we will look at the germanwings plane crash and the mental health of pilots. you can also join us on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning, it's tuesday , march 31, 2015 on the "washington journal." we will discuss the final hours of the iran nuclear negotiation ahead of tonight deadline for a deal. and we will also discuss the deadly plane crash last week in the french alps. but we begin with the dedication of a new institute honoring the late senator ted kennedy and the u.s. senate. former president james buchanan once called the senate the greatest deliberative body in the world. but yesterday, president obama and others worried it has lost

its ability to compromise. if the united states senate still the world's greatest lucrative body? -- deliberative body? give us a call. the numbers are on the screen. you can also catch up with us on social media on twitter or facebook or send us an e-mail. a very good tuesday morning to you. we begin by asking -- is the united states senate bill the world's greatest deliberative body? here are a few headlines on the dedication ceremony yesterday. "engaging in nostalgia for a senate."

that is the story in the "washington post" today. and from the boston globe -- and there is a picture their of the president hugging the late senator ted kennedy's wife at the dedication ceremony there. and one other story from the christian science monitor, the headline. the new center, dedicated to the memory of the late demo attic senator kennedy -- democratic senator kennedy aims at america's youth. we want to know how you think the senate has possibly changed from senator ted kennedy time. also, a bit about the dedication ceremony yesterday, talking about president's ability to

work with other senators from the other side of the aisle stop [video clip] president obama: we can fight about almost everything or we can come together on some things. and those some things mean a lot to a whole lot of people. common ground lead to a compromise that covered millions of kids with health care. it was common ground rooted in the height of loved ones that led ted and chuck grassley to cover kids with disabilities that led ted np did in a g2 fight for american -- and pete domenici to fight for americans with mental illness. not rigid ideologies, but shared experience that led ted and john mccain to work on a patient's the love right and to work for a smarter and more just immigration system. a common desire to fix what's

broken. a willingness to compromise in pursuit of a larger goal. a personal relationship that lets you fight like heck on one issue and shake and on the next -- shake hands on the next. not just through cajoling, but through test brand of friendship and kindness and humor and grace. host: that was president obama yesterday of the dedication ceremony. we want to talk about the institution of the united states senate. do you still think it is the worlds greatest deliberative body? on our facebook page, robert writes in that our current senate is incapable of legislating anything except for their hate for president obama. michael thompson below that writes that harry reid extreme

ideology will hang like a black cloud over the senate for many years to come. some of the comments from our facebook page. we will also be checking twitter . we want to hear from you. our phone lines are open. we will start on that line for independent. bob in indiana. good morning. caller: i feel the senate has lost perspective. we send them to represent our

interests and i feel like they are more into bipartisan bickering. they've lost the meaning of the body, what it was about when it originated. i think they -- it's best if they focus on the betterment of their state and our country. host: you talk about the constant bickering. would you want a senator who routinely worked with the other side of the aisle? do you think that is someone who could be elected in this day and age? caller: they at least need to talk and debate. it really upset me in the democratic-controlled senate they did not even allow open debates and discussions, because we as citizens need to hear those debates on all the bills we are considering that we know if our senator is doing what we think is best for our nation so we can properly move forward with our future. if they don't debate and in a constructive way to assess

issues of -- in a constructive way discuss issues of our nation, it's hard for us to know how to move forward. host: who do you think embodies that on capitol hill? caller: wow. that's a tough one for me. because it is a personal position where they need to compromise, but at the same time they need to do what is in the best interest of the nation. my own senator from indiana, joe donnelly, i think in his heart he wants to solve the issues of our nation. but sometimes, thinking it caught up in -- i think he gets caught up in the bipartisan issues as well. host: bob, thanks for the call.

we will go to new castle delaware, the line for republicans where jim is waiting. caller: how are you this morning echoed host: -- how are you this morning? host: i'm good. how are you? caller: i'm good. we need to go back the legislature. they seem to do their own thing these days and they don't do much for their local parties and they don't do much except raise money to get reelected nowadays. a lot of them are there to push some sort of crazy pro-washington agenda as opposed to do anything for their individual states. i think until we do get back to the senate representing the state as it was originally

supposed to come i think we are sort of looking at an institution that really have no purpose except to push the individual agendas of these senators and their majority leaders and people like that. host: congress has had such low approval ratings for so long. do you think they impact senators and members of congress, those low approval ratings? the christian science monitor story that we referenced earlier notes that the senate approval rating hangs around 18%. caller: that is probably about where it should be, because it has locked so much good legislation. you that harry reid destroyed -- you have had harry reid destroyed the rules of the senate. iran are back in the day, mike mansfield -- my father took me and it was back in the days when you could walk in and talk to the senator without having to go

through security and everything. even though he was a democrat, he seemed to be a guy who could reach across the island the friend everybody -- befriend everybody. patrick leahy and bernie sanders, when i lived in vermont, i thought both of them were a bunch of peacocks. it has changed a lot. people don't take the time to follow the issues anymore. the media just seems to be the enemy of common sense in this country with all this political correct nonsense going on. i just think state legislatures should appoint the senators. we don't need popular election of these people. people should control through their state literature -- legislature the appointment of the senators. host: good morning, carol. caller: good morning. it's very difficult for these representatives to represent the people anymore because it takes an awful lot of money to get

into office, and they have to be aware of their contributors at all times. a good example of that is when they step out of molds and try to represent the people, the people turn a deaf ear to them evidently, and leave them wanting. there is a senator from massachusetts whose name is lauren. i saw her give a bill burning speech on behalf of the american public yesterday, and i couldn't find that speech anywhere, on c-span or any other place. i couldn't find it -- a recording of the speech. and she knocked a lot of powerful people, and i don't expect ever to see her speech represented by a newspaper or a tv or anything else. host: was this at the dedication

ceremony or someplace else? caller: it was at the event. she was sitting next to vice president biden and his wife. host: c-span covered the event yesterday. caller: i know you covered it that's where i saw this reach full supply can't get it on c-span's file or anything. i tried over and over again on different sites to get that speech. she knocked citigroup and she knocked quite a bit of very powerful entities in our government. host: keep trying our website. we have a very good website and we try to get all of those videos of their in their entirety for you. let me down for one thing off of you while i have you. the president yesterday in his speech talks about the way the senator -- the senate works now and the speeches given

specifically to cameras. he said he regretted now that arguments given to cameras are directed at a narrow base instead of party politics as a whole. the outside money and special interest, and how it leads more americans to turn away in disgust and simply choose not to exercise their right to vote. do you agree with the president their? caller: i'm sorry, what the president said was a pale description of what she actually did. she actually pointed fingers at different representatives. not named them, but both parties . she zeroed in on citicorp and what they did to pull their intermittent -- to pool their ammunition together to affect legislation. regardless, talk is cheap. if people that get up there and

