washington journal is next. >> these are substantial limitations which will prevent iraq from building -- iran from building a nuclear weapon. meanwhile, this first up will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about iranian program. -- >>e of this agreement

good morning. it is a six-month agreement designed to make it more difficult for iran to turn its nuclear stockpiles into weapons. in exchange for lifting economic sanctions meant to hurt that country. this deal is being called plus oneby the p5 nations. others are calling this a bad agreement. morning november 24. we will begin with your calls and comments in more details on the short term nuclear agreement with iran. the area code is 202 in washington dc.

benjamin netanyahu it says israel is not bound by the deal and reserves the right to defend itself. this is a headline this morning --om "the los angeles times" what is the p5 plus one nations from "wall street journal" this from senator marco rubio,

saying this agreement makes a nuclear iran more likely. he went on to say there's now an even more urgent need for congress to increase sanctions until iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. again, those details from "wall street journal". a rare address from the white house. here is more with president obama. side, the united

states and our friends and allies have agreed to provide iran with modest relief while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions. we will refrain from imposing new sanctions and we will allow the iranian government access to a portion of the revenue that they have been denied through sanctions. but, the broader architecture of sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to enforce them vigorously. if iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six- month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure. over the next six months, we will work to negotiate a conference of solution. we approach these negotiations with a basic understanding -- iran, like any nation should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. but because of its record of violating its obligations, iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program that make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon.

negotiations, nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. the burden is on the wrong to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes. ,f iran seizes this opportunity the iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. will provide iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. if on the other hand iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation. that was a president last night from the state dining room in the white house. you can join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span.

david, good morning caller:. caller:i am happy with this agreement. every american should be. the problem is not iran, the problem is israel. what is israel going to do now? two days ago on the "charlie rose show," they stated that if iran wasn't completely dismantled all their centrifuges would not be able to enrich any uranium at all, that they would attack iran. israel has a long history of attacking its neighbors and

destroying all kinds of infrastructure, including a couple of nuclear facilities all over the place. we have to be concerned about aipacecause our controlled senate has given resolution saying they will defend israel in case of such an attack. we should redo a portion of what he said from the washington post. caller: i think he is supposed to call netanyahu this morning or sometime today. i think what he will tell them is you like your freedom you can keep it,. . if you like your country you can keep it,.

. we have drawn a red line around iran, but we took the eraser for the redline that we give syria and now we're going to give to iran so they can erase it. as far as the last roman who spoke up and said the problem beforeael, i am sure world war ii really broke out, the problem was not hitler, the was --host: this is from richard rodgers is from richard rogers who says we have a president who's trying to andote r peace abroad health at home in the right wing wants no part of that. we have a call from ohio. caller: i say this is a sad day for israel. you can trust iranians and you definitely can't trust obama. he lied to the american people he was certainly like to the israeli.

people. he is just looking to forward his political career. it is a sad day for everyone. host: the president came before cameras last night and he is scheduled to leave today for a west coast trip, including seattle, washington. theries of fundraisers for democratic campaign committee. he is back in washington late tuesday evening before the thanksgiving recess. politico, senator john korn and has argued strongly for a new round of sanctions to be imposed on the iranian republic, which reached a deal in switzerland. senator corning sending this tweet out. plymouth, north carolina is our next caller. caller: my comment is that in

-- we mustny nation be able to raise capital in order to support any program that the president is planning to extend abroad. table and to the negotiate taxes, our economy and our workforce. host: next call is steve joining us from brooklyn, new york. republican line, good morning. think this is a terrible deal. not for israel, per se. but for the united states of america. if this deal was done five or six years ago and iran was not close to nuclearization of an atomic bomb, i'd say maybe give it a shot. iran is at the door of making a nuclear bomb.

to lessen the sanctions at this point when they are so close and is sure toths, iran be deceitful, they're sure to make nuclear plants all over the place and now to suddenly trust and to ask the head of the eu who negotiated this and the one who is involved, i am just very nervous and i think it is a terrible mistake. i think america is threatened because ultimately our interest ,n the region, more than israel and not just israel, is all the arabian countries that are very concerned. i think this is a terrible mistake. obviously, they were having an effect and it looks like we just caved in. i think it is a terrible deal. host: adam schiff, a representative, says this is a

positive step. i have little trust in iran and i must make sure they do not cheat. but it could mark a turning point in our relations. this new set of negotiations -- in and and in and in and

in and in and in and i and you are you really. as you agreement.

will think we will quickly know whether or not the uranium's will -- the iranians will comply with the agreement. can always get back to sanctions in six months. all these right wingers that are calling in, i would like to hear what their plan would be just to see if they have any original thoughts or if they are just , cruise, marco rubio rand paul in all the other war hawks in the republican party. cnn also reporting on this. if you want to watch it is available on a website. u.s. and the you and charity deal. israel was fiercest criticism today. prime minister netanyahu called the deal a historical mistake.

israel has repeatedly warned the west to tread warily when dealing with iran. said the deal stunned lawmakers. cannot participate in the international celebration which is based on iranian deception and world self-delusion. more details available online at cnn.com. clark is joining us from seal beach, california on the independent line. [indiscernible] the caller from marietta,

ohio. republican line. states ise united following its national interests. as we become more independent with our oil and gas resources, israel takes less of a position in our national interests. they have been at war for 50 years and it is time that they changed their path and go toward more peaceful means of achieving in thepe of settlement arab area. i do support the president. i think it is necessary for our national interests and believe we should move forward with some type of negotiations -- with the type of fish ago sheesh and we with the type of negotiations that we are making.

again, the perspective of bill kristol from "the weekly standard." united kingdom and the european union, jack is joining us, up early from honolulu, hawaii. good morning. hey, i was thinking we

need to lift the sanctions. somebody needs to show that there is some trust between iran and the united states very at michael gordon writing from geneva switzerland.

again, we are getting your calls on the deal that was worked out well into the night. you're welcome to join the conversation. tom friedman in "the new york times" writes this.

allen is joining us from the bronx in new york on the democrats line. good morning. good morning.

i think the united states, should admit, iranians nuclear right. iran like other countries has a nuclear program. iran worked on its nuclear program and if iran is and canul in this issue do the program correctly and have a nuclear capacity and no one can face iran. from nor folk, connecticut. we need to do a peace deal with iran and move on.

iran can't hurt united states, anyway. what are they going to do, drop one or two bombs tackle we can nuke them off the face of the earth. i am tired of everybody like kristol, they are just supported by either the hard right wing or the zionists. we need to find more jobs for our people. host: bill, from connecticut. for our radio listeners joining us, we are getting your calls and comments on the short term agreement worked out with iran. it was announced last night by the president and we will get to more of your comments in a moment. a few years ago we covered an event with former israeli ambassador to the united nations dory gold.

he spoke in washington dc on his book, the rise of nuclear iran. out tehran defies the west. it is available on a website, part of c-span twos book tv coverage and part of our video library. here is his concern about any agreement with iran. again, this came from september 2009. >> there may be people who thought there were internal problems with iran after june 12. this regime is under siege by the iranian people, would be putting it a little strongly. this regime is also succeeded in rounding up everyone who opposes them on the senior level. some people might think that iran is facing internal problems will be busy with itself, it won't get engaged in foreign- policy ventures. i think that is wrong. i think historically when the islamic republic has faced internal problems, it externalizes them. why would the u.s. embassy in

why was the u.s. embassy in teheran seized? because there were internal rifts inside iran during its birth. this continues on for a long time. i am not sure that the prognosis for engagement is very good. if you want to test it, i would put forward a theory on the book that an engagement advocate would use. the iranians review them as inferior. states isthe united an equal. maybe you have a slightly better chance. don't try it for more than a couple weeks. he will exploit that, and we are too close to the finishing line for a run. we are too close to experiment with foreign policy. , sit with havee your salon in a closed room and he will tell you.

solanaierre in a closed room and he will tell you. i think everyone must understand the dangers of this happening. if you try engagement, keep it short. perspective from former ambassador dore gold. that was an event we covered for booktv four years ago. out agreement worked yesterday in geneva switzerland between the u.s. and our allies china, russia and the european union. again, the headline from "the hill" newspaper. this is a first step. let me just summarize a couple

of points at the white house sent to us late last night. iran is halting its enrichment program about five percent. it has also committed to neutralizing its stockpile of 20% uranium. iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its stockpiles.h one other point from the white house we should mention. according to this agreement, the sanction on oil will reign in effect for the short-term. next is ralph joining us this morning from north carolina. good morning. caller: i think that a short- term deal is better than no deal , which is what the republicans

would've done. the iranians needed the money that was frozen from the sanctions because from my understanding they were struggling and some of their people were going hungry from that aspect. i think that a short-term deal was better than no deal, which is all that the republicans have to offer. thank you. host: from "the new york times" this morning. next caller is fixed joining us from peoria, illinois. caller: i think america should just wake up. if we're going to make this deal, that is running israel out there. they're on their own, now. when we wake up in the next and theyths have bombed iran, i don't think we should be surprised. we had iran on the run with the sanctions.

