the world don't recognize birthright citizenship and are not viewed as anti-immigrant. i think we need to -- we can have a good and civil debate about it. you know, how you become a citizen in the united states is the coin of the realm as to the definition, the identity of your country. those people who support birthright citizenship have some very powerful history and arguments behind them, that we are a nation of immigrants and that's why we are in the minority. those people opposing birthright citizenship have some equally good arguments. those arguments have been going on now since the 1860s. >> jonathan turley, law professor at the george washington university school of law. always appreciate your insight and analysis. thanks for the time this morning. >> thank you. good morning. >> and we're taking our viewers' thoughts on this debate over birthright citizenship. beverly is up next. been waiting in north carolina on that line for those who say no to ending birthright citizenship. go ahead, beverly. >> caller: yeah, i've been listening to the person who just spoke and all the others. the 13th amendment was the abolition of slavery, and that's why they wrote this civil rights amendment. that's exactly what it is. it was to give slaves the right. but i didn't read anything in it that talked about illegals. so you make an amendment, it says what it says, it is what it is. these people have just as much a right to stay here as george washington and the others who wrote it have a right. they're all immigrants. and what will this do to cruz? he wasn't born here. so we can go all down the line with this. this is just an act of bigotry. the tea party wanted to get rid of this 14th amendment about three years ago. so it's nothing new. it was about bigotry. and it still is. >> that's beverly in north carolina this morning. gallup coming out with a new poll on paths to citizenship in this country and americans' views on various paths and what should happen to illegal immigrants. about 65% of americans support illegal immigrants remaining in the u.s. and becoming citizens if they meet criteria and certain requirements over time. 19% support deporting all illegal immigrants back to their home countries. and 14% support allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the united states to work for a limited time. you can see those results at gallup's website. we're taking your calls for about the next 15 minutes or so here on "the washington journal." charlie is up next in new york. line for those who support ending birthright citizenship. charlie, good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. it is baffling why the term under jurisdiction is causing so much confusion. birthright citizenship does not stem from the 14th amendment. it's from a ruling by justice william brennan in 1982 or thereabouts. he created this problem, not the 14th amendment. also, we are using the wrong term. illegal immigrant is the wrong term. they are foreign nationals living illegally lastly, if the wife of the british ambassador to the united states gives birth in a new york city hospital, that child is a subject of the british crown. but if a woman sneaks across the border, gives birth in a san diego hospital, and her child is a citizen, how does that work? >> that's charlie in new york this morning. randy is up next in millington, michigan, line for those who think we should not end birthright citizenship. randy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to start out by thanking you and all the folks behind the scenes for bringing us this great program. it does the nation great. >> appreciate that, randy. >> caller: the reason i believe we shouldn't end birthright is when you read the 14th amendment earlier, what jumped out at me where i can now understand what mr. trump was saying with his interview with mr. o'rielly, it says under the jurisdiction -- when it says that, under the jurisdiction. if you come over from mexico or canada or wherever, have a baby, and go right back, that needs to be challenged. then that baby isn't a citizen because she's not staying under the jurisdiction of any of our states. i can understand where he would challenge that in court by using that phrase because coming over and having a baby and then going right back to mexico, you're not under our jurisdiction. >> randy, with a challenge in the courts, would you rather the courts decide this and clarify this, or would you want congress to step in and clarify this distinction you're talking about? >> caller: well, i think the first step we'd have to take, the logical one, is the courts first. the constitutional amendment, that's the card of last resorts or however they put that. you know, yes, we can always try the constitutional amendment. it takes a lot longer to find out the results. i would be curious to see how they judge that using that little phrase. >> a step down from the constitutional amendment, randy, is the birthright citizenship act of 2015 introduced by senator david vitter and congressman steve king of iowa that would deny citizenship to children born in the united states unless at least one of their parents was a citizen or a permanent lawful resident or a noncitizen serving in the armed forces. so there is some legislation out there, randy. >> caller: okay. and see, they've got to be using it off of that phrase. i mean, they're putting a little more caveat on it, but it doesn't say anything, you know, legal or illegal in our constitution. using just that phrase there, that must be what they're going off of. because we took over the country. so we're all illegals. so we all lose our birthright? let's go back to doing what we're supposed to. go to the courts or whatever first, but let's do it step by step. thank you, sir. appreciate it. have a good day. >> that's randy in millington, michigan, this morning. we're getting your thoughts for about the next 15 minutes or so. also want to point out other news going on around this country. a story on the front page of "the washington post" today and several other newspapers around this country. the two female soldiers who completed ranger school have been identified. two soldiers, new heights, is the headline in "the washington post." the story noting that the two will become the first women to wear the elite ranger tab on their uniform on friday after exhibiting degrees of perseverance, the story notes, that brought pride to past mentors. the story noting the names, as several other papers did, of the two women. you can read about their stories on the front page of "the washington post". perry is up next in greensberg, pennsylvania. line for independents. perry, good morning. you're on "the washington journal." >> caller: hello, sir. good to hear from you. first of all, proud to hear those ladies graduated. thank god, we're getting more ladies in the military. i hope because they earned their badges, their ranger tabs, they're allowed and assigned to be part of the ranger battalion so they can actually go into combat, which i also support. we need to let women -- well, we'll talk about that later. >> perry, interesting you bring that up because there's an editorial in today's "washington post" on that exact topic. these women cannot join that elite 75th ranger regiment. the editorial board writing that these women have risen to the occasion and that they should serve in the places where they are qualified to do so. that's the editorial board noting that in their piece today. but go ahead, perry. >> caller: yeah, well, if they're qualified to serve, they've earned the tabs. that tells me they're qualified to serve in a battalion or a regiment. yeah, put them up there. let them go. they're not first lieutenants, they're lieutenants. you're a second lieutenant, then you're just a lieutenant. then you become a captain and so forth. >> appreciate the clarification. >> caller: i totally agree. >> your thoughts on birthright citizenship. we'll be talking more about the female rangers in another show. but go ahead on birthright citizenship. >> caller: okay, yeah. yes, i got off subject. according to the laws, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning, yes, we don't need to amend anything. the constitution, the bill of rights come from the magna carta. it's an american adaptation. we need to stop leaving decisions up to the courts. courts are there for legal matters. this is more or less a question of what's right, what's wrong. it's not legality. illegal immigration -- we're being overrun. we're being invaded. our social systems are failing. we got to stop this democrat, republican, conservative, liberal. somebody needs to step in the middle. we need more people in the independent party. and like i said, your guy from george washington had it right and hit the nail on the head. subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning each state should take a vote. it's not really a judicial question. it's not a presidential question. and it's not a question for the legal branch in the courts. it is a question of the states. each state should vote, and it should be given to the state supreme court, then taken to the supreme court of the united states to be challenged. >> perry in pennsylvania. appreciate