exhibit the fact -- it is people that get up there and exhibit the fact that they are willing to fight for the people that send them there. host: carol, thanks for the call. the lives -- phil is up next from maryland. is the senate still the world's greatest deliberative body? caller: yes, i do believe things are changing quickly and that is to reflect what happens in the general public. as an example, during the 2014 elections, less than 20% of the american voters went to the polls. and that is because there was nothing of interest that could have energized the people to go to the polls. as it relates specifically to obamacare, you know that topic has come up so many times on the floor. it is debated and they've had so many discussions about it. it seems to be some kind of

madness that people do not want to listen to it anymore. as an example, mr. ted cruz government was one of the opponents of this program, if you will have now agreed to sign on. -- if you will, has now agreed to sign on. but if mr. obama has his signature removed, that is mr. cruz will be left with no insurance at all. i sincerely believe that things are quickly changing in some have got to be done to be able to make the u.s. congress be the way it once was. host: you talk about how things are changing. president obama talked yesterday about how senator kennedy viewed the senate during his time in the u.s. senate. here's a little more from that speech yesterday. [video clip] president obama: near the end of

his life, ted reflected on how congress has changed over time. and those who served earlier have had those same conversations. it is a more diverse and more accurate reflection of america than it used to be, and that is a grand thing, a great achievement. ted grieved the loss of camaraderie and collegiality the face-to-face interaction. i think he regretted the arguments now made to cameras instead of colleagues, directed at a narrow base instead of at the body politic as a whole. the outside influence of money and special-interest and how it all leads more americans to turn away in disgust and simply

choose not to exercise the right to vote. host: that is president obama again yesterday at the dedication of that new institute of in massachusetts. we are asking our viewers this morning -- is the united states senate still the world's greatest deliberative body? sean, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to go the sentiments of the woman earlier about the economics of the -- that are involved in the elections. we need to get those economics out, but we, the individual voters cannot do that. the apathy is reflected in the fact that the people don't feel -- and i am one of those people -- that they have the right to say anything. they are given the choice of the lesser of two evils. if you want to increase the ballot, the only way to do it is by adding to the ballot itself

"none of the above," which gives the average person the opportunity to make an expression in the voting process that is none of the offers they have been giving our acceptable. and we can go on and hopefully gain people who were not purchased by special interests. and if we could do that, we could take back the republic as we know it. host: sean, quick question for you. how does voting open none of the above -- "none of the above" differ from leaving that blank if you don't think there is anyone acceptable? caller: because you have people will not leave anything blank. they are just not going to vote because they don't feel it really makes a difference they don't think they have to say and they know economically they cannot compete. so "none of the above" under the

president or your county commissioners would give them the opportunity to compete with the choice, so that those people with the money interests would have to go back and get a candidate that would be acceptable to the people. host: tom, i appreciate the comment. from hannover, maryland. caller: you have had several callers call about how they feel their representatives have lost their way and don't represent their particular state and whatnot. my feeling about that is, if that is truly how you feel we need to stop rubberstamping these people to get them back into office. senator mikulski is finally retiring and harry reid is finally retiring. term limits should be a thing that is talked about as well. in my state of maryland, we are 49 out of 50 in terms of growth

economically and whatnot. you got our senators, who are basically now more and more talking points of the people they have on tv shows and they don't ask them about their record. they don't ask them how their state is doing. and the next thing you know, they are the chairman's of these huge judiciary things and whatnot. it is ridiculous that we as a country taken together -- can't get together and vote as a people for those who represent us. host: senator mikulski, as you said, announcing the end of her term. caller: she gets a voice when other people don't just because she has been there the longest. you could have a new

up-and-coming person that actually have great ideas and is willing to change things up and they don't get a voice ever until they have done their time or have shown that they can walk the talk. it's more of the same. we need to get the people that have been in there forever. even in the republican party. john boehner, it's time to go. i like the fact that the gentleman who lost this time in the election, he had been in there forever and had been the chairman on certain committees. and his people decided we need fresh blood in there. i think that's great. host: how long is too long? what would be a proper term limit for the senate? how many six-year terms? caller: two, and that's it. host: gary is up next, arlington, tennessee.

good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the senate. i think as long as harry reid was in there, he didn't do anything. he was there only to protect obama. now that we have a republican in there, we may have a little, but we will not get a lot done with obama as our president. i appreciate you letting me on. host: president obama not feel the one speaking yesterday on this topic in general about the changes in the senate over time. the senator pro tem of the senate, senator orrin hatch of utah, actually did a result speeches and talked about the changes in the senate that he has seen in his many years. those speeches dated the -- dating back to 2014.

in one of his first reaches, he noted that for my colleagues that do not know anything different, let me say this -- if you want to watch that. he by senator hatch, we have it available on our website -- that full speech by senator hatch, we have it available on our web right, also available on his website. brick on the line for independents. good morning, rick. caller: good morning. yesterday, they were up there celebrating senator kennedy. people forgot that senator

kennedy murdered a woman, and yet the people of massachusetts kept putting them into office. president obama was a senator. all he did was vote "present" when he was there. then you have a senator like liz warren from go my believe massachusetts. she lied about being native american. and you have the senator from connecticut that lied about being a war hero. our trouble is that we are not electing quality people. we are electing people that the democrats or republicans put forward, not the people we want. basically, we have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser evil. host: is there anyone you think is doing is the right way on capitol hill? caller: well, i like rubio. i like ted cruz. i wish john mccain would retire. he was a great hero and a great american, but these guys that

have been up there for 20, 30 40 years, just like edward kennedy -- just think how long he had been up there. a man that murdered a woman, he sat on the judiciary and was in charge of pushing through nominees for the supreme court federal courts, district court. and yet, amanda did not have any compass, and people think -- a man that did not have any compass, and people think he was a great american. host: here is a story in today's washington story -- washington times.

steve in louisville, kentucky. line for democrats. caller: what exactly do you mean by deliberative body? i'm not sure what you mean by that. host: how would you define it? we are talking about a quote by james q -- james buchanan, talking about it being the greatest deliberative body in the world. caller: there was a gentleman a couple of calls back, i think he was a republican. i kind of agree with him about what he was saying, that we need fresh blood in these offices. and when he clever ideas again. -- and we need clever ideas again. as far as the gentleman that just called a minute ago about

virginity, for instance. mr. kennedy was not a murderer. it was negligence, the case was. it was a terrible tragedy, but there is a different. do i condone what he did? no. as far as mr. cruz is concerned he scares me quite a lot. i know right now in my state i'm in kentucky. for instance, on this issue of gay marriage, unfortunately people who do support this cause really don't have people in the senate that are supportive of us and our ideas. mr. mcconnell, of course, everybody knows him. they listen somewhat to what you have to say, but at the same time for instance, i recently