their government was about to crumble and now we're going to let them back up again. i don't understand this. they're good to perceive this as weakness. our next call is from michigan. go back to watching .ohn kerry in front of congress john kerry fried himself in vietnam to get himself out. fragged himself to get out. our next caller is from st. john's.

caller: i just had a few points to make regarding the iranian supposedly rob him. had's stand was that they the rights to use nuclear power plants for the production of power.cal united states said no they're going to use it for enrichment. israel said no they will enrich it for nuclear weapons. france came in over 10 years ago and said we will come in, we will run the program, we will generate power and we will do it at a cost efficient level and united states said no. should go overs and run all the nuclear power plants in iran. iran had no objections to france heard iran has had no objections to the u.s.. the companies running

our plans. the nuclear issue is an issue that we used to attack iran. iran has been 100% cooperative saying which is one nuclear power to produce electrical cheap energy. host: that is walter in arizona. more from the president last night at the white house. >> while today's announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. for the first time in nearly a decade we have halted the progress of the iranian nuclear program and keep our to the program -- and key parts of the program will be rolled back. iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stock aisles. it cannot use

centrifuges or install or start a new centrifuges and it's production of centrifuges will be limited. iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. and new inspections will provide extensive access to iran's nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether iran is keeping its commitments. host: the president last night at the white house. caller: i'm calling from new york. my name is tom. is that the first of a that comes to mind technician with this technology, [indiscernible]

think it is a good point for them because they could make them agreed. visiting countries would not allow another country to do its enrichment. ok? host: we procedure call from the bronx. inside "the washington post" meanwhile, "the los angeles times" commenting on jerry brown

seeking an unprecedented fourth term. he has solid approval ratings and a small number of challenges who are virtually unknown. the governor deflecting a question a public event third i'm aware that in november of next year there will be an election and i will be sure i will make some decision regarding that. the long term governor of california who was first elected back in 1974 and went on to serve as the mayor of oakland california and serve in other capacities. he also ran for president. the deadline for filing his next march. fromis joining us fairview, tennessee. independent line. trust him can really and hillary, the blood thirsty bimbo of benghazi, foremost fraud of fast and furious, a man

who went to war with libya without even consulting with congress. he is known in history as a great constitutional shredder. he could show good faith by going over to iran and groveling at their feet like he did at the king of saudi arabia. host: the associated press for some background stars and just what led to this agreement. announced by the president and also in geneva switzerland. klapper along with matthew lee and julie pace -- sitting is joining us from

spring, texas. republican line. that they concern is entire time that iran has been telling us that they are developing this nuclear power for peaceful purposes, they have been developing plutonium. plutoniumrstanding, is not developed for peaceful purposes but only for one reason and that is to make a bomb. i am thinking that the united states can't stop them that perhaps israel will. if you will remember, we were too naive, we were going to go with the first deal which france , of all people, france had to

stop us. as my concern about this whole thing. the plutonium development. i have not heard any other college make that comment yet. host: cindy, thank you for your comment. bob is next from massachusetts. independent line. my comment is pretty much the same as the last woman's. i think the president is making the biggest mistake that we will ever hear. he can't give these people a right to keep all that stuff. they will nuke israel. there is no doubt. he will nuke israel and i bet you it will happen inside of six months. i'm sorry. have a nice day. host: mike is joining us from washington state. caller: good morning, mike. i am an iraq veteran. those to say this,

countries don't care about us and they don't care about israel. ist is their whole mission to destroy israel. when people are saying that they should not be -- that they should be allowed to enrich nuclear program, what we should not be -- we should not be dealing with terrorists at all. as with what these people do. israel has been having dumped on for centuries. i am an irish italian catholic and i support israel. i don't have the same religious views, but i completely support israel. we need to stand by israel. there are christian sites in israel that need to be protected. we can negotiate with these people. the president may have had the best interests at heart. he might be thinking in his heart that he is doing the right ring, ok? but i think they need to rethink this. as far as the people over there

that say there are people being hurt by the sanctions where they can't get food and water and these kinds of things, these countries have been suppressing -- the government has been suppressing the people over there for centuries. i saw in iraq. it is not going to change. that is just an excuse. i agree with that caller from illinois and i want to thank you for taking the time to take my call today. host: mike from washington state. here is the view from a number of papers outside of our capital. this from the atlanta journal- constitution. meanwhile, the jerusalem post to mark callers

and your reaction on all of this. mike from randolph, massachusetts, independent line. i'm doing all right. we have a problem is that we have a lot of conspiracy theorists. everyone thinks they're out to get them. war is never the answer to a political solution. who it does is engage those are at war so that they come together to find a solution. it is only a matter of time before you have to sit down with who you call your enemies politically and negotiate. the deal that is going on is a step, it is progress. some people are uneducated when it comes to politics, but the

underlying thing at the end of the day, everything comes back to economics. iq. this tweet from michael saying i am shocked to hear of secret negotiations between governments. isn't this how diplomacy starts? people need to check history. from the democrats line. real fearthink the from israel is that if in fact this deal stands then it will be a step toward asking israel to also make the same agreement and therefore expose their nuclear program. andink it is a real fear that really is up to the government of israel to deal with. inc. you. host: you can continue to share your thoughts. cwj.#

"theheadline from washington post" -- coming up on c-span's , macmakers" program thornberry. he is the vice chair of the house armed services committee. the question is just how long the u.s. will stay in afghanistan. what is the endgame? here is a portion. crexendo think anybody can give you a date. if anybody gives you a specific date, what you're doing is telling the enemy how long they have to wait before we are gone. and, you are also telling the people you are trying to help that you can't rely on us for

long. a specific date is always a mistake. what we should be there is long enough to help them stand on their own two feet. he looked back. they have made incredible progress in just the past couple of years. ofy are in the lead essentially all the combat operations right now. so what they can't do for themselves is some of the intelligence, some of the logistics and so forth. but they are getting there. again, i think you ought to pat them on the back for the tremendous progress that has been made thanks to our help and some wonderful servicemen and andn who have been there done a lot of good work. we are on a very good track. we just don't want to cut it off before you have accomplished your goal. thornberry, republican of texas on "newsmakers"

following this program at 10 a.m. eastern time. having spent some time with president karzai, he shares his insights today in the new york times. the morning, thank you very much for being with us. what is the endgame with president karzai? you spent some time interacting with them on a very personal level. what is you want from the u.s. and what audience is he playing to in afghanistan? uest: i think what you can understand with karzai is he is in a difficult position. if you seen by the afghan people as this supine up at of america, he will last about a week in office. create clear blue water between himself and his

american backers if he is to survive as the sovereign leader of a sovereign country. on the other hand, without america's help and eight or the west in general, he hasn't got the funds of the military back up to fight the taliban. heween those two positions, has a very difficult game to play. he is going to keep himself credible and yet he is going to keep himself armed. if you understand that, you can understand the weaving and ducking that is going on. host: let me ask you about this piece that is in "the new york times" this morning. basically, "the new york times" is calling this picking a fight with the u.s.. is he doing that? think he is playing a gambler's hand. -- veryery few cards

future cards in his hand. yet to play the very cleverly. he is not picking a fight with the u.s. per se, but he is trying to be seen to stand up as hard as he can for afghan istan's interests. his loyalty has to be to his own people and constituents. he has to be seen to show that he cares about civilian casualties which take place when american troops had the wrong targets or faulty intelligence which tragically happens a great deal. he has to be seen to claim the right to the sovereignty of afghanistan. afghans in american security prisons. this was a big issue in earlier negotiations, to get afghans out of american custody. hese are things that are of

enormous significance to afghanistan. it is to be a credible leader he has to do that. she is deeply aware of history here. the british put up one of his forebears as their puppet ruler in 1839. it is almost identical episode in victorian history. there, the but up same tribe of which karzai is now achieved, he allowed himself to be seen as a british puppet as a result of which one british left he was immediately slaughtered and the regime crumbled. with karzai,ations he is totally aware of that parallel. he is determined to learn from history and not let the same thing happen now. the you understand historical precedents, you can understand what he is doing. host: in your extensive be

piece you talk about not only the problems he's facing from within his country but also as you point out, from internal family politics from the karzai's. can you explain? world,in our part of the there is a tradition of dynastic democracy, with some wags call sexually-transmitted democracy. you have had a line of gandhi's bhuto's. karzai is no

different. khaim to stand in. i think on one hand he wants to be loyal to his family, on the -- he knowse wants that dynastic democracy is not choice when one family leads for a long time. there are many of the new government and so on, the way the taliban have now occupied a lot of the south. the failures of the economy, the insecurity. when karzai step star next april, he will hand over power peacefully for the very first history andn

he will have wrought appeal across afghanistan. he was the one really national powerful figure. he's conscious of his place in history it does not want to be seen as someone who put out some family dynasty. he wants to be seen as the man who brought democracy to afghanistan and fought for afghan right and stood up to the u.s.. he does not want to be seen as a puppet of an extra willpower. i think he has played quite a clever game. able have underestimated him. initially when he was first put in he was seen as a status figure with that nice outfit and the lambskin cap. he's very handsome and spoken english. in english. he is a lot more than just the mayor of kabul.