the call this morning. got about five or ten minutes left in this segment of "the washington journal." try to get to as many of your calls as we can. want to update you on some of the other stories about election 2016. "the hill" newspaper noting that clinton aides' blackberries have likely been destroyed in the ongoing investigation into what happened to e-mails from hillary clinton's private server. state department blackberry devices issue d to the former secretary of state's former aides have likely been destroyed or sold off. the state department confirmed its previous claim that clinton used a personal blackberry during her time in office that was not issued by the federal government. the filing came as part of a lawsuit from the conservative organization judicial watch, which is looking for documents related to the employment while serving in the state department. we'll continue to look for stories about that and other campaign 2016 stories. of course, candidates still making their way to the iowa state fair yesterday to speak from the soap box there, give their stump speeches. yesterday former texas governor rick perry was at the state fair. here's a bit from his speech. >> washington, d.c., has decided they're the fount of all wisdom. washington, d.c., has decided that all decisions need to be made there. you know what my answer to washington, d.c., is? i'm mad as hell, and i'm going to do something about it to change it. [ applause ] >> i think that's what this election is reflecting, is people having a belly full of all the decisions trying to be made 1500 miles away from where they need to be made, right here in this state. i think it was dwight david eisenhower who said it's pretty easy to farm when your plow is a pencil and you're 1500 miles away. that's what we're seeing today as we see this continual consolidation of power in washington, d.c., a place that's now become corrupt, a place that we don't trust, and a place that i will suggest to you is making america less of a place than it could be if we have the decisions devolve back to the states. i'm a big believer in the constitution of the united states of america. >> that was former governor rick perry, who was among those who visited c-span's campaign 2016 bus at the iowa state fair. the bus made several stops around the state, including ames, clear lake, cedar rapids, and iowa city before arriving at the fair. reps had been providing bus tours and talking to attendees about the 2016 coverage and resources, including our coverage of all candidates at the state fair from that soap box. a special thanks to mediacom communications for partnering to get more information on c-span's community efforts and the bus schedule, please visit our website, c-span.org. just a few minutes left in this segment of "the washington journal." want to continue to get your calls on this issue of ending birthright citizenship. do you support it? do you not support it? give us a call. kathleen is in chicago, illinois, on that line for those who say we should not end it. kathleen, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how you doing? >> i'm good, kathleen. >> caller: okay. be careful what you wish for. you know, this country don't belong to caucasians. this country belong to god, and god made all race of people. and anywhere a person land, they should be able to stay. because when you think about it at the end of the day, we're all going to leave this place one day. how are you going to end -- i mean, you know, when republicans were saying president obama was going against the constitution, they was getting ready to impeach him. they talked about him like a dog. republicans, your time has come. i sit back and laugh. and please don't cut me off. i sit back and laugh how you all, as well as the republican voters, have treated this president, how you tried to degrade him, tried to make him look buffoonish. but trump has come to the rescue of president obama. the same guy that sit around here and said president obama need to show his birth certificate. but i think about trump. he's married two women that's foreigners. is he ready to let them and his kids be deported? you got to be careful what you say because it's going to come back and bite you, republicans. and i can't wait. i'm just sitting here laughing and smiling. you know, god is in the picture. trump is going to destroy your party. as a matter of fact, he's bringing out what you all really feel because all of you all are jumping on trump's bandwagon. he's going to destroy your party. then he's going to turn around and -- himself. and we're going to get a democrat in that white house that's going to bring president obama's policies to fruition because it was not fair. this man was elected twice. he has yet to be able to get his policies in which republicans are trying to steal, think they going to get a chance to use them. one more thing. i'm looking at chris christie. he's one of the guys that i thought when trump got up on stage and called them dumb and stupid that he would lash out and tell him to sit down, idiot. but where's chris christie with his bad bully self? if you all can't stand up against trump, how you going to stand up against isis? >> that's kathleen in chicago, illinois, this morning. try to get a few more calls in. herb is waiting in culver city, california, on the line for those who think we should end birthright citizenship. go ahead, herb. >> caller: hello. thanks a lot, john, for the opportunity. let me just tell you a quick story about birthright citizenship. i had a friend that worked for years at martin luther king hospital in south-central l.a. i remember him telling me -- and this goes back to the '80s. i remember him telling me how most of the babies born in that hospital were born to illegal mothers. and they would come over here, have the baby, and go back. they would give an address of someone they knew in l.a. county, and they would have a check sent to that house, that household, in l.a. county and then they would receive the benefits as they were back in mexico. or whatever country they came from. most of the time it was mexico. this has been going on for years. this county of l.a. has been operating in the red for years. i'm not saying that's the only reason why, but that's had a lot to do with why this country has been in the hole. so i say all that to say this. the law was written for a specific reason back in 1868, or the amendment. but now things have changed. it is being used in a much different way than what it was originally written for. we need to make adjustments as a result of that. let me just say one more thing. the reason why mr. trump is having so much success and attention is because of some of the stupidity that the democrats have used and have applied over the years. one of them is this law. this law has been around, and it was discussed about three years ago, like one of the other callers said, and it kind of fizzled away. but it's been brought back up, and it needs to be brought back up. but some of the other things that have gone on. and the last caller, let me just say this and i'm going to hang up. the last caller that applied god to this whole thing and she talked about obama, i just got back from oklahoma a few months ago. the people down there, my relatives, they were for obama. i could not, you know -- they were just for him all the way. when obama supported same-sex marriage, that's when they turned against him because they felt he wasn't turning against man, he was going against god. and when i went back there a couple months ago, they were against him all the way. so i just say this, be careful how you apply god to obama and the democratic party because what's going on with this planned parenthood and these, you know, parts of bodies being sold, nobody's saying anything about that. well, democrats are supporting that and republicans are trying to defund these people. >> that's herb in culver city this morning. we'll try to get in steve, who's on that line for first-generation americans. steve is a new immigrant. chesapeake, virginia. steve, go ahead. >> caller: yes, thank you. i don't think that birthright citizenship should be ended, but i also think at the same time that this country needs to be able to control its borders. illegal immigrants and anchor babies are part of the problem, and they don't come only from mexico. in china, travel agencies, they put together packages for pregnant chinese women who are about to give birth. they come here, you know, they have special arrangements in hospitals so that their babies could get an american passport. you showed a map of the world a few minutes ago, and it indicated that the north american and south american part was -- they were countries that gave birthright citizenship to children. and there's a reason for that. these are immigration countries. in the rest of the world, you know -- in the rest of the world, the countries are not immigration countries. they are not built on an immigrant culture. this country was. and i think if we would end this right, it would change the character of the country. and do we really want that? i don't think so. and there must be a middle ground. you know, we must be -- we