encouraged mr. mcconnell's office to work with the president possibly in trying to amend the 1964 civil rights act that what actual include -- would actually include sexual orientation the bill. host: did you get a response of encouragement from the senator? caller: they did say that they wrote down my message. but i also spoke with mr. paul's office as well. i think the time has come, because these religious laws that have been put in place, i think it's a waste they are in direct violation of that particular law, even though sexual orientation was not added -- i think in some ways they are in direct violation of that particular law even the sexual orientation was not added back in those days. i am a feminine male myself and indiana just past the flaw the other day. i just used to attend college

indiana, and unfortunately if i were to attend again, i could potentially be refused service at a restaurant just because i've done in. first of all, i don't think it -- just because i am feminine. first of all, i don't think it is anyone's business what i do in the privacy of my bedroom. i don't flaunt my sexuality. i think other people are the same way. host: that was stephen on the recent law in indiana. governor pence has comments in the wall street journal and there are lead editorial in the major newspapers today including the washington post the wall street journal, and the new york times covering this issue. we will talk about those a little later in today's program on the "washington journal." time for a couple of more calls. berkeley springs, west virginia, line for republicans. caller: you know, harry reid has

destroyed the senate. he has turned that body into a blood sport. and his main purpose is to keep his people in power. you see, when the democrats lost the senate, he's going to get out. but as long as he was in charge of the senate, you only wanted to keep the democrats in power. -- he only wanted to keep the democrats in power. that is all you wanted to do. he protected the president and he protected his own democrat caucus, because he would not let them take a vote on something that could be held against him. and really, i don't trust many politicians, because i think they are power-hungry and out to pad their own pockets. look at hillary clinton. destroyed those e-mails. you know, that is typical of this administration. look at lois lerner.

she goes before the senate and claims the fifth amendment. and destroyed all of her e-mails. no wonder people don't want to vote. politics is turning into something really dirty. all they want to do is pad their pockets. they are not interested in -- the majority of them are not interested in the regular people out here. and as far as religion goes, a true liberal things we are the devil incarnate it -- thinks we are the devil incarnate it. we have to fight to maintain our status in civilization. thank you. host: as we've been having this conversation, a few as well. -- if you tweets as well.

we are not done with this subject today. we will come back to it in our last pregnant of the "washington journal," but for now we will move on to the iranian new year negotiations. we have a roundtable next with professor hillary mann leverett, co-author of a book and mark dubowitz. and later, we will be joined by mary ski auto -- mary schiavo about the mental health of pilots in light of the recent germanwings disaster.

and later we will talk about labor market and what it would mean to the united states economy. here is what ben bernanke had to say. [video clip] ben bernanke: the real interest rate is what you actually need. the fed can get the interest rate down to minus two if they have an inflation target. that is a little bit strong. most economists would argue that negative real interest rates there are got to be things that are productive ultimately, at least in a normal growing economy. when i was on the panel when larry first introduced this point about stagnation, i reminded him about what his uncle, paul samuelson, taught us in graduate school. he argued that religious rate could not be below zero -- real interest rates could not be below zero because in that world it would be popular to knock down the rocky mountains just to save the gafs to drive

the great. please don't take that literally. but interest rates of -2%, it's questionable whether that is true. and if you think about the fact that investment is not just facebook. it involves housing and office buildings and consumer durables and many other types of long-lived goods as well. it's also questionable that i think you need to have bubbles to get to full employment. there is a very nice paper by jim hamilton, ethan harris, jan hatias, and canwest recently -- and ken west and they question that the recent housing bubble was that the real economy was the only way we were able to get

through that. they point out that the offsetting factors, the big trade deficit at the time of 6% gdp. that was a lot of demand going abroad rather than affecting them and in the u.s. -- affecting demand in the u.s. there were some factors working the other direction and they showed that those two things along with the housing bubble were more or less awash. that recent evidence that we are at least approaching full employment is inconsistent with the view that you need bubbles to get to full employment. host: to watch the entire event with former federal resort -- federal reserve board chairman ben bernanke, go to www.c-span.org. once again, we turn to the topic of the ongoing iranian nuclear negotiation just hours before the deadline that has been set by the parties. some reports coming out from cbs news that the deadline could be

extended for a couple of hours on some of these sticking points. for the next hour or so here on the washington journal, we will be discussing this issue. we are joined by mark dubowitz of the foundation for the defense of democracies and hillary mann leverett, author and former official of the state department. if a deal does come together in the next couple of hours whatever it may be, why should the west trust iran to keep its word? guest: i don't think the rest -- the west should trust iran or anybody. ronald reagan famously said, trust but their five. and this is the enormity -- but there if i -- trust but verify. and this is the enormity of the issue, the agreement and that iran is abiding by their

agreement. that is the only way it will work my negotiated agreement that they buy into. we know how it went in iraq, invade and depose. and it went badly, and not just because of the invasion, but because we were blind and forced to dressed people in washington who had an agenda who put forward manufactured evidence that saddam hussein had weapons. it would be the same thing. without verification, we would have to trust those in washington with an agenda. we know how that goes. host: there's a piece on the front page of today's "washington times," when even "trust but fair ifverify won't do." guest: i think it was john kerry that said don't trust but

verify which speaks to what they've been doing for decades over iran. they have been hiding with a been doing and refused to come clean with the iaea. i think our allies do not believe this is a regime they can trust. they want to build a deal that has certain constraints into it and diminish the hostility that iran will build a nuclear weapon. host: just hours ago and the deadline may be expended by a few hours -- extended by a few hours. while the consequences if they go over? guest: it is artificial deadline imposed by the negotiators themselves. they actually have until june 30 to come up with a deal. and it has been an 18 month process that the u.s. has been engaged in under the obama administration. as a 12 year process that the

europeans have been engaged in with the iranians. we still need compromises from the iranians to ensure they will not build a nuclear weapon, which would be disastrous for the middle east. host: what you think from the iranian perspective? guest: it could be catastrophic. the economy is in freefall. we are in freefall and middle east and the way to recover is with the islamic republic of iran. to start setting ourselves up to pursue strategic quagmire after strategic wired meyer. -- strategic quagmire after strategic quagmire. if that is not done here, we will continue to see american policy slide deeper a different to freefall in the middle east. we will see our economic political, and perhaps lee terry

mission around the -- and perhaps military mission around the world suffer. the repercussions of not taking this moment and minimizing it into some sort of scientific back and forth, which carter felt to and a fight that he lost in congress, that for the united states. iran would muddle through, but it would be difficult for them. host: the title of your book "going to tehran: why america must accept the islamic republic ." guest: and there is choice by going to beijing and fundamentally realigning our interest there. we are not best buddies there, but it has worked to realign and integrate asia into a much more political and stable -- politically stable environment