this brought a range of tribes into his alliance, he has kept our. it hasn't been a flawless record by any means, but it has been a very credible performance. much cleverer and more wise as a negotiator than anyone would have it expected. to williamking dalrymple. he has an article in this weekend's new york times magazine. it is called the long goodbye in afghanistan. "the new york times" says from your perspective, your

reaction to this article this morning. guest: he is a person whose opinion i respect for a much. he really knows the afghan situation better than most of us. his general allen, who is commander in chief of the u.s. forces. i had a long chat with him recently. [indiscernible] -- for his own electoral -- to

achievedle -- he has and that remarkable amount. [indiscernible] host: william dalrymple, i'm going to jump in because we're losing the phone connection. i want to let our audience know that they can read your article on new york times.com. we appreciate you joining us from new delhi india. thanks very much for being with us. watching c-span's "washington journal" for the sunday morning. a reminder all weekend on c-span three is american history tv. we are reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of president john f. kennedy and the events that ensued following his assassination including the

swearing in and the establishment of the johnson presidency and the funeral services that took lace 50 years ago tomorrow here in washington dc. coming up next on c-span's "washington journal" we get the if of george sore neck of "the nation" magazine. the perspective of of "the nation" magazine. , whong us is nancy callow is keeping track of the sunday shows and the guests. . >> youood morning terr can hear a rebroadcast of the programs on c-span radio beginning today at 1 p.m. eastern time instead of noon as we usually do as nbc's "meet the

press" is preempted today by coverage of formula one auto racing. we begin at 1 p.m. eastern with abc's "this week." also facebook president and ceo mark zuckerberg. at 2 p.m. it is fox news sunday with senators bob corker and ben cardin, also a former alaska governor, republican sarah palin. senators bernie sanders, an independent from vermont and ron johnson who is a republican from wisconsin. then at 4:00 it is "face the nation" from cbs. bob schieffer speaks with clint hill, jackie kennedy's lead secret service agent in 1963. he is the author of "mrs. kennedy and made."

e." the programs are brought to you as a public service on c- span. the rebroadcast of the shows begin today at 1 p.m. eastern with abc's "this week." state of the union. listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm here in the washington dc area. across the country on xm satellite radio, find is on channel 120. download our free app for smart phone or listen online at c-span radio.org. to haveught it was fun a little view of history of a time in america that wasn't instructional. that was a little bit more a little and actually bit more archaeological meaning random. you take a look at them and you see bunches of weird photos and then the captions explaining.

i had a vision of high school students flipping through them and loving history if they flipped through it. >> i also understand how you admire the pandas at the zoo. >> yes, they are darling current it was important for her to support her husband terence just her being there would bring so much goodwill and invite -- they at the end of

would talk about the president this way, but they would always say what a wonderful job. >> first lady pat nixon monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c- span and c-span3 also on c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: i want to welcome this morning george zornick. he is a reporter for "the nation " a magazine. thank you for being with us. let's talk about reaction to be cynical many changes in the filibuster rules, and this morning, a sender has written this for the "washington post," tyranny of the majority

host: your comment. the wayajority rule in that this government works, what this did was allow the president to staff the executive branch and the judicial branch as he sees fit. this habit of filibustering has only been around since 1975, though filibuster itself on legislation has been around much longer. you have about 75 executive branch nominees who are waiting. majorityranny in the -- obama won the election and should have the right to staff the executive branch as he sees fit. host: a number of you have called in asking about comments by senator brock obama and senator mitch mcconnell back in 2005 with regards to the filibuster rule, let's take you

back to april 2005, get your reaction to what barack obama said back then. [video clip] >> the american people send us your to voice. they understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they can also -- they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable, and at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done. what they do not expect is for one party, be it republican or democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. letamerican people want to partisanship in this town, but everyone knows in this chamber that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to the democratic debate, then the fighting in the the gridlock and

will only get worse. i understand that republicans are getting pressures to get this from factions of the chamber, but we need to rise above the ends justify the means mentality because we are here for all of the people, not just the ones that are wearing our particular party label. host: from 2005, senator barack obama, a very different president obama praising be very thing he was critical of when he was sitting in the u.s. senate. guest: there was certainly self- interest on both sides of this. a couple of things to point out -- one it since that time, the filibuster had increased dramatically, republicans had wielded it for more than democrats at the time when obama was speaking. obama has also nominated a number of judges and nominees who are essentially noncontroversial. i mean, you had chuck hagel, a broken get filibuster, you had judges who had bipartisan support getting filibustered. when democrats were

filibustering in 2005, 2006, you had a very ideologically extreme candidates, people who thought social security was unconstitutional. so there were more extreme candidates. i won't absolving them of all about or see on that point, but i think it is a different situation now. host: as you know, senate republicans saying this is all about the d c circuit court of a circuit court of appeals. this from "time" magazine last week -- broken promise. has it been a broken promise you ? guest: the individual insurance market is important for a lot of people. it is a true failure that they were not able to deliver. some of the stories have been shocking that they knew that the website cannot handle more than 500 people before they opened it for business. ed is a problem. it is problematic. it is a problem he did not deliver on. you have a medicaid expansion,

which is going very well. you have other regulations which are going fine. the individual market is something that a single digit percentage of americans are on. it is certainly not to negate the trouble that they are feeling, but i think some perspective is useful here. host: are you worried whatever sense of compromise that was in the senate over other issues is now out the door because of this change in the senate rules? lott: there was not a whole to begin with. if you have 75 executive branch nominees that people do not even know about and senate republicans have not even raise objections to other than the seeming fact that they were nominated by obama, i do not think there was much comedy there to begin with. the defense secretary was a republican. what point was lost in this. to be fair or not, that was essentially for a month, and

it was not related to his position but whether he was cable and had the temperament for the job. sure, the charge was sort of led by ted cruz --here were a lot of august was led by ted cruz. there were a lot of thought arguments. was fineemperament when he was a republican in the senate. there is an instinct and the republican minority to just like everybody that obama puts forward. host: does this not change what the framers had in mind, the system of checks and balances, to make sure that no branch of the federal government had usurped too much authority? this essentially means whoever is in the white house that they will get their nominees outside of the supreme court nominees simply by them simple majority taking away checks and balance? think so.on't

recall that the filibuster on executive nominees had only been in place since 1935. i think minority still have a significant rise in slowing down legislation in the senate, but i think the fact that the president is able to staff executive branch agencies is something that he should be able to do as long as he can get the sense of all along. he cannot even the always get the sense of go along. look at larry summers. it was very clear that the white house wanted to nominate him and did not even have 51 votes for him. there is certainly if an attack. but the idea that the president up put people in place in his cabinet under extreme circumstances, in which case they would not get 51 votes anyway. host: does the set the stage for the total elimination, the filibuster? ruless to are bent the changing for supreme court nominee, any domestic agenda item? guest: i think that very well may happen. it depends on the mechanics. 60uld there be an automatic

vote threshold for every piece of legislation you go i am not so sure about that was the next or check that was not intended by the framers. that was an extreme situation with a senators felt they needed to be slowed slow down, what it did not mean is that they could permanently stop in less they receive a super majority. filibusteroing to and actually hold the floor, you can delay forever, but it would be a real filibuster is of this de facto system where 50 becomes 60 in every piece of legislation needs 61 votes. host: another piece from the sunday opinion section of today's "washington post," the comments of former democratic leader tom daschle and former republican leader trent lott

host: they outline ford different areas on how to envy -- end the disruption. mitch mcconnell had this to say -- [video clip]

>> the majority leader promised over and over again that he would not break the rules of the senate. ents is not an agent -- anci promise. july 14 on "meet the press," we are not touching judges. this year, we are not touching judges. then there are the double standards. when democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously for the very a may now say we will have to do without. be right to extend the debate on lifetime appointments. words, they believe that one set of rules should and another set to everybody else. let me get your reaction to what the senate republican leader had to say. again, this photograph from the "washington post" is clear that

senators rita mcconnell are not mcconnell are not friends. they do not get along, but they have to work together. guest: the role change was done by a non-debatable motion of the chair, so it was a rule change. i do not think that they broke the rules. it certainly is true that rita and mcconnelleid are the most tense ground ever. i've seen stories that the minority is considering basically stopping the calendar in its tracks, anything from that to a slowing down of the senate but not a total stop. when it comes down to is do they really want to do that. do they really want to basically go three tobacco government shutdown part two and keep the senate from operating? -- go through a government shutdown part two? would legislation be added

to the filibuster at a later date ca? appetiteere is an among democrats to do that. when he saw the president gave his remarks after the role change this week, he mentioned the gun control legislation, which has not been mentioned since the role change justified to judges and executive branch nominees. feel they are subject to this extra check in this incentive that they have to get 50 votes for everything good i would not say it is definitely going to happen. through ar they let judge in a few cabinet nominees. i think that is something similar to what you may see. i think reid may threaten to do it for legislation. republicans may need him on a particular bill. host: our guest is george zornick of "the nation" magazine. his work is available online. we will get to your calls and comments as well. you can send us a tweet @cspanwj , send us an e-mail journal@c-

span.org. mike is joining us. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i wanted to ask one question, make one comment. i have been a physician for 20 years. i believe everyone should have access to care. the question i have for mr. zornick was -- how will this filibuster affect -- host: so-called health care plan anels, which critics say is not the case. guest: you see a lot of changes to the affordable care act coming up. seeare certainly going to conservative fax to rated in -- to rein it in. it will continue trying to appeal it alright. if the filibuster disappears on legislation, it will have a huge

impact not just on health-care law but virtually everything. in "time"n, let me go magazine rates for the cure. the think you're for obama care. the deadline is approaching. if the november 30 deadline is not reach in healthcare.gov the website is not working, then -- what?go guest: you want a lot of young, healthy people in so they can subsidize the older and sicker folks in the market. -- if they can get these --blems solved a good work

ost: the comparison of wages, which is not kept pace with rising yogurt cause. -- rising health care costs. in the wage problem is the role issue. that is the heart of the problem that wages are stagnant, and in it is a real drag on the economy . host: bob, good morning.