should be able to somehow resolve this without changing the amendment. one more thing i would like to say. i came here from -- as a refugee from czechoslovakia in 1982. before i was allowed to come here, i had to wait in germany. i had to apply for a visa, an immigrant visa. i had to wait for a year and a half. i had to get medical check. only then when i found a sponsor here was i allowed to come here. then i got married to a foreign national. she's japanese. and she was here -- actually, she overstayed her visa. so at the immigration -- at that point, i was not a citizen. i only had a green card. so they told her, go back to japan, you're illegal. and she said, okay. apply from there. she went there, i went there with her. we waited, we apply, we went through the procedure and everything worked. these things can be figured out. i don't like the way politicians use this. we just have to figure out what to do without out what to do without changing the amendment because it will change the character of the country. steve, our last caller on the segment, should note a vigorous debate happening on our twitter page as well. you can tweet at us and the show @cspanwj. and one said it's constitutional gop candidates are taking an out right treasonious position. jody rights, the rule was made long ago. all you have to do is be born in america and you are american, no exceptions. you can tweet at us @cspanjw. we will talk with the former commander of the navy ship about terrorism and national security in the middle east, and we will talk about the state of the u.s. auto industry. we'll be right back. ♪ on c-span saturday live coverage of on c-span saturday, live ruf ridge of presidential candidates at the iowa state fair continues, and we will will here from chris christie at noon and bobby jindal, and then on sunday scott walker holds a town hall meeting in new hampshire. book tv is live at the inaugural mississippi book festival, and coverage features governor haley barbour, and civil rights and history and biography, and sunday morning at 10:00, katie keifer talks about the relationship with millennials. columbia university, the history of the commission created to protect them and sunday at 4:00 p.m. on "real america," three films on the pilot project, to help improve poor relations with the police and community in washington, d.c. after the 1968 martin luther king association and subsequent riots. get the complete schedule at c-span.org. >> the one grave site that everybody has trouble getting to that wants to do this is the rockefeller grave shot -- >> yeah, vice president for ford. >> how did you do it? >> we were able to get to it, as i said, what my father describes as an act of god. my father walked down the parameter and saw this gigantic tree had fallen and crushed the fence and he went in and saw nelson rockefeller's grave and decided he would have to get me there fairly quickly after that. washington journal continues. >> and you were in command of the "uss cole" when it was attacked. how do you think the bombing of the "uss cole" was remembered in this country? >> it has been overshadowed by 9/11. up until that point we had buildings, and word trade center or the embassies attacked, and those are things that represent u.s. interests, and the attack on "cole" defended this nation and the national security around the world, and it was an act of war and missed and unfortunately nine months later the 9/11 attacks occurred. >> you consider this the first attack, correct? >> yes, both democrat and neither party owns security, and neither responded. we will see it peak at some point with probably more devastating attacks, but it will begin to go off, because i think people worldwide will realize that using terrorism is not an effective means to achieve it logical or political gains. >> what do you these days to make a living? >> when i retired, which is often times a misnomer, a retirement from the military, you get a paycheck every month and go and find real work, so doing a lot of public speaking and consulting on the side and very much enjoying life. >> also written a book "al qaeda's attack on theuss coal, front burner." republicans can call on their line, and democrats on their line, and a special line for active and retired members of the military in this segment. you can start dialling in now. but as we are talking about the national security concerns facing this country, what is the greatest threat in your mind today on the national security front. >> the biggest threat that faces the united states is one we brought on ourselves, and that's the debt and it's constraining our ability to act. it's affecting our ability to have influence in the world and insure that we can safeguard our national security interests. >> if you want to talk more specifically on the military front and the debt and specifically the economic situation of the country doing to cuts in the military. >> i think it's going to be having a devastating cut. familiarity with peace breeds content. it will catch up because it constrains our ability to react to crisis around the world. when you look at it the history example i love to use is we went from a navy of 4,000 trips to now down to 280 ships. when you count in rotation schedules and maintenance and the number of sailors manning them, we don't have enough sailors to safeguard our interests around the globe 24 hours a day 365 days a year. we need to allow the free trade and flow of oil and those things. >> and constraining our ability to respond to threats, and in terms of what the u.s., how quickly the u.s. has reacted to the isis threat, do you see any parallels to your experience with what we knew about isis before they started taking over vast portions of iraq with what we knew about al qaeda before the "uss cole" and september 11th? >> i think there's some similarities but with isis it's different. it's a regional problem that has the potential to grow into an international problem. if they get the wherewithal technical capability and global reach that al qaeda had for example, before 9/11, isis is going to represent a threat to the united states of america. right now it truly is a threat to the region, and the countries over there really need to start taking it upon themselves, and we should be providing the support and logistics necessary for them to go after isis and solve that problem over there first before we want to get our boots on the ground and solve it for them. >> and more recently, you have been outspoken on the iran nuclear deal. your concerns about the national security implications of that. the story is continuing in today's paper about the iran nuclear deal and members of congress that support and oppose the deal. here is a story from the "wall street journal" about the inspections process. critics of seizing on the arrangeme arrangement. lawmakers charge that the process accounts to allowing raup to inspect itself. just some of the latest news about it. why you have decided to jump in the iran deal? >> nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapon that mankind ever produced. they are fundamentally different than anything else we had to negotiate any type of treaty or agreement on. this crosses party lines. this is not a republican or democrat or independent issue, it's a national security issue. it's very unfortunate in this case it has been politicized by this administration to people having to line up based on party affiliati affiliation, by taking the 159 joint extcomprehensive plan of action, and knowing what the sidebar agreements are with the iaea and iran and with the european countries in iran, and looking at how china is going to react and how would the sanctions be reimplemented if we need to put them back in, and there's a host of reasons why this is not good for national security. >> we're talking about the former commander of the "uss cole." he is with us for the next half hour or so. max from maryland on the line for republicans. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. it's truly a pleasure to be able to call in and speak to you on this topic. that's what makes me feel this country is truly amazing. unfortunately, on september 11th, i think everybody started to get a heavier dose of what the term terrorism means. i don't think it was something anybody ever really wanted to know as much about as we do nowadays. at the same time it seems we're more and more confused about what it is. my question is general in a sense that we use the term in some instances and not in others, and situations like ft. hood, certified parts of the administration are willing to use that term but in this instance where you have basically a paramilitary group or military -- militant group attacking another military, you are still using the term terrorism which seems to be counterintuitive to me if one military apparatus attacks another military apparatus, it doesn't seem to be terrorism. i wish you could elaborate on the terms and the way we are using them, and then again, another example is why we choose to label certain groups like i-s-i-l or i-s-i-s, and the idea that we need to know the terms seems to muddy the waters, but more importantly the term terrorism and how we as citizens are supposed to understand the term? >> it's a great question. what you need to look at is what terrorism fundamentally is, and it's taking an individual or organization who is attempting to disrupt and cause terror for either a community or a nation, and what you are seeing is in the case of isil and isis, and i will get into that in a minute, they are attempting to disrupp the way of life, first in syria and then iraq, and that it's military on military does not mean it's not a terrorists organization. al qaeda operated under the umbrella and protection of the taliban, and they were a large terrorists organization that had the equivalent of a military force and they did not comply with the geneva conventions, and so it's that disruption of a society that terrorists groups, whether they are small individuals all the way down to one individual as what happened in ft. hood, or whether they are large military organizations like isis. regarding the terms, there's -- each of these groups stood up typically by an individual that gather as group of fathers and creates an ideology whether it's religious based or otherwise and begins to form an organization, and when you look at i-s-i-s. you can call it or change the terms, and i think that is more of a political decision, not a real military people there. they are still referring to it as i-s-i-s. and when you go to europe, they are using the terms they despise, and that's daesh. >> america's sailors were killed in the attack and over three dozen injured. we have a special line for members of the military in this segment and al is on that line from portland, oregon. >> caller: thank you for taking the call. i would like to ask the commander, why is the effort not being treated as an ideological battle? this is totally contrary to the koran, as i understand it. i studied it with another gentleman, so i may have been misinformed. >> you are talking about pushing for a hearts and minds approach along with the military efforts against terrorism? >> caller: that's what the terrorists are doing. >> i think we're actually trying to do that. the united states tends to do that more by setting an example than actually going down and having folks on the street explaining it. you have to look at the large number of nations that are over in the region and for the vast majority of them, every single government in the middle east there are certain elements that are sympathetic to some of the goals of these terrorists organizations and that's unfortunate. overall the majority of the government, even in saudi arabia, they are beginning to realize the wow hobby lifestyle or religious beliefs are not in keeping with the koran and its peaceful teachings, so they are working to try and make sure what is being taught in the mosques and being preached there is more towards the peaceful goals than the aspirations the religion wants to project around the world than not. you are right, we have to work that ideological difference, and we have to understand there are differences between religions and between christians and muslims and hindus, and each of them have their different belief systems, and i think we should continue to set the example for the world, but it shouldn't be forced on us like many unfortunately in the islamic religion want to do to the rest of the world through the vehicle of the terrorism. >> arthur is in chesapeake near norfolk. good morning, you are on "washington journal." >> caller: i want to speak about what the gentleman is saying about terrorism. we have terrorism here in our police department, and our organizations of the ku klux klan. you can't get in your car without being terrorized, and the definition of terrorism in different countries, these people are no different than we are and this country is no different than the -- >> we are going to disagree right off the bat. that's a fundamental difference between creating fear and even t intimidation and with the issue of black lives matter this day, and i don't want to get off topic here, there's obviously what a lot of police departments doing are terrorism, and they may act in a manner inconsistent with how our society wants it to be informed. isis cuts peoples' heads off, and now that is becoming a visible issue, and we are taking steps to insure that that's not going to happen in the future. >> you have been outspoken recently about the iran nuclear deal, and also your concerns about lifting the oil export ban in this country, and what that would do for u.s. military efforts to protect our interests around the world. several issues that congress is taking up, and heated debates in congress, and are you interested in running for congress one day? >> i kind of dip my fingers into that well at some point and the reality is in order to run these days you have to have timing and a lot of financial backing. while there may be a number of people out there, i am keeping that powder dry, but for right now i am happy with what i am doing in life. >> we have a special line in the segment for current and former members in the military, and let's go to larry on that line from california. good morning. >> caller: good morning. commander, weren't you the guy that was walking in the penalty gone when 9/11 happened? i served 20 years in the marine corps in the summer of 2001 i predicted 9/11. we went for the oil. i hate to hear anything else. we went for the oil and that's why we built that big airport that we do not use, a $1.1 trillion embassy. bush knew everything you knew, and he should not have let 9/11 happen, and when you hear donald trump say we're going to to go and get our oil, that's what he is talking about. all this stuff about benghazi and e-mails for clinton, we better look at the bush brothers over here. we never had any reason to go there other than oil. >> well, i think there are a lot of reasons why we as a navy safeguard the sea lanes of communication. it's not just for oil. it's also to make sure that the goods and the economies can flow around the world. when you look at whether you should have gone into iraq and what was going on there, and we see that debate going with the presidential candidates on both sides right now, so i think there's a lot to still be discussed with that one, and that will be a national discussion that is going to go for decades. my concern is that when you look at what we and our nation are doing, we imported over 30% of our oil last year, and you have many in congress pushing today to lift the export ban to be able to say, let's take crude oil produced in our country that is not allowed to be exported based upon our experience with the oil embargo in the 1970s and start to export it. that does not make sense from a national security standpoint. america needs to put our national security interests first, and then we can start looking at the rest of the world when we are still importing that amount of oil, now is not the time to be lifting that crude oil export ban. >> the caller brought up 9/11 again. where were you on 9/11, that attack coming less than a year after your ship was attacked by al qaeda? >> when i originally arrived back in washington following the investigations into the attack and my change of command, i had a former commanding officer, i had been in executive officer and asked me to come up to the cia where he was working and we fenced around on a date and finally drove up there and went in and got a briefing for an hour and a half on what cia knew about bin laden and al qaeda before during and after the attacks on "uss cole." so what i looked at was at the end of that briefing, sitting there, i told the assistant deputy director, america doesn't understand, and i believe it's going to take a seminal event probably in this country where hundreds if not thousands of americans die before americans realize we are at war with this guy, and we left the meeting and are looking at other things around the building that morning, and 20 minutes after i said that the first plane hit the north tower. i got in my car and drove south and i arrived just after the plane slammed in there. the morning of ni99/11, i spent the main artery going in and out of washington, d.c., and helped to guide traffic, and so i actually wasn't in the pentagon on 9/11, but certainly was well aware of what happened that morning, and that statement speaks for itself. we as a nation should have realized the danger they posed and chose not to for political reasons and not national security reasons and unfortunately paid a heavy price. >> ron is up next also calling in from california on the line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning, and thank you for your service, commander. we're waiting for the book that you need to right about the "cole" incident and the full extent of what happened there from the beginning to end, and maybe you already have, and if you have, we will buy it. >> i did. >> we can show you the cover of it, "front burner" is the name. >> caller: all right, we'll get it. number two is more important, i think. and that is that we don't talk about the sunni issue, which is the pre-eminent issue in the whole middle east and the sunni issue is this, okay, isis is sunni, right? in iran, there's