there. if we keep tying all of our eggs to the saudi and israeli basket, we will see strategic disaster. the united states needs a deal with the -- with iran in its own interests, but that is not what obama is doing. you see in opinion polls most americans want to deal with iran, but they don't trust that iran is going to come through on the nuclear issue. that is the problem that obama is thinking it too. people want a different relationship with the islamic republic of iran. but on the issue of -- the islamic republic of iran will never be trustworthy enough to have nuclear weapons. we will never like the chinese enough. it's not about liking these systems. it's about facing reality stop america -- facing reality. america's strategic freefall in

the middle east and how to recover. host: hillary manlove it work at the security council -- hillary mann leverett worked at the security council. mark dubowitz, tell us about what you do. guest: we are a think tank. i would like to respond to many of the points that hillary made. the left of history sometimes is there is no lesson and sometimes you can distort and it yourself diluted by false historical analogies. hillary talks and has written a lot about china, and the strategic moves under kissinger. the reason there is a strategic alignment is because he something so even as the greatest threat to his country and that is why he was actually able to deal with the u.s. the supreme leader of iran sees the united states as his greatest strategic threat. that has not changed. what has changed is what he said

in a speech couple years ago is that they will show for civility, but tactical flexibility. they will make technical changes and show flexibility on the nuclear site in or to gain regionally. i think administration has been likely upset with the nuclear breakout capacity, but they are engaging all over the middle east. he is supporting bashar al-assad u.s. killed 200,000 of his own people -- bashar al-assad, who has killed 200,000 of his own people. hillary is absolutely right. the obama administration's middle east policy is in a freefall. i don't think the solution to that is to engage with khomeini, who actually believes in the slogan "death to america," and it's not just an ideological creed.

--host: we would like to hear from you. the numbers are on the screen. we will start with thomas calling in from rhode island. line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes, thomas, go ahead. caller: i have been here for 45 years in this country and i see the country declining right with it. mr. mark over there, i don't know what is agenda is. all of these radicals that they want the war, another war with iran is not the answer. it is time for netanyahu to act. we've got to make peace. all of these nuclear bombs that netanyahu has been selling to the united states and everybody why would iran want to attack

israel? we are supporting right now the sunnis. the arabs, and now we are supporting kuwait, all the criminals. host: i'm going to let mr. dubowitz respond. do you want or? guest: absolutely not. the policy has been engaging in iran since 2009. i've been a strong supporter of these negotiations and having a tough u.s. posture and negotiating a verifiable nuclear deal that will constrain iran's nuclear breakout. that is what most americans want. most americans do not trust the iranian regime but do support negotiations. that is exactly where i am. i think it is a very important to go in with your eyes open. iran is a leading state sponsor

of terrorism, that brutalizes its own people, murders and tortures his own women. this is a harsh enemy. it is an enemy of the united date and of liberal democracy. -- the united states and of liberal democracy. we have to engage them. we can opportunity they will go away, but we have to reach a compromise with this regime to constrain their program. i support the president in that policy. guest: i think it is a little disingenuous, what mr. dubowitz is saying. for decades, we have seen sanctions as a weapon of war. we saw it first in iraq and a killed millions, half of them children. and with the millions of iraqis that were killed due to sanctions, it still did not change saddam hussein's calculus. that took an all out invasion by the u.s. and when mr. dubowitz was talking about sanctions on iran in 2003, they had 103 centrifuges.

today as a result of these policies, they have 20,000. we know what ancient give us. that's what sanctions give us. it pushes us on the path of war. we need a diplomatic resolution. host: what about the fact that it brought iran to the table in the first place? guest: i think that is a social fact, but not a reality. iran even suspended their enrichment for two years and got nothing in return. the united a refused to come to -- the united states refuse to come to the table until 2003. it is only recently the united states came because they realized they were not only hurting iran, but more importantly, hurting the u.s. it was eroding military power

for the u.s. around the world. it was hurting us, and that is why they decided to go to the table with iran, not the other way around. host: i want to bring up that both of you have brought up the polling on this. hear from the "washington post" this morning -- we are talking about this in a roundtable segment in this morning's "washington journal." kevin is up next in pennsylvania, line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, and thanks for c-span, and thanks for taking my call. miss leverett, you and your husband to my read your work will stop i've read mr. dubowitz 's work as well for some time.

first, it's very important to establish the fact that mr. dubowitz is with an israeli front organization, i mean national foundation for democracy. just like so many of these think tanks, they are really israeli front organizations. host: let's let mr. dubowitz respond if you want to talk about your think tank. guest: i actually do not work for the foundation for national democracy. you must be confusing my think tank with another. we are committed to defending security. but i want to talk about hillary's point. hillary is a courageous voice but a lonely voice. her position on sanctions contradicts not only the obama administration but the europeans and a bipartisan crime -- bipartisan congress.

she believes that the only reason iranians are negotiating seriously because they fear the coercive power of these sanctions. hillary would have you believe that you could bring these hardened men to the table and through mere engagement and without course of pressure you could get them to give out decades of nuclear infrastructure and a program that has been put together through billions of dollars of investment, and under which they have suffered severe pressure because of sanctions. anyone who is engaged in international diplomacy or anyone who is engaged in negotiations where you are buying a used car or a house, or even negotiating with your kids, knows there has to be a system of carrots and sticks. and the administration knows this and that's why they have said repeatedly if there is no deal by june 30, in ministration will work with congress to put forward a new sanctions package. this got to make a -- a strategic choice to abandon

decades of hate and terrorism and human rights abuses. what hillary is looking for is common interests and a set of common values, but once again, without a deal that constrains the nuclear capacity, there will not be that to begin with. host: in a story on the usa today, some discussion of how the sanctions should be lifted is a deal should be struck. should it be all at once, a gradual lifting? what would be your recommendations? guest: i am -- unlike mr. dubowitz and many in washington, have actually negotiated with current iranian officials among and it was an effective negotiation. it out the in a state enormously to not only overthrow the taliban, but set up the taliban

government -- but set of the proper government in afghanistan. there is just not evidence whatsoever that continuing to bludgeon them and pressure them is going to do anything to give us a concession. and that brings us to the current round in terms of sanctions. with china, we did not say we would keep sanctions on china or do anything to bludgeon and pressure than into what we want in the united states. similarly, that is not going to work with iran. what is in it for them is to have the lifting of sanctions, a new relationship with the u.s. and a much more stable and constructed order in the middle east. host: that is what you would do in the middle east right now? guest: the deal that was struck in 2013, the core bargain there was that there would be a comprehensive lifting of sanctions in exchange for

meaningful constraints on iran's nuclear program. the iranians have done many of the things, if not all, that the u.s. put on the table, not exact we how the u.s. once, but the core issues. they got the chief experts doing that. the outstanding issue today is sanctions. in exchange for iran doing 1, 2, and three, they want the sanctions lifted. host: immediate sanction relief? guest: timing it with iran's agreement to put constraints on the program, we need to lift the sanction. if we don't do that, we will continue to accelerate our loss of leadership in terms of the international economic order. host: let's bring into the conversation on the line for democrat mark muriel, -- for democrats, muriel, good morning. caller: good morning. how is everyone at the table their?