go ahead. i think this nuclear thing is really divisive. you have to have one of the so- called reporters a slave to me -- explain to me what does fundamentally change america? i know what this gentleman here would like. you would like a socialist or communist can't -- communist country. that is what is magazine stands for. have a good day. host: are you still with us? nuclear options or nuclear capacity with iran. what specifically are you talking about? senate developed over the weekend between the u.s. and iran? caller: i think the nuclear deal with iran this is a scam to get people's mind off of the health care debacle. that is going to turn out to be a debacle too.

only a full would trust them. host: bob, thank you for the call. in case our audience is just waking up, let me just read the first or graph or two from this morning's "new york times" story -- the court reached with iran -- accord reached with iran to halt nuclear program too muchis might be

about spared we have a six-month halt. i notice they 5% rate. even if you agree to that, it is hard not to see this as progress. people say they don't want iran enriching nuclear weapons. at this point, we have a six- month halt. more space for negotiations. i think it is a good thing. host: david is next, denison texas. since you bureau slightly into obamacare, i would like to throw out that i got my letter, too. i am a self-employed individual, which so many of the folks that are effectiveness initial primary market are. my insurance is going from $640 a month to $2048 a month for the same coverage, so i just want to get that out there, that is nothing that i read somewhere. that is my letter. host: who did the letter come from? when did the monthly increase take effect?

caller: blue cross. i am in texas. we are able because we signed up again -- i am not sure what the stipulation is. i have heard others that were able to take advantage of the same thing. contract ofgned our the time we got this letter that we would be able to -- it went 2014, andto $640 to it goes up for 2015. host: what are you going to do yo? caller: that is a good question. look, i am like a lot of others. every time we have gone through -- i worked with a publicly traded company until 1998, and that the money was sold.

i decided to put my own business together. every time there is been economic downturns or recessions know, 20, 30 don't years, it seems that more and more people are pushed into the world of contracts, contracting themselves back to the same people they were working for before. i mean, even after i lost that position, i was doing consulting work for the same hotel that had been doing work for as an employee before, but you lose your benefits and all this. ultimately i am happy that it happened except for the situation, one of the hardest things we had to deal with in years, is dealing with health care. but they did not have to blow up like the obamacare think it. did. ng when you said you could keep

your plan coming to keep your doctor, and he danced around the issue as though there were seven isks after it. they find a way to parse everything. political parties do this every time. the same has to have a legal asterisk about what is after. davis who worked with the clinton administration, like severe clinton supporter, helping clinton through his damage control during the lewinsky thing, he has been publicly all over the place as a dishonest emigrant -- as an honest democrat -- host: i want to stop you there. i appreciate the call and see why for sharing your experiments with the health care marketplace. guest: i don't doubt the experience, but i

know in texas over all the premiums have gone down on the health insurance exchange. i have not heard of a planet dribbles and cost. again, i do not doubt this caller's letter. when ted cruz was leading the debate on the "houston chronicle," on one side you had ted cruz and the other side you the premiums and the health care exchange were going down in texas, so i think in general -- look, the president was certainly oversimplistic then. i think that whether people understood the law, they regulate certain plans which can no longer exist. they cannot cover certain things or they do not meet up to certain standards, then they cannot be sold. i wonder if this is what happened to this journal hundred what is interesting is >> even if the republicans took

over the government, any change in the health care system will cause plans to change. it is an inevitable thing. was obama to simplistic? absolutely. andou take no wider view how people are being helped by the law, it is more complicated. paul ryan does have that coming up. it is not a good plan. if it takes the individual market and takes regulations out of it and does not have an answer for the other things that obamacare does, they do have similar plans. in some states they do.

some states 100% of cost will be paid out. millions and millions of people who do not have insurance and have republican governors, what is the alternative? host: it is interesting if you look at the polls, obamacare is a distraction from the real problem, which is the economy.

thoughwant congress and white house to focus on the economy. it is the economy there concerned about. host: it is a busy day for news. editorial inlated the new york times asking the president to explain why u.s. troops need to remain in afghanistan beyond 2014. there is an election in afghanistan in april. senators need to press the president to consult congress and the american people before signing any further agreement that would keep u.s. troops in that country. of the mostne important debates it is happening in bc right now. the u.s. and afghanistan government are about to sign a government that would go to 20 24 and beyond.

afghanistan would like 10 to 15,000 troops. in every single sense of the word, obama is emitting to another decade of war. he has the 2001 authorization to do this. onre are many in congress and sides of the aisle plenty of progressives in the house who want obama to come back and say we are committing to another decade of four. i want to check in with congress and the public. sending people in harms way and billions of dollars will be sent -- spent. in 2024.eing fought you could have a 19 kit -- 19- year-old kid who may die there who was not even born when september 11 happened and the war started. i think that is a

crazy situation. the: we are featuring president comments on air ran that happened after 10:00 on a saturday evening. delivered comments on a weekend and that is unusual. he did so last night from the state dining room on this agreement with air ran. us from is joining dayton ohio. >> c-span is a treasure. guest, wet to ask the keep hearing about how many pieces of legislation the republicans have obstructed over obama's review this previous

administration. i wish he could talk specifically about how many. howcalled and talked about this is socialist and communist. bob sounded like he is collecting medicare, so that is a socialized program and i was wondering if he would want to be cut off of that. we will have george follow up with you. they passed a disclosure act that would open up a lot of the money that is influencing elections. seen justate you have this year, a very incrementalist narrow gun control bill which would institute universal background checks and close the gun show loophole and that died in the senate.

these are some of the things that would get through, it might take longer but you would not need a super majority to get through. caller: bob made some inaccurate comments. but i havee great asked c-span to have former bush administration people on. he was a former middle east analyst and she is directly negotiated with iran. how iran a lot about has signed the treaty in israel hasn't. massives sitting on up stockpile of weapons will not sign the npt. by and haveo abide the right to air in rich -- enrich uranium.

i wish you would have a program about those who have signed the npt and those who have not. the right to enrich uranium and is written -- and israel is pushing us to a military encounter with them. this is from kiki. >> what are we hoping to accomplish? if the initial goal was to root -- that hasama, happened. there'll be a vacuum greater leave.

that needs to be the operative theory. moving back we are and forth of a lot of information. have you signed up and what is your premium and deductible question mark >> i have healthcare through my employer. i don't want to trivialize the problems people are having on but many people have insurance to their employer and through socialized healthcare like medicare and medicaid. i am not on the individual market. host: john from columbia missouri. backr: i just want to go on this filibuster thing. my hope is every time any bill

in the senate or the house comes someoneommittee that objects and they debate these bills fully. when they change this filibuster rule for political purposes which is what happened here, it was for political purposes. it is for political purposes so they can get their way. it's like changing the rules of a basketball game after 200 years. they change the rules. thanks for the call. are changed in basketball and many other things to respond to reality. cloturere a number of votes and nominees who were

asked topped and being wait 140 days before they took their posts. both parties are guilty. democrats started or republican started. it needed to stop. the president needed to fulfill his duty. the rules change but it was in response to a changing reality. why not ask john boehner if he signed up? two from washington dc. good morning. about: i have a question this nsa spying thing. how can you defend something like nsa spying? that is something that is going to happen in a socialist country like australia. >> i agree and i would not

defended at all. the majority of house democrats voted to defund this bulk surveillance. it is something that a lot of people if you look at the polls and people are troubled by it. i am troubled by it. peopleoubled by the way say bush started it, but obama has expanded it. it could be one of the biggest story in the next 10 years. the government increasing surveillance power and technology. that is a huge story. the great part about this program is we have a chance to follow-up. kathleen has a follow-up tweet. >> i don't have a good answer for that. vote.needs to seek a

tell the american people he is sending troops into harms way and here's why. say in two senses why we need to stay in afghanistan. if there is a reason i do not know what it is. about thelso wrote justice department and jpmorgan chase. you asked this question. is it enough? >> is a record settlement and it is triple the bp settlement. the real problem is no bank executives went to jail. ego back to the savings and loan crisis hom a 800 bank executives went to jail. about creating a disincentive on wall street for bad behavior. , look at thisaged deal and say maybe five years

down the road might bank may have to pay a fine which we can negotiate with the justice department. why don't i get rich now? it would be different if people were going to jail. as the financial sector expands and takes over more of the economy, i think a disincentive needs to be created. >> $4 billion goes back to help those impacted by this. is that enough? responsible?n >> he was in charge. he bought bear stearns after the fact. is he culpable? not legallyis responsible. foreclosure rates are still in dire trouble. it is helpful, but it is not enough.