a sunnis that are the ones that are the rebels trying to overturn assad, and in yemen, where you were right there, the houthis, they are the shia, the good ones, and we are supporting the saudis and the arab emirates, and this is a situation based on religion, and we don't identify that. we keep bringing up wow hobby. tell us why we can't put a coalition of the three countries, that should be kurd area and that should be the way it should be, but now we have the turks involved in it and they are bombing the kurds who were supporting us. so we need your help, commander, to get this thing ironed out and straightened out. the shia are our friends the ones in charge in iraq right now and all over there, so please explain this in more detail about the rift between the sunnis and shia. >> basically you have two major sects. you see iran, mostly shia, and you see saudi arabia, which is the sunni heavyweight in the region, and that fight continues today. to say the shias are our friends, i disagree with that, and you look at iran as the predominantly shia nation, and when you do they have killed thousands, thousands of our troops in afghanistan and iraq through ieds and other things. they are not exactly our friend. when it comes to the sunnis, they have been a very stable partner throughout the years, and yes, like everybody else will point out, 14 of the 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia, and they were sunni in their religious beliefs, but in the reality if you look at what the countries over there provided us and kind of destabilizing hand to keep the oil flow through the world coming out from there and going throughout the world to allow them to be able to produce, that's what we want to do. you have to pick your lot somewhere. when you look at the kurds up in northern iraq, they are probably the only stable government entity that exists with iraq today. that said, they do have terrorists elements in the pkk dealing with over in the area, they drew lines around the world without taking into consideration where these countries existed in the tribal and religious nation of them. >> eureka, california, william calling in on the line for former or current members of the military. good morning, william. >> caller: good morning. i was in the military twice, u.s. navy, and i was on a destroyer, and i am 72 years age now, and i appreciate this gentleman being on the stage. what i am still shocked about and never learned and quite don't understand is, you must have been flabbergasted to be hit while being ordered to appear. exactly where were you and what transpired after the hit? i will take my answer on the air. >> thank you for your service. we expected to be there refuelling the ship and taking on about a quarter million gallons and during the course of the operations we contracted for barges to take off trash, and the third boat that approached us, we assumed was the third garbage barge and as it approached the ship it was along the same profile and size and came down the ship to the middle and detonated blowing a 40 x 40 foot hole in the side, and the real heroes are the crew, and they were the ones that were able to get that ship stable and they were able to evacuate 33 wounded off the ship of which 32 survived, so they were the phenomenal heroes of the entire event. we continued to keep that ship up and going for 17 days in port until we got it towed out of port and brought back to the united states and repaired and she has been back out on deployment seven times defending freedom. and a unique piece of irony, last year "uss cole" led the ships into harbor for the dedication of the 9/11 memorial. doesn't get any better than that. >> donald filling in from philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. you are on. >> caller: good morning, c-span, and good morning, commander. >> good morning. >> caller: i want to say thank you, c-span for doing this for the military and it's greatly appreciate. commander, welcome home and a job well done, sir. >> thank you. >> caller: now, the nice view is over with, and sir, i am a retired navy and i fundamentally disagree with you on the iran deal and i think it's the best deal we can do and have at this time considering we have a country like israel that we don't even know the count of their nuclear weapons in that area, and i am trying to understand why we don't get peace a chance before i hear a lot of these armchair warmongerer politicians or future politicians creating an era of mistrust to our government. i am sorry to see, mr. netanyahu has his agenda, and we're going to -- we are giving up our benefits for our military retired people. i wish you peace and i don't have to agree with you on everything. i like that answer that you gave that gentleman about the sunni and the shia and how it was divided. >> we will let the commander answer your questions. >> when you look at it one of the things i went into i sat down and thoroughly went through and how this agreement would be implemented. one of the fend mental things that stands out in the agreement is we used to have a policy in the united states that iran would not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. when you read this agreement, all it does now is recognizes in defact yo, their right to create a nuclear weapon, but it delays the breakout time for them to do that by a minimum of ten years and it could be longer and then it could be shorter because the way the agreement is structured, it does not give us the ability to go in and have the kind of intrusive inspections we enjoyed, for example, with the soviet union and russia in implementeding the arms talks that we had with them regarding nuclear weapons and it doesn't allow some of the snap inspections that we had to go in there, and allowing, for example, the side agreements with the iaea, and i listen to the state department spokesman yesterday sit there and say, that's an agreement between the iaea and the iranians and we really should have nothing to say to that. we led the agreement that is in place right now that in fact is going to come into force whether we like it or not because of a vote at the u.n. security council that we voted for based on a political decision. the reality is when you get into the details of this agreement, iran keeps their intra tpaoupblgs and allowed to keep doing research and development and able to create more sophisticated centrifuges that allow them to reprocess nuclear material quicker and more efficiently, and those are the things that go on that we cannot afford them to have, and we are not stopping them but delaying the inevitable and that's what is wrong with the agreement. >> and two senators announce support, reed and whitehouse. reed says if iran cheats they will be isolated and international sanctions snapped back. we will have a stronger case for swift and forceful action. >> this agreement is a costly strategic mistake. that's the bottom line that unfortunately has been put in place by the administration in negotiating it in the manner they did and creating the conditions that allow iran to have a path to a bomb while it may delay that breakout time, it does not eliminate it. while things may happen between now and the next ten years, that is that a huge strategic risk that we cannot afford. when you look at the intrusive nature of the inspections, if they are so intrusive then why is the iaea having to negotiate sidebar agreements that the united states wants to aggregate any responsibility for but we are the leaders in this action. we need to get into the details of the joint comprehensive plan of action and understand exactly what is laid out in there, and what is implied in there and how we are going to do that. we don't have it yet. you have political endorsements of agreement without the senators and congressmen get into the details unless i mentioned at the beginning, national security does not belong to the democrats or republicans, it belongs to the american people and politicalization of this issue is wrong. >> we are talking with the former commander of the "uss cole" is with us for the next five or ten minutes. you are up next, the line for republicans, richard. >> caller: i don't know where to start. we could talk about all the subjects. the middle east is a mess, but two specific subjects. number one about the iran deal. anybody who is naive, and apparently john kerry and so is the president naive, and those three countries are cut from the same cloth. i really believe that they see nato europe and the u.s. on a decline and they will continue to become stronger and think 20 to 30 years in the future. these guys are going to own this place. the second thing s. nato has got to get their act together and start building their military and they have to start spending more money. they are seen as the weakest link anywhere and that's all i have to say, thanks. >> i will address two of the points. one of the biggest problems with the agreement is the snap-back provisions for the sanctions being put into place. it requires a vote by the u.n. security council. when you look at the amount of economic support that the chinese, which are licking their chops at get into iran, and russia who also has strategic