host: we are great. thank you for calling. caller: excellent. hillary or anyone else does not tell me how to think ok? i am sort of an independent thinker. i will say this about the negotiations. a face-to-face meeting about any issue trumps anything that would stop the negotiation. peace is the trump card here. if anybody has had any dealings with the war, having a son or brother or father go to war and face the front lines will know that negotiations trump everything.

as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, i don't know how many countries in the world now have nuclear weapons. including israel. and by the way, the subject of israel, everyone loves israel. why wouldn't anyone love israel? but everyone loves peace. that is the main force here. we want peace. i have a grandson in tennessee that has a wonderful friend who was a football player on the local high school team who went to war in iraq and came home minus three limbs.

host: mr. dubowitz? guest: we all agree we want peace. i have been working on solutions for 12 years now. i'm trying to find a way to revive the u.s. with a nonmilitary solution to this, a nonmilitary solution to this through diplomacy and using sanctions as an instrument of pressure. and it is to try to get the iranians to come clean with the dimensions of their program. hillary would have you believe that iran is complying with all of the obligations, but the iaea actually disagrees. iran refuses to acknowledge that they have engaged in what financing activities. we want peace. what we do not want is a wrong a nuclear weapon. that could that of a cascade of proliferation in the middle east and it would lead to multiple arab countries with nuclear weapons, or at least the capability. and that could lead to a nuclear

disaster in the middle east, whether by intention or miscalculation. none of us want that, which is why we all support negotiations and a good iranian deal. host: another hurdle in the usa today to a nuclear iran. guest: it's not really a question of giving up their enriched uranium. it's what to do with their stockpile. there are three options on the table. the u.s. preference is that they could give it to russia or someplace else. it's a little bit on that they would want them to give it to russia, given the climate that we have today. another is to convert it into usable fuel, so that they are not running out of the country but they are dealing with the stockpile. there is a middle ground, where potentially iran could send some

of it, if not all of it, to russia, but along with their scientists are they could get dumping in the bargain will stop their scientists could learn -- in the bargain. their scientists could learn something about the technology and come back to have a more competent program in iran. host: is that likely to happen if there is a deal? guest: i think it depends on sanctions. the core bargain drug in 2013 was in exchange for iran taking these fallen -- the core bargain struck in 2013 was in exchange for iran taking these steps, the sanctions would be lifted. i think you will see iran not dealing with these issues by the american preference, but their own. you have basically two or three different ways to do with each issue. americans have their preference. the iranians have theirs.

if we do not come through on our end of the bargain for sanctions relief, we will see them cling more to their preferences. they will address the issues but with their preferences. host: let's bring in rafiq from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i definitely appreciate always hearing ms. leverett's perspectives, because she provides a very sobering outlook on the matters. i would like to share with the audience and or at least remind the audience that the extra demonization of iran is due to the cia's -- they helped to form a crew of iran's democratically elected prime minister back in, i believe, 1953. and when the shah was installed and he became a dictator, i

believe that is what led to the iranian revolution. this is why the iranians have distrust bring gain all of the facts as opposed to promoting the propagandized version that mr. dupre wits -- mr. mark dubowitz is. we cannot get into this isolation mindset. host: would you like to talk about the history of distrust that we see today? guest: let's talk about the present. right now, iran is maintaining a nuclear infrastructure against multiple you and security counsel that have been supported by china, the europeans, and the united states that require iran to stop enrichments, come clean

of the iaea of possible military dimensions on the program and actually, they you and security council has spoken -- the un security council has spoken. these negotiations have to deal with the reality. the history is painful on both sides and there is no doubt. the reality and the future to get a peaceful nuclear deal that prevents more in the middle east and a cascade of proliferation will require, unlike what hillary is suggesting, a conference of deal with sanction relief so that we put -- so that we retain peaceful leverage so that when the iranians she the way the have cheated for decades, we have a peaceful instrument to respond to iranian compliance. the fact of the matter is that is the position of the obama administration and i support. host: how long are you talking?

how long will the sanctions go one? -- go on? guest: they are trying to negotiate exactly the nation of the sanctions relief, so we don't know the details. the obama administration position is that they have to keep some form of economic leverage in the form of u.s. sanctions and eu sanctions. the only way to apply to iranian noncompliance is to either accept it in the pathway to include weapons or to use military force to forestall the possibility. all of us can agree we do not want to see that. host: let's head to north carolina what eddie is waiting on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. is the iranians actually walking on the deal and are allowed to have weapons in 10 years or 15 years, that leads to proliferation in the area and how will you solve other countries not to have a weapon

at that point? guest: it is very interesting. at the idea of iran having a weapon is a social fact and has been repeated over and over again. even though the u.s. intelligence committee has been saying since 2007 iran has not even taken a decision whether or not to produce weapons. it has become a social factor that they are held to the end of producing nuclear weapons. the history that the prior caller pointed out is important. in particular, when iran was attacked with weapons of mass destruction during the 1988 war with iraq and iraq was lobbying hundreds of rounds of ammunition's of chemical ammunitions and lobbying them on to iranian soldiers and civilians, 80,000 iranians either died or were injured. documented injuries of iranians killed or injured because of chemical weapons. the iranian government decided and took a decision not to weaponize their chemical

stockpiles that they had. they took a decision not to do that and not to retaliate in kind. this is based on a large part dedication to their islamic belief that these types of weapons of mass distraction are forbidden. now, many of the night -- many in the united states dismissed that as part of the discussed with -- as part of it. we dismissed that, but in the republic and political order of villages it -- of the legitimacy of islam and to go back on that, well, we are sorry that 8000 iranians were killed or injured during iran-iraq war, we are going to change our mind and pursue weapons of mass destruction devised history and affix a lack of understanding of their political order. even if they decided, for some bizarre reason that they were going to try and acquire a nuclear weapon, they are bound

by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty not today tomorrow, but forever, not to pursue and not to acquire nuclear weapons. this idea that there will be a sunset clause in this provision is just propaganda being put out there. these provisions will allow in perpetuity and if they sign the additional quota, there will be even more intensive inspections and verifications of their program in perpetuity and the restrictions would last forever. host: it's interesting what hillary is -- guest: it is interesting what hillary is neglecting to tell you and your viewers. she is absolutely right. it is devastating the chemical weapons attack that were launched by saddam. the response by the iranian was to move forward on the nuclear military program. the fact of the matter is that the u.s. intelligence committee believes that iranians have not

made a strategic decision yet to build a nuclear weapon but they want to retain the capabilities to do so, just called nuclear capacity. the response to nuclear capacity and the perception that there may be a battle you have the saudi's, egyptians, and they begin to take moves toward their own so-called civilian nuclear programs. what they want to do is build the same kind of infrastructure to give them the same kind of options to become a nuclear weapons threshold power. the problem with that is that the nonproliferation treaty is actually for normal nuclear powers, holland, germany japan and other countries that represent world peace. the nonproliferation treaty with constraints under the npt do not apply to a country that has not yet made a strategic decision to give up a nuclear program. when iraq comes clean of all these outstanding weaponization then we know they have made a strategic decision. when that happens, hillary and i will both celebrate.