in the past we have seen this money earmarked go to homeowners did not get there. i am concerned that the mechanisms are not strong enough. host: we have a few more moments with our guest. good morning. a statement and a question. i am 72. i would be willing to give back part some of my medicare or social security because that is the definition of what a patriot actually does. they do not just use platitudes. in respect to iran, >> this is giving space to the verification. nota saying they will

enrich past five percent for six months. it is a show of good faith by iran to show they are serious about this. the final details are going to be worked out. way for that process to happen. there are additional details on whitehouse.gov. the president will have a conversation with israeli prime minister today. what you think the tone of that call will be? >> israel is not pleased with the deal. you have to realize that in some ways but israel wants to do is want obama to push as hard as he can. what they're doing here is trying to make sure that there is a hard-line been enforced. host: lumia asked you one question, in 2016 will it be hillary clinton or elizabeth

foreign? >> i think elizabeth warren may run. she is thinking about it. she is not related out. there is an important debate that happens in the democratic party. the populationof has 2.3% of the wealth. that is a staggering statistic. it is a drag on the economy and it is unfair. the democratic party does that have an answer for that. i have not heard hillary clinton give an answer yet. thatnk war and knows hillary clinton is vulnerable. even if she does not win, she may pull hillary closer. for --eader progressives view hillary clinton? >> with some skepticism. they are open. i think progressives know the

democratic party is the only option for progressing change. i do not think they dislike her. they are certainly skeptical of her. host: what do you think the chances are of her running? >> i think better than even at this point. there seems to be a lot of grassroots support. the fact that we are talking it now two and a half years out, that is the sort of thing that creates campaigns. i would not venture a guess if she wins. looksd see something that to get into. host: you can watch the nation.com. thank you for stopping by. >> thank you for having me. going to continue on the sunday morning. up next is michael barone. he has a book called "shaping our nation."

later, the differences between the federal health exchange and the one in massachusetts. john kingsd out from dale. "washingtonhing journal." we will be back in a moment. >> when president kennedy was , within one0 p.m. minute several dallas police officers ran up the grassy knoll. many people were pointing to it as the source of at least some of the gunfire. the first officer up there had his gun drawn because he expected to find an armed gunman. instead he encountered a man who presenting secret service

credentials. financial -- from their with their credentials. two other officers reported the same thing. apparently there was more than one. just one problem, the secret service and the worn commission and everyone else who has looked at it have identified the location of every single secret service officer at that time. no one was in dealey plaza. they went to parkland hospital with the president and the vice president. who were these people? they had secret service credentials and no one can identify them. i explain in the book and i've stuck to the facts. the legacybatino on of jfk. it is part of book tv this

weekend. >> later today, american history tv looks at the assassination of jfk. the highlights include lyndon johnson's address to congress. we willp.m. eastern have robert caro. at 6:00 p.m., nbc news coverage of the state funeral. on american jfk history tv this weekend on c- span three. washington journal continues. host: michael brown has his latest book "shaping our nation." good morning. >> good morning. we will get all the back and information. host: let's dig into this book.

learnedamericans have that to prosper as a nation with cultural variety that has led to grave and ever possible conflict. that often hear it said the united states is for the first time a multicultural country. we have changed from white bread america to this multicultural country. i think that misstates the history of the country. ais has been in some sense multicultural country from the very beginning. the founding fathers were aware of this. they knew the state and the old and that's why they put in the constitution among other things the requirement that we have no religious test for federal office.

congress shall make no law establishing a religion. the states can have established churches. the founders set up a formula for dealing with a country that was different with different cultural and religious beliefs. the formula was limited government and individual rights. it has mostly worked pretty well. we have had some problems like a civil war. host: let's talk about the politics right now. two different paths in congress. the senate is taking up a conference of bill and the republicans looking at a piecemeal approach. it is highly unlikely that anything will happen before the end of the year. what needs to be done? that they arelear

going to reach a resolution. boehner says he will not go to congress on a conference of bill. some of the democrats who are a majority in the senate are saying we want to have a package , it has to be part of a package deal. i find myself critical of the positions of supporters of the senate bill and of the opposition to it. we have a big push in the senate bill for legalization. we have the opposition very concerned about border security. i think in this case as in other cases, we are looking to solve the problems. , we lookg our nation at immigration and migration. one of the things that strikes me is the country is peopled largely by these surges of migration.

people move from one place to another. start pricks when they and they last for one or two generations. and then they stop. operating as if we are going to have the same with large numbers from latin america and large numbers of illegal. american and asians, in fact, since the housing collapse, immigration from mexico is zero. we are facing a different situation. we need to be thinking about this sufficiently. our cousins have point systems. they admit people based on skill

and been able to contribute to society. they come out ahead of us. have a those countries higher percentage of immigrants as a percentage of population and coming in each year. they filter for high skill much more than we do. [indiscernible] 30 minutes.y have we have written more than a half a dozen books. -- many .> i have written 22 additions host: you have written for "reader's digest and "u.s. news & world report." you are a scholar at the

american enterprise institute. you contribute to foxnews. let us go back to one of the points. if the civil war was a divisive conflict with the southern conference -- culture alien from it took people around the world. >> we do not appreciate some aspects of our history. shaping the nation is about migration. if you look at the economists, they will tell you people migrate in search of higher wages. if there is an economic incentive to move, they will true. that is not necessarily so. people were sue to pursue dreams -- pursue dreams and avoid nightmares.

from 1865 to 1940, there was very little movement. wages were two to three times higher in the north. in a. where you had immigrants coming veryeurope, you had only few moving north. there were two nations apart. the wounds of that civil war were so great it was as if there was a wall between the north and the south. world war ii brings these people together. it also brings together the ellis island immigration. it opens in 1892. we had a huge migration as a percentage of population. greater than our latin and asian migration. second cast people in

multiethnic empires came over here. roosevelt called for americanization and they came from different cultures with different traditions. good job ofid a assimilation in our public schools and in our workplaces. them war ii really brought together with the north and south. you had 16 million men and women in the military. that was more than 10% of the population. if portion number would be you had 38 million americans in the military. our military is less than 1/10 that size. has beenigration divisive or a unifying force? >> i think it has been both. it has been divisive in the talking about the

scotch irish that came over in the 18th century. quakers of philadelphia had a lot of qualms about them. the irish catholics and germans 1800s,e over in the different religions and cultural traditions. there was some abrasion. , who i havelanders mentioned. we have a formula for fortinet into a nation. the founders had government and individual rights. individual assimilation to becoming americans has become a penny waited in the last generation. some people in the schools and universities and corporate areas are saying we cannot impose our culture on these people. that is not doing them any favors. need to have the ability to

advance in the society. we have a formula that mostly has worked. there has been some abrasion and controversy and some difficulty along the way. calledhe book is "shaping our nation." e.r guest is michael baron when he was talking about the founding fathers and they had thought about the separation of religion and state and they had put a lot of more or less safety checks, my problem is we have a lot of immigrants coming from a lot of different areas with their own religions. even with religions that are established mostly in america, i want to know why is it that

churches are not taxed? how is that separation of religion and state? does the government have the andt to take our resources let individual churches decide how those resources are spent? answer to the caller's question is contained in the first amendment. that was put in there very specifically. it does not specify which religion. it contemplates that there will be multiple religions as there had been in the 13 colonies that became the night it states of america. i am not sureere, what the constitutional law is regarding taxation of churches.

could the government tax churches? it generally does not and it does not taxed secular nonprofits. we have requirement you have to go through to qualify as a church or a nonprofit. billally, the founders have great strength in most americans minds today. the religionactice of their choice and the government is not going to strain them -- restrain him from doing that. some arguments around the edges of those issues. the supreme court about whether the indian group in oregon can smoke peyote as part of a religious celebration. fundamentally that is pretty anchored in american public

opinion and constitutional law. host: this is from laura who says there is a serious argument to remain along that line. ofave not read the full text the obamacare, the affordable care act. i have not read the full text of the senate law. it does not make for very easy reading. likese they say things notwithstanding clause four b seven and you have to work your way through to figure out what the legislation is actually saying by making reference to other texts and court decisions. the argument for comprehensive x group want some provisions and why group wants

others. you can still pass them separately. the compromise of 1850 was managed in the senate by stephen a douglas. douglas split into different bills. one of therity plus senators voting for one bill and a different majority voting for another petition. he got it through. had quite a bar and few drinks after they got all these different measures through. you know all this? do need to be fact checked on the stephen douglas thing.