interests in the region and can do military sales as well as other things, and they are going to have to sit there and put sanctions back in place. the way it was put into this agreement, the snap back sanctions are a joke because they are not going to happen. it's going to take the unilateral action by the rest of the world coming onboard to put any sanctions back into place and there by isolating the chinese and russians. you are absolutely right. that is one of the problems. >> back to the line for current and former members of the military where grady is waiting in fayetteville, north carolina. >> caller: commander, i would hope that you would listen. i heard you said about the agreement between the politicians, and i said the disagreement, and the people need to understand what would happen to us if we have the disagreement on this nuclear. we got to realize a little something is better than a whole lot of nothing. five countries, these countries have trusted america, and to come up with an agreement with iran to get rid of those nuclear weapons, and what's going to happen to our dependability and reliability and our loyalty with the other countries? it's really sad that our commanders can't see this. you know, used to, we used to be loyal but we're not loyal anymore and we choose political parties. what you should be concerned about, and you threw me overboard if i had to done to you what congressmen did to our president when we start talking about treason and mutiny. we never would have went with another foreign country against you, and it's sad that we have gotten there. this country is going down, commander, and we got to get this political stuff out and get back to duty, honor and country. we need this agreement. i used to run under the takes when they said nuclear and give us this nuclear training and stuff like that, i spent 30 years up on the line on the 38th power in germany, and i was so happy when somebody had sense enough to get with russia and do away with all of that aggression and the missile. reagan said, tear down this wall, but when it comes to a terrorists, who is the terrorists? if i am killing you and you are killing me, i am a terrorists. when you are killing me, you are's a terrorists. we're all terrorists -- >> commander, i will give you a chance to jump in. >> when i look apt and you say some agreement is better than none, in some cases it's not. if it has been poorly negotiated and doesn't have the provisions in there that stop iran from having a pathway to a bomb, then it's not a good agreement. and when you really look at it if you want to put it in harsh terms, people say, well, even the president, if you don't pass it the alternative in war, and that's a false choice put out there by the president and other people supporting the agreement. that war is a choice. we do not have to make that choice. there are many things we can do that will not lead us on a path to war and we should pursue every single one of those. this nation has spent it's blood and treasure over the last decade and a half bleeding for what we thought were our national security interests to keep this country safe and thankfully we have not had large-scale terrorists attacks here at home, but the bottom line comes down to it's a small piece of land in europe, and if we give that up we will have peace in our time. if we give the iranians perhaps a ten-year period to demonstrate they can behave, we can have peace in our time. that's not the path we need to pursue. we need to pursue a path that has tight verifiable conditions in it that show that iran will never -- not just delayed ten years, never have that path to a bomb. >> richard is waiting on the line for independents from massachusetts. >> caller: i would like to talk about the "cole." you said garbage barges were coming in and the third one pulled upside and detonated. that's not what i read in the paper. besides, there was no gunners on deck, manning that gun that was on deck to keep that ship protected while it was in the harbor getting refuelled. it wasn't -- what really got me was that it wasn't detonated -- that ship was rammed by a boat, and when you said that, that really irked me, you know. >> i am going to jump in right here, and the first thing i would urge you not to believe everything in the media and what the newspaper puts out, but i would encourage you to get the book and read it. it's a factual account. the boat did not ram us. it drifted down the side of the ship to come to the middle where the previous garbage barge had been. we had people earlier in the day attempted to come aboard and he ended up with an m-14 in his face because he had not cleared the proper procedures. the security teams were well aware of the circumstances and the conditions that surrounded that ship when we pulled into the port operating under higher threat conditions than we had in the mediterranean in the past few weeks, so consequently we were ready. what we didn't expect was a water born improvised explosive device. the navy never trained for it or practiced against it and we were unaware this type of threat existed and when al qaeda existed in that port for over a year, watching navy ships pull in and attempted an attack nine months before my ship and nothing was detected by the intelligence community, we walked into a blind spot and the intelligence commune ae failed and as a result 19 of my sailors were killed. dan on the line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: this president, even when we had a terrorists attack here at home, he refused to call it a terrorists attack. this guy is sailing us down the river. i can't believe people can't see that. if any congressmen are going to vote for the treaty they have to be out of their minds. this president has not fought terrorism. he is sailing this country down the river. he can't see that terrorism is right here at home. >> well, i don't think that the president in any way is sailing us down the river. obviously, i along with a lot of people have a fundamental disagreement of how he is leading the nation and the policies he's putting in place and the national security constraints he is putting on the military and the fact he is reducing it and imemploying it around the world, and this agreement is a capstone. i do not agree with this iranian nuclear agreement and i think it's a strategic mistake and the people involved who have to vote on it, and especially the american people that live with the consequences of it, dig into the fact of it, 159 pages that's half of a book you will spend reading in your spare time anyway. get to know it real good and call your elected representatives and hold their feet to the fire and make them explain why they are going to allow this to pass. >> the line for democrats, cornell, and can you make it quick? >> caller: yes, yes. thank you commander for your service. we spent ten times more on defense than our nearest competitor, and for us to say that we need to spend more money on our military and build our military up and our closest allies, which is israel, two days before the election, netanyahu said that palestinians will never have a state and a day or two after the election he said he will work towards them having a state, and netanyahu stated the same thing when we were going into iraq, and even donald trump is beating the trump he was against iraq and for some reason no matter how much we spend on the war on poverty or the money that we spend on the military, it's never going to be enough. >> cornell, and we are running out of time and want to give the commander a chance to rerespond. >> when you build a large military like what we need, what you have to do first and foremost is decide what your national security interests are going to be and then determine how you are going to safeguard them and then within budget constraints you build a military necessary to safe guard them around the world. that's really the steps that you have to follow. right now we have gaps in that. we are not able to secure our national security interests, and we have to rely on other nations. if you are going to be the leader in the free world, which the united states has been ever since world war ii, you have to make that investment. we can be more efficient in doing it, and we should call the pentagon and defense out for doing it and one of the great problems i look at, i mention that 4,000 ships, we did it with 100 admirals and won world war ii with that kind of efficiency. today i have 280 ships but over 400 admirals and senior civilian officials in the navy alone and we can do better getting rid of bureaucracies. >> and the commander of the "uss cole" when it was bombed coming up on 15 years ago enact. the book "front burner," appreciate your time this morning on washington journal. >> up next, we will take a look at the health of the u.s. auto injure. we will be joined by matt blunt, the president of the american auto motive policy council. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues live from the iowa state fair on c-span and c-span radio and on friday morning, at 11:00 a.m. eastern, it's senator ted cruz, and on saturday, republican governors chris christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1:00. join the twitter conversation at #dmrsoapbox. with the senate in its august break, we'll feature book tv programming weeknights in primetime on c-span 2. and for the weekends, here are a few special programs. saturday live from jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee and civil rights and the civil war. on saturday, september 5th, we're live from the nation's capital for the 15th national book festival. former second lady and senior fellow at the american prize institute, lynn cheney. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. this week on first ladies, influence and image. we learn about ellen and edith willen is that after a year 1/2 serving as first lady she falls gravely illinois and passes away, and wilson married and then he suffered from a stroke. and ellen and edith wilson, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. "first ladies, influence and image." looking at their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 a.m. eastern, on american history tv on c-span 3. washington journal continues. >> matt blunt is the former republican governor missouri from 2005 to 2009 and now serves as president of the organization, and who do you represent these days? >> we have three member companies, headquartered in the u.s., fca, which is fiat chrysler and fca, ford and general motors are our members and the industry's incredibly important to the united states economy, and those three companies have a knew kwraebg and even more potent economic impact. >> as you are representing those countries, do you also represent the downstream dealerships for those company products? do you represent the union folks that work in the companies? >> we work closely with the union labor force as well as the dealer networks, but we primarily represent and really are focused on representation of the public policy interests of the fca, ford and general motors and with the principle focus on foreign trade issues. we export more cars and parts than anything else, so having a public policy that supports and sustains those experts are very important, and this year they will export about 1 million vehicles from the united states, so it's very important that policymakers are aware of the economic impact of the industry, and, of course, thinking about it as they shape policy. the industry over all does have a tremendous impact on our economy. it's about 3% of gross domestic product and supports millions of jobs all across the country, and really every state is an auto state in terms of some jobs associated with the automotive industry. and therefore four manufacturers that operate in the united states and make an important contribution to the economy and provide lots of economic opportunity for americans, but fca, ford and general motors really have an even more significant impact, 2 out of 3 american auto workers work for our three member companies and 3 out of 5 assembly plants are fca, ford or general motors. far more of the capital investment that occurred over the past five or six years has been by our companies. >> some of the trade issues you are talking about we want to bring up in this segment especially with the trance pacific partnership that congress will be talking a lot more about when they come back in next month. want to invite our viewers to call in with questions or comments. we are talking about the state of the u.s. automotive industry, and matt blunt is the former governor of missouri, and republicans can call in on their line, and democrats and independents, on their lines. you give a sense of the size of the u.s. auto industry. how does the u.s. auto industry compare to other manufacturing sectors in the united states? >> there is no other manufacturing sector that has as many jobs associated with it as the auto industry does. we're the leading export sector of the united states economy, exporting about $140 billion of assembled vehicles and parts a year. so just a critical part of our manufacturing infrastructure is tied up in the auto sector. it's hard to imagine how the united states can sustain this sort of manufacturing infrastructure that we have today without the auto sector, without all of the jobs that are associated with it. we represent the original equipment manufacturers of fca, ford and general motors. in missouri, the largest manufacturing sector is auto suppliers, and they sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs all across the country. >> when you say fca, just so our viewers are aware, it's fiat chrysler america? >> yes. >> and viewers can check it out on. >> host: america. >> how is the u.s. automotive sector doing compared to the rest of the world? >> extraordinary well. it's one of the largest markets in the world. china exceeded the united states in terms of volume, but we are still the largest market in terms of value. we are a critical market for every auto manufacturer in the world. they care about what happens in the north american market and it makes a big difference in their bottom line. this market is very important. our three-member companies are doing well globally. >> how do they stack up against the foreign automotive companies? >> well, there are some companies that have a niche, some of the luxury manufacturers like you mentioned, and our companies provide a wide range of products that are right at the cutting edge in terms of quality, both in terms of environmental efficiency and safety features, and just really producing a world class product. they obviously have gone through in the united states a challenging restructuring as they have evaluated their size compared to the markets that exist, and become more efficient and leaner, but because of that they really are competitive globally, and as i said, we're producing product in the united states, over 100 products are produced in the united states, that we assemble in the united states that we export to 100 countries. >> want to get the viewers' thoughts here. billy is up next on the line for independents from florida. >> caller: now for something different, and donald trump is talking about ford building a factory in mexico and driving the cars into the united states without the united states getting any credit or money for the jocbs being taken into mexico. i would like your opinion on that and what about the tariffs he is talking about, and i will take my answer off the phone. >> there has been no question mexico has been an important hub of small manufacturing for all automakers, and japanese and korean have utilized mexico as an important hub of auto production. having said that, i think ford is an interesting company to pick on. ford produces more cars in the united states than any other manufacturer, and they have moved production of some products back to the united states from mexico, and recently used and it was announced before any of trump's comments they moved the medium duty truck production back from mexico to ohio, and they made other changes produced in turkey to missouri. they make decisions based on where it makes the most sense to produce a particular product, but if you look at the facts and really dig into the numbers, there's a strong commitment by all three of the member companies to the united states, and ford is at about 80% of their north american capital, and their investment has been in the united states. these are companies investing in america in a way that is unique and powerful and exceeds anything foreign manufacturers are doing. >> want to get your thoughts on how this issue is specifically impacting some of the labor talks in the u.s. auto market. here is a story from "the wall street journal" from late last month, the new wave is problematic and will be central to the labor talks going on. >> we leave the labor negotiations to the individual companies as you might suspect and we watch them closely but don't get involved in them or engage in them. but i think it's fair to say that everybody wants to insure there is product to produce in the united states, and that's why it's important that we have a public policy that addresses some of the barriers that we have to producing product in the united states, that can be competitive in markets around the world. that's why you need tax policy and environmental policy that makes sense, and it's practical that allows you to produce product in the united states for american consumers and, as i say, consumers all around the globe. one of the issues we focused a lot of attention on and i helped to highlight is the need to address foreign currency manipulation which has a tremendous impact on our ability to sell autos, not just in countries that manipulate their currency but in markets where we're competing head-to-head with japanese or korean manufacturers, economies that have a history of manipulating and devaluing their currency to gain a trade advantage. >> lewis, you're on with former governor matt blunt. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i just recently leased a call, a gasoline motor, combustion motor. in three years the car will have a certain value. but i wonder how have they calculateded the use of the combustion engine? how long until they stop producing combustion engines because i worry about the value of the car. i feel like the guy that still has a horse and buggy, i look at the ford model a down the street, when will my car be zero value versus all the hybrids and electric? do you know when they'll no longer have combustion engines? >> i think in terms of value, you're safe in the near term. i lease and own vehicles that all have combustion vehicles. obviously automakers are exploring other innovative options. you'll continue to see a mix of different types of power train out there, whether it's in hybrids or plug-in electric hybrids. i think you'll see a lot of options for consumers. certainly in the near term, the combustion engine is going to remain an important part of that. >> what make and model do you drive? >> right now i have a buick enclave. i've had it about seven months now. i'm really happy with it. >> ron, good morning in westchester, new hampshire. >> caller: good morning. thank you c-span and welcome to your guest. i'd just like to point out, it's my belief that president obama single handedly saved the auto industry as well as the banking industry and housing industry against democrats and republicans were against the huge bailouts. and i believe if it wasn't for that. and i do realize that that was a president bush thing. president bush started it. president obama had the insight to continue it and bail out the banks and save what little bit of infrastructure we had left after president bush allowed it to crash our economy. excuse me. and then all the deficit that we have, that really -- that puts a huge crimp on everything. i'd like to point out, half that deficit was on our credit card when president obama first raised his hand. half of the $18 trillion, we're like $19 trillion in debt, but half of it at that point to time was all president bush. and for the wars and tax breaks for the rich. and so, yeah -- >> well, we're going to let matt blunt take the first part on the bailout. >> i think both president bush and president obama recognized the auto industry was a critical industry and that it was difficult to imagine a vibrant american manufacturing sector that's competitive globally without the auto industry. and they made, i think, both presidents made political decisions to help ensure the industry remained viable and i would applaud both presidents for their leadership on this and focus on it and commitment to the industry. going forward, we believe it's important that you continue to have public policy that allows the industry to grow, continue to grow as it's grown over the past five years and continue to be a real driver of exports and a real driver in economic recovery. most people would agree the economic recovery has not been as vibrant as anybody would like without the auto sector and growth we've experienced and it would be even less vibrant than it's been. i certainly would commend the leadership of people in both political parties, including presidents bush and obama for what they did to get the industry through a tremendous crisis. >> is the industry still paying back parts of the bailout? >> individual companies, there may be. i don't exactly know where the two companies that were part of that are. but i think a lot of that has been at least taken care of in the united states. there's some canadian components left. >> let's go to jada, line for republicans. you're on with the president of the american automotive policy council. >> caller: the president has put me in charge of all overseas car industries. i want to know what are we doing wrong that we have so many recalls that's we have to bring cars in, even though i started when i got on cars, the same exact car as me and whatever car i went and drove, they start to go get it. then having different cars come in and into the industry. >> we'll let matt blunt address the recalls. >> obviously, we leave to individual companies their responsibilities in terms of their product and recalls. i think the fact there have been so many recalls demonstrate the companies are committed to finding any and all defects, regardless of magnitude and correcting them. and to some extent it's a recall process that's working. cars are being recalled. hopefully repaired and put back on the road. so obviously the companies are committed to quality. i think they are committed to really cutting edge technology. the auto industry spends more on research and development than almost any other industry. and our three member companies, fca, ford and general motors all spend more than tech giants like apple, boeing and others that you would really think of as drivers of innovation. the amount of research and development that goes into a car is remarkable. it's about $1200 of american r&d in every single vehicle that's coming out and being put on the road. so there's a real commitment to quality and tremendous expenditures to try and improve the driver's experience and environmental performance and the safety performance of vehicles. >> how did you go from the governors mansion to the president of the policy council. >> missouri is an important automotive state. a diverse economy with a lot of great agriculture and light manufacturing. but the auto sector has always been an important part of our economy since really one of the earliest automotive plants outside of michigan was placed in the state. i did become familiar with how important this industry is. if you are in a state that doesn't have significant automotive presence, and most states do, you want it. every state wants it. every country wants what we have in terms of automobile manufacturing because these are good quality jobs and will support families. and they are jobs that create a number of other jobs. the job multiplier for auto motive manufacturing jobs when you open up a new plant is just tremendous. every country in the world wants what the united states and really just a handful of other economies have today. and that's the ability to have this massive production of this important product. >> vincent is up next in maryland. you're on with matt blunt. >> caller: good morning. my question is, it seems like the auto industry has been doing so much outsourcing in the last ten years. i think there's a correlation between that and the number of recalls. seems like there's an inordinate amount of recalls in the last decade. seems like you read about it every other week. i think though auto industry if they are so prourd of the outsourcing of components, they ought to be able to list all the parts are from so we know where the junk is being made. >> certainly a lot of that information is available about the percentage of a vehicle that's from the united states. our companies do particularly well, companies fca, ford and general motors almost double the domestic content of the other foreign manufacturers. domestic content, the components and parts of the vehicle. nearly 15,000 components and parts are in the complicated vehicles that we drive today. so global supply chains are important. all manufacturers around the world. the companies we're fortunate enough to represent at the policy council really do have a commitment to domestic content and utilize a lot of great american product. >> ashford, virginia, republican line. >> caller: a few months ago, i heard on c-span, i think it was c-span, the secretary of transportation was talking about how when he was younger, it was part of the american dream, expected that you save up your money when you are a teen and buy a car. nowadays, young people in my generation, and i'm ge20 years old, seem to be less and less of car people. i wonder if you or the companies you represent are concerned about alternative means of transportation like ride sharing or pubc

Related Keywords

Louisiana , United States , Nevada , Turkey , China , Ellis Island , New Jersey , Cedar Rapids , Iowa , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , San Diego , Syria , Slovak Republic , Russia , Washington , Ford Building , Massachusetts , Mexico , Iowa City , Culver City , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Canada , Japan , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Germany , Missouri , Texas , Afghanistan , Iran , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Westchester , Ohio , Florida , Virginia , Georgia , Columbia University , United Arab Emirates , Oregon , Michigan , Cincinnati , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Iraq , Israel , Town Hall , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Saudi Arabia , Norfolk , George Washington School , Maryland , Yemen , Americans , Mexican , Iranians , Turks , Iranian , British , Arab Emirates , Russians , Japanese , American , Canadian , Chinese , Czechoslovakia , Saudis , Soviet , German , Harper Lee , Ruf Ridge , Bobby Jindal , Paul Waldman , Martin Luther King , Scott Walker , Chrysler America , Nelson Rockefeller , David Vitter , Joe Mccutchen , Jeb Bush , Rick Perry , Steve King , John Kerry , Klux Klan , Haley Barbour , Tracy Hall , Chris Christie , Maude Barlow , Michelle Obama , Al Qaeda , Jonathan Turley , Dwight David Eisenhower , Lynn Cheney , Jacob Howard , Edith Wilson , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz , William Brennan , William Woodburn ,