host: we have an -- we have a half hour left. with hillary mann leverett and mark dubowitz. we want to get to as many of your calls as we can. the deadline at midnight tonight, and we are seeing reports this morning already from cbs news being one that negotiators could consider extending the talks for a few hours are putting off the biggest decisions for a matter of months. lynn is up next -- linda is up next, good morning. caller: i guess my question regarding this deal is how do we trust what we hear? we have the iranian leaders demonstrating in the ocean the mock blowup of a u.s. carrier. we have speeches consistently saying death to america.

even last week. and now we have negotiators sitting at the table. when the state department speaks, we have murray hearth and susan rice telling us about benghazi and other stories that we know are not true. we have an administration that tells us things that are not true. my question for many americans is how do we trust this government? guest: i worked in the george w. bush administration at the white house. i had to deal with this issue firsthand. how do i trust my government and the president i swore to serve and who i wanted to succeed, especially after 9/11, who was selling the american people a bill of goods based on the agenda-driven desires of groups, particularly in washington, to say that we should believe then that saddam hussein had nuclear weapons and we should invade the country, never mind killing

however number of iraqis and americans killed and terribly named. we should do that based on their evidence. evidence that mr. dubowitz represents today, they know better what saddam hussein had. i saw that firsthand. today, what i think isn't so important an opportunity we have, is to get iran to negotiate and agree to. it is the only way you can have an agreement, to agree to more intrusive monitoring and verification. that would be monitored and verified by the international atomic energy agency and not by interest groups in washington who previously told us not just a mistake, but manufactured goods made up information about saddam hussein's nuclear weapon program. i agree with the caller at this day and age that you really need to have more objective data on the table and not have that united states in our interest groups -- and our interest groups say what is going on.

host: you said the iranian president is somebody that can be trusted, what about the iranian supreme leader? guest: i don't think anybody should be trusted. i shall -- i share the sentiment of the caller. the reason why we have laws in the united states is to hold our government accountable. the reason we have international laws is it to hold governments accountable. what is so important here is that iran is a signatory and what we can do for our own interest is to have them abide by that as much as possible, and to even go beyond that. what we don't want is a situation like we had with israel that has the only new -- the only nuclear arsenal and the middle east and is an outlier. outside of international law the treaty, and that is something that is outside of our interest. we don't want another pakistan nuclear arsenal. we want the incredibly successful preparation treaty

where all the states have not acquired nuclear weapons and the only state that did have to leave the treaty. but then you have come out of the state that are not part of the treaty, 75% of them, israel, pakistan they acquired nuclear and that is that we don't want. host: that's head out of the united states to jamaica. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: you are on with hillary mann leverett and mark dubowitz. caller: i do agree with hillary is insane. theret are arguments coming fromehran -- from tehran, but how can we talk about it when israel is -- [indiscernible] ok, negotiation with iran is the

best thing to do. if it is going to take us -- we need to insistently push and push. a decision is the very best thing to do. i am not sure what the gentleman is talking about. host: let's hear from mark dubowitz. do you want to talk about the role that israel plays and some of the concerns the caller brings up? guest: first of all, i admire hillary's passion. if she knew anything about my history, she knows i certainly would not public kate -- were not advocate for war in iraq. i am absolutely committed to negotiations as the caller said. i think peaceful negotiation is the way to go. the view of israel is an interesting one because hillary talked about the failure of the bush administration. it was a failure of intelligence and intelligence community, not just the cia, but intelligence agencies from around the world. i think that points to we have

actually done a very bad job of being able to detect when a country built nuclear weapons. we missed the soviet union, china, israel, india pakistan. we underestimated how far and how logic saddam's program was in the early 1990's and we overestimated how prolog it was in 2003 and we missed north korea. the fact of the matter is, we have a very bad job -- very bad job of detecting when countries have covert nuclear weapons the dots. that is an issue as we look at negotiations because what is very important is that this deal is a verification and inspection. of that on our ability to detect when iranians are engaging and nuclear facilities. if iran was not engaging in clandestine nuclear facilities today, it would be the first time in 20 years that they have not. this is a record of a government that is engaged in nuclear mendacity. the problem is, they have not

had a strategic mistake and they have not made a strategic shift to begin to pursue peaceful civilian nuclear energy and become responsible member under the npt. how do we stop a dedicated bridging that by ali khamenei and supports international terrorism to support that objective and how are we sure that ali khamenei does not build a nuclear challenge -- and nuclear weapons? that is the challenge. host: let's go to cameron in louisville, kentucky. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i had a question. i will take my answer off the air. what do you think the impact of the netanyahu speech and of the letter written by -- written and signed by the 47 senators is going to have on the negotiations?

also, do you think that act was a treasonous act? host: do you want to take you about first? guest: yes, i think it had to impacts and underscoring for the iranians in that the united states cannot be trusted. it is not about whether or not we can dress iran but if iran can trust the united states. it raises a red light and i underscores the importance of lifting u.n. sanctions that there is republican -- presidential candidates without to overturn any deals that they have not touch. they are trying to get an agreement that is based on international law, based on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. that is what they are focused on and i think that continues. it's bird that concern for the iranians and the focus on getting guarantees. what i think it did here is

taken the obama administration far and put them in a position where it does not have an answer to many of mr. du bowitz's claims on a scientific fact of it or details. it puts the obama administration in this position where they are talking about little details about nuclear talks about physics rather than on a strategic picture of how the united states itself for its own interest needs a deal with iran and that we are not doing them a favor. because the united states needs a deal. what netanyahu did was set the stage for all of his supporters in washington to argue that the united states is not doing this in strategic interest in that they are doing this with radical muslim leader that we can trust and that may be obama is a closet muslim.

in the letter, it was specifically about how the agreement would be between president obama. you hear with mr. dubowitz today and ali khamenei that any agreement would not between -- not be between the two. that is a pernicious narrative that i would not attributed to mr. dubowitz personally, but it is sending increasingly in the rhetoric and that mr. netanyahu spoke of in a speech. there is no different than any of these people. we should not be talking to these people anyway and that mr. dubowitz talks about this treaty for white people in holland and all the rest of the world. that is a pernicious narrative that iranians are trying to do that. host: a quick response for you. guest: hillary, i admire your passion, but let's stick to the facts. the fact of the matter is that in iran and the united states

are very different countries, in case one has not noticed. the supreme leader of the iran is the absolute power in the country, brutal totalitarian country. an imperfect democracy, u.s. congress, executive branch, and we see a lot of disagreement. we should have a conversation of congress and executive branch about the deal. the fact of the matter is that you and your husband was the only people in washington in 2009 who were defending the fraudulent election. you were actually -- guest: it was not fraudulent. guest: the fact of the matter is -- there is absolutely no international consensus that that was a fraudulent election -- there is international consensus that that was approximately -- that that was a fraudulent election. [indiscernible] host: let's stick to the iranian negotiation's going on now.