history and i want to remember things. mind i sortin my information by geography. politics, of american you have 50 states and 435 districts. when you get a little bit of information about what is happening in midland, texas, you sort out what district that is in and file it there and maybe it will come back when you need it. host: one of the maps you have your book, let's talk to gloria from wyoming. caller: good morning. was whyanted to ask have we had such a big change from the days where people came through ellis island and had health checks and that kind of thing.

it i don't know if it is from immigration, but princeton has this out break of meningitis and diseases that we stopped seeing in the united states for quite a while. not necessarily blaming the emigrants, but if they come in illegally or cross the borders without us checking, one wonders. in our state we have had tuberculosis show up. that has been pretty contained for a lot of years. i guess what i was wondering is why can't they have some system checking people who do come through and require health certificates or something like that. century before

ellis island opened, the responsibility was assumed by the states. the federal government did not take it on until the late 19th century. it was the policy of the big ports, new york, massachusetts, pennsylvania, they determined that. the federal government took that over. since you have had one mode of transportation by which most immigrations came from europe, the steamship, they can only dock in certain laces and you had a relatively easy final that you could supervise the inspection of these people for public health. to could not demonstrate support yourself they wouldn't let you in. today, there are many more avenues to come into yet it miles, including 2000

border with mexico. even in the early 20th century, people came different borders. grandfathers came from canada to detroit. there was a migration route when those big auto plants are being built. some of them are called nickel immigrants because they nickel ferrym a from canada. i interviewed lloyd benson's father. what border enforcement was there back them? people justnd said

came and went across the border whenever they wanted to. that has slowed down in recent years. case, where will the next surge of immigrants come from? since 2007 hasn been zero. there has been a recent report of the wall street journal that latin immigrants are going to other latin countries, especially south america. they are going to chile and brazil and parts of south america where there are jobs. mimic --t get as many emigrants are there. we may get emigrants of sub- saharan africa. if you take cabs in washington dc you become acquainted with the ins and outs of ethiopia

because we are the number one center for ethiopian immigrants. we may see stepped-up immigration from that quarter. there --a, we get up fair amount of people from there. if we change our laws to get more high skilled immigrants, but open up more spots for people with high skills, we will get substantially larger numbers from south asia. book.let's go back to the formulae the framers limited government and individual rights but that was applied faithfully. it has provided a useful template for the accommodation of diverse peoples, even as the nation

from the very beginning, the colonial beginnings, different colonies had different religious beginnings and people were from different parts of the british isles and the netherlands and germany. country.multicultural how do you accommodate people who have different beliefs? people were supposed to believe to one state church. the united states took a different route from the colonial. . it is mostly worked. i like to think this country has a formula for assimilation and does not always apply it very well. countrybout the worst except forating

every other country that has ever existed. we have had a mostly successful formula over the years. limited government and you keep government out of some of these sensitive decision areas and leave those to private individuals and to voluntary associations. wantcan live the way they as well if they do not violate basic criminal laws. host: good morning on our s' line. caller: i enjoyed listening to you this morning. i am an 11 generation american.

can you explain why the ancestry in the south.up guest: if you look at the first 40% of the first americans, were african- american, were black. most black americans were slaves. major migrations of black americans. migration ofntic the slave trade. horrifying to read about. deaf and horrible deprivation.

one of the right gracias i talk about in "shaping our nation -- one of the migrations i talk nation" ishaping our the huge migration of people that for the slaves was really traumatic. chains.e taken in their families were separated. -- lost touchrn with their church and other institutions they may have formed for themselves within the limits allowed by slavery. it was very traumatic. largentinue to find concentrations of african- americans. theou look at the map of counties today with majority african-americans in the south, aside from a few rural counties, cotton look at a map of production, those maps look a

lot the same. you have people who have moved there. there was a major migration of black americans from the rural --th and the urban north 1940-1965. generation. it was not anticipated at the beginning of that time. it was stimulated by world war ii. that made a powerful argument for civil rights. if you are going to die for your country, you should have equal rights in your country. that is a powerful argument. that stopped in 1965. the assumption was more black people are going to move north. after the start of the urban riots in the north, the south became less of a nightmare. less of a dream and the migration suddenly stopped. host: we will go back further than that -- farther than that.

our guest is michael barone of the washington examiner and his new book "shaping our nation." map of the irish population. heavy concentration on the east coast. also out west in nebraska, kansas, colorado. a heavy population in central nevada. the irish started coming over here in large numbers with the potato famine. this was a migration nobody anticipated. -- potato famine destroyed ireland had a population of 8 million in 1841. on million left ireland. a huge trauma. they were the first migrants who went primarily to cities rather than the countryside, rather

than farms. farming had not been good to them. you see large concentrations in the cities and areas that were densely populated. new york had more than a million people by that time, 1870. they also went to mining locations, fact or recount, and railway work. a large percentage are iris and they are working in the mines. -- irish and they are working in the mines. clusters, the kind of chain migration where people come from a village in ireland or italy or all go to oney particular neighborhood in new york or one particular rural county in kansas because they know other people. that is the kind of pattern you see. distinct can see a difference between north and

south. guest: huge difference. immigrants, 19th immigrants from eastern and southern europe did not go to the south. the south had lower wages and there was less economic incentive. new orleans did attract some italian immigrants tom of but they lynched a dozen -- immigrants, but they lynched a dozen or so italians. decided that it was kind of a dangerous place. they went to the areas where there was growth and opportunity. you are getting the eastern seaboard cities. 1970, grewyork, 1930- faster than the national average. it was a job magnet. the industrial cities of the great lakes. a come to cleveland, detroit, chicago, millwall eight because because thereukee

are jobs there. they are teaching the workers to speak english because they cannot understand each other because they speak so many different languages. michigan was a huge growth and opportunity state. there has been negligible population growth in metro new york and metro detroit area population growth has been moved elsewhere. host: a distinct difference between the 1970s and 2010. guest: there has been movement. people have moved to places where they have cultural affinities. liberal professionals and high skilled people. the server to dallas-fort worth. --ple from either weren't either one do not want to be transferred to the other. they move from high housing cost states.--

19 million in 2010. very small growth. texas, 11 million in 1970. 25 million in 2010. it more than doubled. internal migrants in the united states as well as immigrants from mexico and other parts of latin america and asia as well. host: the emergence over cultural issues and the sharp slowdown in internal migration has sharpened fears that we are flying apart. michael barone wrote in his book," shaping our nation." i am curious as to why national guardur troops to guard the interior borders of the country just as

we used the coast guard to patrol the waterways of the country. guest: that is not the statutory duty of the national guard, which operates as a part-time force, which can be brought into play when you have national disasters and civil disorders that ordinary police cannot take care of. we have a border patrol. things.different for many years, the border patrol in san diego, california, which is a border county, the border patrol was less interested in patrolling the order than having a checkpoint on interstate 5. -- patrolling the order -- er than having a checkpoint on interstate 5. a hot and dusty border.

there.a border fence up if you look at the history of border, thereco was not much migration going across it. the first attempt to secure it was a cooperative u.s.-mexico effort. the guy in charge of mexico said , die. the conditions along that bord er or so difficult. not the function of the national guard. we have had a big increase in duringcontrol -- patrol the administrations of george w. bush and barack obama. .hey were pushed by congress

we can do a better job. we need to use technology. withr recent experiences the health care act, the government is not the best procurer of technology. it should be able to do better. we should check the legal eligibility of people getting hired to reduce the incentive of illegals to come over. if you reduce the possibility they can get a job and make a living -- looking forward, our biggest task is not so much preventing courts of illegal -- hoards of illegal , butrants coming over shifting our immigration from what it currently is. lowhould be going from

skilled immigration to high skilled immigration like it is in canada. our -- host: our guest is michael barone. caller: why is it that you say founding fathers instead of framers? jews? people refer to should you say muslims, christians, whatever? intellectual brothers and sisters who are african- american, why do you say that the europeans brought the slaves over. they were captured and brought

here and in slave -- in slave to -- enslaved. guest: a number of questions. i try to use framers for framers of the constitution. congress. the first it is a broader term. andtimes i may air -- err get it wrong. jewish americans, fascinating. what became the united states had jewish residents in rhode island and new york in the 17th the jewst a time when were not welcome in large parts of europe and were barred from living in many places. that has been part of our heritage from the colonial times. we have families who were

descended from that. most jewish americans are bigended from that a -- ellis island immigration. they were treated better in the hungarian and german empires in the early 20th century. they came over in large numbers. very few of them ever returned. italians returned to the home country as many latin americans have been doing in recent years. european jews did not go back. they did not want to go back. you had the holocaust during world war ii. it destroys communities and killed 6 million people, the knot sees dead. azis did. they move up very rapidly. it is a fascinating story.