several callers wanting to chat with book of you. we start with glenn in maryland. at for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a short statement and a question. my statement is teargas -- for your guests to look out from the mindset from an iranian mindset. looking that -- looking at the iranian system, you can notice that they have made sure since 1989 to conserve the power and we can any possible successors to be the next leader. keeping this in mind, do we know who we are striking the deal with, but how can we ensure in the future that iranians will be good on this and it won't fall apart and if a deal can survive and be maintained? guest: again, it is important to

be negotiating on the basis of a nonproliferation treaty. it is not about trusting one particular figure or say one system is good or bad. i joined with mr. dubowitz and his endorsement of our own system. for iranians as they see it, they are also pursuing a profound political experiment to build an islamic republic, which they see also as deeply flawed as mr. dubowitz talked about our democracy being fought. they to see it as flawed and they are trying to perfect it along the way to build it along the way. there are no guarantees, which is why it is so important to have an agreement based on a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. i come back to, again, the importance of the deal with china. no one could possibly say the chairman who presided over the revolution killing at least 3 million chinese was some sort of jeffersonian democrat with whom we could sit and have tea. the issue is about american strategic position which the

sanction policy that mr. dubowitz has pursued has weakened the united states and friend argued -- threaten our leadership of the economic order and threatened our position in the middle east. this is a course of a strategy that has gotten us into trouble over and over again and now threatens our global -- global position as leader of the economic order. host: a few more callers in the last five or 10 minutes. kay is an illinois on the line for independence. caller: good morning. my question is, how to the trust the country that kidnapped a bunch of our people? it is obvious that we really can't trust people like this. guest: mr. dubowitz, going back to the history of trust. guest: the fact is that there is an american journalist in "the washington post" who has been denied repeated access to counsel or his family.

there is an american lien sitting in the dungeons of iraq's prisons. an american preacher as well who was also sitting and iran's torture chambers. the fact of the matter is that this is not the united states of america. this is a brutal iranian regime that murders its own people, tortures, rapes women, a regime that has ended the day, not only coming up trust, but a regime that in its very nature and in a makeup, a regime we should be very careful of doing anything with. the notion of a strategic with this regime should be handled carefully. i think obama administration, to its credit, is going in with eyes wide open and holding the nose on the deal. it ended -- it understands at the leading state sponsorship of terrorism and abuser is not the united states. host: on twitter, question going back to the discussion of sanctions. how does the united states

justify the sanctions to the iranian civilians? guest: they will have a disproportionate impact on the people. i'm originally from south africa and lived under apartheid. i solid sanctions did not just -- i saw what sanctions day, and most leaders of the anti-apartheid movement. they understood that sanctions were chorus of instruments that would be used to change the strategic packers of the apartheid government. they helped to do so. they were not a silver bullet, but still a shrapnel in convincing the continent that they could no longer maintain the system of apartheid in south africa. what the administration has done, and i give them credit the have taken these traits sanctions and made them much more targeted and focused on iran's financial sector and on the energy sector. the civilians have paid a price and there is unmasked starvation in iran. civilians are not dying by the hundreds of thousands and millions as hillary is saying. host: they are saying they're

trying to target and have small -- less collateral damage -- guest: there will obviously be collateral damage, significant recession, currency has plummeted. it is seriously under pressure and the pressure has been relieved and the economy is modestly growing right now. the average iranian ones and nuclear deal, a booming economy. the only question is ali khamenei. host: dan from new york, line for democrats. caller: mr. dubowitz forgets that israel may possible that the south african that -- south african supported the apartheid regime. for a number of years, we have been told that we should really tell our foreign -- tailor our foreign policy to what we are willing to pay. the amount of blood that we have wasted in the middle east calls for another policy other than guns and threatening other

people. i really want to say how much i admire miss leverett for her courageous stand and i hope they are fighting side-by-side because they are really americans who are presenting as a reality that we need to know so we can accept the cause for whatever we do henceforth. host: mr. dubowitz, do you want to respond at all? guest: no, i admire hillary. she has taken a position that has made her a knight center in washington and that is a difficult place for her to be under has been. -- that has made her an outsider in washington and that is a difficult place for her to be and her husband. they are now continuing to make -- guest: there is no evidence of they were fraudulent. guest: the fact of the matter is, hillary, you have taken a position -- hillary hillary hillary. guest: the 1953 -- why is it

important not to go where there is no evidence. in 1953, cia was able to use people to go out in the streets. i don't know if this was a two or not, but the concern was it could happen again. for me or anybody else in washington to say they have proof of fraud is a lie. after serving in the bush administration and seeing the line they used to invade iraq that is when i became an outlier. i resigned from the bush administration because i cannot support another lie being perpetrated on the american people never civilians in the middle east. host: is it looking good in mike from kentucky. line for independents. caller: i was just wondering how are we keeping track of the scientists who can build these bonds? how are they -- build these bombs? the iranians hit one of the scientists away from us so we cannot get to him and i think

they have already killed two or three of them. if they can find out where he was that, i would think they would probably kill the sky. is this true or not? guest: hillary seems traumatized by her experience in the bush administration. she has been lied to by her own government but she seems to be credulous on the lies of the iranian regime. the caller brings up a good point is -- and that is the iranian regime has been lying to the international committee, the iaea about the military -- the nuclear program. that is evidence that pertains there are multiple lies -- let me finish. [indiscernible] the fact of the matter is is that the iaea wants to speak to a man who has been in charge of the nuclear program for years. he has been responsible for the weaponization activities. until they come clean and a knowledge that they have been a gauge and these up and is a activities and until we can have a baseline of what they have done, we will have no idea of

what this program will look like. that is a reality, and that is the evidence. hillary, you got to deal with evidence sometimes. guest: well, the question was about iran scientists, which have been killed by the israelis. that is not the way we will get them to the table to have a real deal with united states and our future based on. we need some reality on the ground. you can take all the scare mongering and the caricatures but the reality is that is the islamic republic of iran is a driving power just as the people's republic of china was. we need to come to terms in our own interests not to do them a favor. host: hillary mann leverett co-author of "going to tehran: why the united states must come ot terms with the islamic nation ." and mark dubowitz, executive director for the defense of democracy. -- defense democracy.org. thank you so much for your time.