they are people with high skills, high academic aptitudes. they become people in the culture in show business and the movies, the great universal 1940s. a lot the studio executives responsible for making movies spoke with eastern european accents. they figured out how to present a quintessentially american culture that would appeal to just about anybody. that is one of the differences from the mid-20th century america today. culture inuniversal the radio, in the movies, and television. we do not have it today. people niche media, watching different things, different forms of entertainment. livingreagan made his and radio, movies, tv.

in his farewell address to the country, he laments that the entertainment industry is not making patriotic movies anymore and helping people appreciate the american heritage as much as they used to. lamenting the disappearance, as it is happening, of that universal media, from which he had made his living. host: we will conclude on that note. "shaping our nation: how surges in migration transformed america and its politics." .ur guest, michael barone we will take a short break. when we come back, we will introduce you to the individuals who played a key role in the implementation of romney-care. will be joining us

from boston. first, a look at the sunday shows already underway. nancy calo is keeping track. that new agreement is one of the issues on the sunday shows, in addition to theges in senate rules and health-care law. you can listen to the sunday shows on c-span radio beginning at 1 p.m. eastern time. press" is preempted by formula one racing. and tim kaines and mark zuckerberg. cardin. ben

followsate of the union at 3 p.m. ernie sanders and ron johnson from wisconsin, a republican. then it is "face the nation." bob schieffer talks with jackie kennedy's lead secret service agent in 1963. also congressman steny hoyer and kevin mccord -- and kevin mccarthy. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio. they are brought you -- brought to you as a public service. began -- begin at 1 p.m. today.

listen to them all on c-span fm.o, 90.1 nnelm satellite radio cha 120. or listen online. think anyone would listen to a crystal ball and think a college campus would be streaming netflix onto an iphone to watch a movie. this is what is happening out there. we have this huge issue out there. you do not date your self, but i remember in northwest ohio, depending on the day, you got 2 channels. one day you might get one channel and some days you did not get any channels because it depended on the wind. the industry has changed so rapidly.

i want to make sure we have things and laws on the books that spurred this innovation. about 3.8 million jobs on the cell phone side. technology issues in front of the current college on "the on c-span 2." rome --t you in the room and offer complete gavel- to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston is jon kingsdale. being with much for us here again on c-span. begin me began -- let me by having you explain what was your role and the massachusetts health care law. it was an exchange for folks who did not have insurance, folks of low and moderate income. it ensures about 200 50,000 people. i did it for the first -- 250,000 people. i did it for- the first four years. host: what is your confidence

level that the health-care exchanges will be workable? guest: it will be better than it is today. it will not be perfect. this will be a work in progress for some months to come. continue tos to improve it, as we did in massachusetts. you have been quoted as saying it is more than just a website problem. explain. the small insurance markets have not functioned well in this country. we have over 50 million uninsured. it is climbing. an entire set of reforms. there are market rules. elements all sorts of

to make the insurance markets work for the uninsured and for low income folks and for healthy, middle-class people. host: were you part of the process ? aboutu consult with hhs what worked in massachusetts? guest: i have been peripherally involved since 2008 when they held an all-day session in june of 2008 in washington to set the agenda and some of the concepts for health reform in the united states. i remember senator grassley and baucus together saying how much agreement there was on a market- based attempts to get near universal coverage. that is what this reform has been since we did it first in massachusetts. that is a real live american example. we were consulted and i was

consulted as the legislation from time to time. not closely involved. i do not want to overstate that. kathleen sebelius has taken responsibility. she has said she is to blame for this. responsible? what could the government has done differently? guest: i do not know who had their fingerprints all over this and who did not. the fundamental mistake was not doing what a number of mistakes, including massachusetts, have done. to set up an independent or new agency to run the exchange. there are 2 sets of initiatives required to implement reform.

one is a whole set of hhslations, which i think has done a reasonably good job of doing under pressure. the other element is to create a new marketplace. formmercial enterprise which the traditional agencies are not well-suited. a number of the states that have done exchanges have set up semi- independent agencies with a board of directors appointed by the governor and others. fcc.the sec or the a newere able to develop function for government rather than logic it in in in 60 -- existing agency. host: do they permit medical underwriting? the: it is important with

aca and the rest of the country. we had a series of reforms that led up to our landmark legislation and 2006. we outlawed medical underwriting moved 1990s and gradually toward universal coverage and the requirements with -- for individuals to participate. host: a tweet from another viewer. what are some of the key issues that must be addressed to take the health-care program from a state to the national level. explain. guest: insurance markets are heavily regulated. a has been for many decades. -- they havelated been for many decades.

they are regulated at the state level. -- the housersion version was going to have a national exchange and the senate version was state-by-state reform. that was a wise approach. unfortunately, so many states have refused to take up the responsibility or the opportunity to run their own reform because of this republican-democrat divide over the basic idea that we should have universal coverage. level,most fundamental there seems to be a unified a withoutn to the ac any particular interest in covering the uninsured. so many red states not only will not do their own exchange despite preferences for state

control, but they will not expand medicaid to cover the uninsured. it suggests to me that it is not an interest in covering the uninsured. that is 50 million people in this country. that is the size of most country -- countries. is joiningingsdale us to talk about his experiences in implementing the counterpart to the affordable care act in massachusetts. do folks still refer to it as romney care? guest: they never really did call it romney care here. i first heard that term last year. that is a washington invention, if you well. maybe it comes out of the election of 2012 and the campaign rhetoric. we generally refer to it as the brand, chapter 58.

hn is joining us. i am happy to have mr. kingsdale. a conservative organization known as the heritage organization and the public in politicians who supported it basically came out after hillary was assigned by her husband, president clinton, to have a panel to design a universal health care plan. they came up with a plan that massachusetts used as a model. and all of they republican politicians should come on and explain the details of how it will be beneficial. thanks for the call. the first memo from the heritage foundation dates back to 1989.

people say that was the framework for what the president implemented as the affordable care act. guest: the heritage foundation has moved considerably to the right since those times. i do not see any strong, from that wing of the political spectrum for covering our 50 million uninsured in our country. the concept is market driven. it was and is to correct what is the least well functioning and dysfunctional market segment, non-grouphe small, insurance. we have large employer groups providing group insurance coverage for a couple of reasons. having that subsidy from employers is critically

important. in the affordable care act, the hasc concept was, everybody to have insurance. that helps spread the cost of insurance from just the sick and the healthy. those who cannot afford it and do not have employer subsidy should get public subsidies. has be fairtself and work effectively for the sick as well as the healthy. to 3%. how we got 2% off paylthy and the well- more for their insurance just as most folks will pay less. decisions and

cancellations. that is the transitional effect to a new system. in our old system, there were transitions -- cancellations every year. hump, this over that will be better for the vast majority of americans. host: jon kingsdale has spent withof his career doing health care issues. he began his career as a reporter for forbes magazine and spent many years working for blue cross blue shield. a is the manager at consulting group. this from john in carolina. in massachusetts much higher than most states prior to romney care? guest: we have two separate rates. one is for group coverage. that reflects our typically

higher costs for medical care than the average in the country. are ininistrative costs line or somewhat lower than the rest of the country for administering insurance. 90%,of the dollars, about go to doctors and hospitals for medical care it self, which is a high ratio. a good sign of efficiency. the cost of hospitalization here , the cost of some of these medical services has been traditionally higher than in the rest of the country for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with health reform. part of our insurance market that was broken was the individual direct purchase market. that had high rates, which actually came down 25% with the implementation of health reform in 2007. that did not reflect high

medical costs in massachusetts as much as a broken insurance market for individuals. host: let me talk about the health care market. this is from high magazine, which as an in depth look at the affordable care act. 15-20 years, there has been a decline in employer sponsored benefits. this chart shows that about 49% of americans get their health .nsurance 16% with no insurance and about 1% getting it from the military. .3% through medicare if we were to look at this same chart in five years, what would it look like? guest: you would see a substantial increase in the percentage of the population getting their insurance through

and in the individual market, -- -- assuming the transition to the individual market takes place. you will see a smaller percentage of individuals getting their insurance through employers. that did not happen in massachusetts. that is a function of the labor market. the labor markets in different parts of the country are different. you may see some reductions. with the aging of the population, a slow and steady uptick in medicare coverage. as a result of this transformation, a big increase. 15 million people buy insurance directly on their own. it will be 40 million people five years from now.

host: do you agree or disagree with this quote. think of the employer system as a crumbling building. is it that? not think i would quite agree. thes still on the board of connector and we are good friends. i have tremendous respect for him. crumbling is an overstatement. cracks in the foundation. one of the trends is not only the move toward the individual purchase of coverage or exchanges, but employers are outsourcing the whole benefits idea, the whole purchase of insurance, to private exchanges. we are seeing private exchanges take off. that is part of this general movement toward direct lurches of insurance. employers are finding that they

are not good at picking insurance for employees. the heritage foundation, a good old-fashioned republican consumers are exercising more direct control and choice in the market for their own coverage. host: bill makes this point. if subscribing to the massachusetts law also great for health care, why did they pass a law forcing citizens to sign up? great questiona and it goes to the overall architecture to make the insurance market work effectively. anyou just leave it to individual to decide whether or not to buy insurance with his or her own dollars, there is a strong tendency for the individual to wait until they get sick and then by the insurance.

the effect of that is that the insurance companies have to either do not coverage or they have to rate the premiums so high that most people cannot afford it. the principle here is just like ,lue coverage -- group coverage to get everyone into the pool,nce for -- insurance the healthy as well as the sick. that is why there is this requirement. there are a number of outs for people who have a religious rejection or cannot afford it. the policy is fairly modest. there is a requirement to participate in the insurance while you are healthy and not wait until you get sick. it is like not allowing people to buy homeowners insurance when their house is on higher. host: our guest earned his risk

from the university of michigan. founding director of the massachusetts health exchange. can the lessons learned to be applied to the federal government? yle in iowa is on the line. caller: good morning. why didn't the federal government go in and run it from each state? guest: that is a great question. everybody at health and human services and the white house mostct did -- expected states to run their own exchanges. there are 17 states running their own exchange. -- enactors

thought that there would only be a few states not running their own exchange. was staunch political opposition to the entire affordable care act. some states have not stepped to the line and done their own exchange. host: you can join the conversation on facebook at any time. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail. is joining us from massachusetts. what is your sense of the health-care law in your state? caller: am i on? you sure are. caller: i have been in massachusetts since the mid-70s. independent freelance

writer. i could always afford very good coverage, even when i struggled. i have been onrs my own small business plan, and a month.1020 i still have the doctors i want. i still have the facilities i want. i think it is working in massachusetts. 2 quick questions i have to ask. comparing massachusetts and what we can learn from our experience and the nation. my perception, and i was not paying close attention over the decades in massachusetts. i never had to give up my doctor and i never had to give up my facilities. i was paying my way and i kept paying, but i paid more. what is the difference?

why are we having this problem nationally. my senatoro i called and i said what is with this? policy, which is a $1000 deductible and a 20% co- pay, was going to be a cadillac tax. i was very concerned. they said it was passed by the legislators who were trying to stop the goldman sachses of the world from giving nontaxable benefits to their employees. they did not know that the middle class would be caught in this. guest: i think her experience is pretty typical for people in

massachusetts. this law remains popular. there was considerably less disruption than we hear about nationally because massachusetts started their reforms over a p eriod of years. we did a lot of reforms in the 1990s. as a result, we had less -- less underinsurance and less outlawed underwriting. that experience is not so different from what we are going to see and experience nationally. the big disruption has been folks in 36 states have trouble getting on the federal website to see what their options are. there are lots of options. the first 10 or 11

states that did their own exchange for 2014. we see a 35% increase in the number of health insurance companies offering plans in the individual market. we are going to see robust competition here in massachusetts. we are at 10 separate health insurance companies. they are competing for individual business and a very robust market. the difference that lillian is that allto is partly of this transition we did over a decade is wrapped into a one- year, 2014 transition. it is not as much disruption as most people are experiencing. for example, cancellations. five percent -- 5 million people. for the vast majority of

americans, there is no transition. we have perception by anecdote rather than quantification. piece in forbes magazine. crashes during the first day. i want to share a put tweet from marie. i have a feeling governor romney was very involved in romney care. fromdent obama is detached obamacare sadly. do you agree or disagree with that sentiment? guest: i would disagree. i met governor romney when i was hired for this position. he did an interview with me. i am not saying he was on involved. this was passed

in april 2006. he was already very involved with the national campaign for the republican nomination for 2000 made and was ultimately unsuccessful. campaign for -- the republican nomination of 2008 and was ultimately unsuccessful. patrick has been very involved and very supportive as well. while the white house seems to have focused elsewhere on many other important issues and 2011, 2012, they were involved in the passing and implementation of health care. rich is joining us on the republican line from florida. websitei went to the

yesterday and had no problem signing up for health insurance. what people do not realize is the fact that when they see the $6,000 co-pay -- i am relatively healthy. doctors appointments and basic checkups are just a co-pay. it is nice to know that if i did have to go to the hospital, my maximum amount of payment would be $6,000. i took a company buyout from my employer. the insurance they were offering was too expensive for me. if you look at the options and give it time, a lot of the problems are people making errors on their and -- their end. i called the website navigator and she helped me through it. there is a lot of misinformation out there. it is a great deal and it is very affordable for me.

host: rich, thanks for the call. from virginia on the democrats' line. for c-span.k god i am a west virginia conservative democrat. man is wrongeneral -- the gentleman is wrong about mr. romney not being involved. he was involved in all of the massachusetts insurance. the big thing with the isernment insurance plan they did everything behind closed doors. they did not do what massachusetts did. they sat down with both parties and put everything on the table and ironed out everything and picked out the best things that would be good for the people of massachusetts. this president did not do this. reid, they, harry

did everything behind closed doors and they pushed this thing through because they had the house. they passed it without even a republican voting for it or putting a recommendation on the table for it. this thing is going to self- destruct because they are not going to get the 7 million young people to sign up for this thing to keep it going. host: george, thanks for the call. -- fromsting calls of republicans supporting the affordable care act. guest: some people are going to experience immediate benefits and some will have to pay more for coverage. if they were young and healthy, they were one of the beneficiaries. they will see advantages and disadvantages. on the politics, let me be clear.

the romney administration did an excellent job here in massachusetts beginning the implementation of health reform in 2006 and the waning year of their administration. the gentleman from west virginia is absolutely right. governor romney's aides were involved. the secretary of health and human services was extremely involved. hisd not mean to suggest administration was absent. it was a transparent, open process by and large. there was an effort to do the same thing in washington. you will remember there were months and months of negotiation and the senate finance committee between the so-called gang of 6 over the summer of 2009. they could not get anywhere. no matter how market oriented

and conservative the democrats were willing to be -- and they were much more so in that the republicans did not sign on. 2009t into the august break and the town hall meetings and the robust opposition from the far right and republicans backed off. there was not much choice for the democrats. host: the official title of was some in washington have been calling romney care was an act of fighting access to affordable, quality, accountable health care. it was signed into law by governor romney in 2006. is your former office still in existence in massachusetts? guest: it is indeed. board of 11. a

is still enjoys bipartisan support. former u.s. senator scott brown, when he was a state legislator, voted for health reform, as did most republicans. that is definitely a difference. it is a huge difference, arguably, to do something this big without bipartisan support made to the climb uphill so much more difficult. is, stellaroblem says, nobody knows what is included in this law. bureaucracies with unlimited budgets. from new york, good morning. caller: some people, the critics, say a solution might be to buy insurance across state lines. workder how could that

when local providers and insurance companies set reimbursements, as is done in western new york, and probably across the country. host: jon kingsdale? about this issue increasing competition is an interesting one. there is no question in my mind that the experience we are having today, the affordable , willct and the exchanges increase competition and ees the entry into the market for new ase thece plans -- e entry into the market for new insurance plans. aere is a issa of reaching large market segment through our exchange. of reaching a large market segment through our exchange. we have of is competing with strong price, titian on this exchange. just in the first -- strong

competition on this exchange. just in the first year, we saw an increase in the number of insurance plans. .hese are private health plans commercial insurance competition is definitely going to increase. it will continue to increase in massachusetts and nationally with the implementation of these exchanges. that is part of correcting the market, to increase that competition. insurance covered these want to be in that market because for the first time it will work. , independent line, good morning. caller: the morning, mr. kingsdale. thank you for being on the program today. the penalties if you do not participate in the exchanges, where does that money go?

an increase in jobs with the insurance exchanges starting in massachusetts? the penalties in massachusetts and generally go for the general revenues the state. to the second question, we did see substantial employment in massachusetts in the first several years, up to 208. 2008. then we got hit like the rest of the country and saw a decline in jobs. our very low insurance rates. we had -- we retained our very rates.nsured we retained our very low uninsured rates.

2010, we have recovered substantially. our unemployment record in massachusetts, we just added 9000 jobs. we are lower than the national unemployment rate. robust.omy is this idea that health reform is a job killer is totally unsubstantiated and a totally false accusation. i have never seen any substantiation of that. someone can always point to an employer who says, i am laying people off rather than give them health insurance. that has nothing to do with a few isolated incidents with the aca. is theon kingsdale founding director of the massachusetts health care exchange. a queue for sharing your experiences in massachusetts. forppreciate -- thank you

sharing your experiences in massachusetts. tomorrow, we will begin our guantanamong about bay. what is next for those detainees and at what price for american taxpayers? care deadline approaches, will the website be ready to go? and a special correspondent will talk about bookkeeping practices at the pentagon. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." 7:00 a.m. eastern time. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. happy thanksgiving. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> today on c-span, newsmakers with house armed services committee chair max thornberry. later about a discussion about the global economy and emerging- market. joining us on newsmakers is the republican from texas, he is the vice chair of the house armed services to many, also a member of the house intelligence many. thank you for joining us. here with the questioning today, jim michaels who covers military issues, and sarah. i want to begin with you. the comments was asked week by secretary chuck hagel meeting with members of congress to and sequestration a w