thank you, hillary. up next on "washington journal," we will talk about that airplane crash last week in the french alps. we will talk with former transportation department mary schiavo and an update on today's negotiations with iran nuclear talks from switzerland. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, the c-span "cities tour" has partnered to learn about the history and literary life of tolls,,. -- tulsa, oklahoma. >> we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma, where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who were disenfranchised. for those people who were

migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, and texas during the era where they had found themselves in california literally starving. he saw this vast difference between the haves and have-nots. >> he recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening station that features 46 of his songs in his own voice. that is what makes the recordings that he did make so significant and important to us. ♪ >> watch all of the events on saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mary schiavo is the former

inspector general of the transportation department and a well-known aviation issues and joins us about last week's flight 9525 disaster. still a subject being investigated here, but one thing we do know is that some concern about the mental health of this copilot involved in this crash. we want to ask you for those who are flying commercial airlines, how can they trust that mental health issues are looked into before they get on a plane and walked past the cockpit? guest: unfortunately for passengers there is not really much of a way for any of them to check or have a level of trust. i was in london last week when the germanwings crash occurred and when i was flying home on sunday from london -- and i fight most major u.s. carriers

but i happen to be on delta and the pilot came out of the cockpit, not during flight because that is illegal, but while we were reporting and a party and they were both their greedy people and talking to people. it was clear that the message -- preteen to people and talking to people. it is clear that the messages out there that people getting off of planes were nervous and airlines have to be aware that passengers no that they really don't have any way to check on mental health or qualifications of their private, but even on the condition of the plane and the airlines are sensitive to that. at least this week. host: what are the headlines from "usa today," doctors decided andreas lubitz unfit to fly, but they did not get the word. what are the rules for reporting mental health issues for pilots and those who treat pilots, doctors in this case? guest: the european union rules

are similar to the united states federal aviation rules. it is a system of self reporting. when a pilot goes into get medical certification, you have to be trained to fly, you go to fight school and take your training, you get your private commercial instrument, fight and structure rating -- flight instructor rating and unique 1500 hrs. about three times to what this germanwings copilot had. you have to go to a flight doctor, medical examiner who will give you a questionnaire. the questionnaire is developed by the federal aviation committee in compliance with -- as a compliance with, but it comports with what the international civil aviation organization -- people may have heard of -- and it is an umbrella not regulatory agency but in international health

agency that is part of the you and that tries to keep aviation world running on the same kind of playing field. this questionnaire that pilots are given when we get to get their aviation medical certificate, and we have three classes for medical certification, the pilot has to fill out. things about problems, information about them and if they have had difficulties or they are seeing doctors, etc.. question 47 would ask the applicant if they have any mental health issues. if they have experienced any problems etc. at the top of this and accompanying this form instructions from the federal aviation administration to the examining physician and it says, we do not one you conducting a biological exam. we do not want you collecting and sending to the federal aviation or as aa, -- or faa

psychological information on the candidates. however, it after you conduct the verbal interview and there was no blood testing or testing to see if they are taking drugs that they got from another position to treat mental problems and this is if the pilot has interviewed the yes and checking the box on question 47, then the medical examiner can elect the -- can let the faa know that he or she has concerns and not to force the issue of the medical certificate. it is a voluntary system and up to the pilot to fly with the issues. there is no independent investigation and independent testing. host: we are talking with mary schiavo, former inspector general with the transportation department about some of the issues stemming from that air disaster last week in the french alps.

if you are in the eastern or central united states, 2027 48 8000. in the mountain or pacific region 202748 eight euros 01. i want to hear from airline pilots and if you are watching and want to call in with questions or comments, 202748 8002. mary schiavo, i want to ask you about the system you just described. is it changing at all in light of the investigation that is going on with the germanwings disaster? guest: i would like to say yes but i doubt it. i probably know that comes as a shock or disappointment, but there have been problems in the past before this. there were other crashes. egypt air, many americans died on that plane. there was one in africa in 2013. there was one in thailand in 1997, so this has happened before.

one of the things that we got in the united states, and this is also as a result of september 11 and we don't want to overlook that murder suicide, that was the rule about no pilot left the cockpit alone and the cockpit doors must be locked and secured. we went more to an objective hardware policy solution. of course, that would not have stopped -- examining the pilots would not have stopped 9/11 anyway because they were all perfectly wonderful people who were victims of murder. the u.s. airline pilots that american and united airlines, not the hijackers of course. oh we try to do is make a situation where it would not be possible -- what we try to do is make a situation where it would not be possible for somebody to, do the plane or get into the cockpit and make sure nobody could get a can or barricade themselves in the cockpit. that is why we have been no one

in the cockpit alone role, so that when a pilot on the u.s. carrier leaves the flight deck a flight attendant goes in. frankly, i think if the european unit had that role and there have been a second person in the cockpit, i don't think that the germanwings crash would have happened. i think the second person could have deterred what happened. host: we have seen several countries adopting that will you are talking about in light of this disaster. guest: absolutely. you know, just last year, and indian carrier -- i forget which one it was, air india, maybe it was, but they had a situation where one of the pilots went out to use of the facilities and other one did not lock them out but the door malfunctioned and he cannot get back in. they had to make an emergency landing because there is no way anyone can get back in. there was a situation in the united states where before takeoff and the pilots went out and the door locked and they

cannot get back in. granted, they were still on the tarmac but there are situations where that has happened outside of the nefarious situation. host: airline safety and pilot mental health screening is the topic for the next 40 minutes or so on "washington journal mary schiavo or go is our guest josh washington -- "washington journal." mary schiavo is our guest. there he is calling -- barry is calling. good morning. caller: one is a question on drug and alcohol testing. we used to get randomly tested and they were done after a fight was concluded. one would think the time for the test would be before the pilot got on the plane. obviously you have to process the information and it is easier to do for our call and maybe not -- maybe not so easy for drugs. going onto the medical scenario,

i had a cousin who work for transport canada and if he told me was correct, in canada, when a pilot goes to a position, test pilot goes to a physician, the physician has to report whether it is the routine step or something out of the ordinary to transport canada. here in the united states, every six months or year when the pilot renews his reports, and the medical information or something that happens in the past, the other thing is, the general public seems to think that because we take these medical tests frequently -- they do not realize that the tests are not predictors, they only tell the doctor if they had a heart attack last week or developed diabetes. they don't predict -- it is a deep subject, go any further than that. i will let -- host: before you go, what would be a recommendations for change in light of the attention it is

now getting? caller: well, as one of the german psychiatrist said and i was watching the news this morning, we can't really see into the person's brain. here in the states, we have used an apprentice type system for pilots who have worked their way up through numerous jobs. the guys who really do not have the dedication have dropped out and gone to another lucrative form of work. by passing through all of these things -- all these different employers, you develop a personal -- the general personal record and someone who was flaky will get this reputation. they don't -- they don't all get screened out, but it is a method that is difficult to use in developing countries or even in europe where generally, this is widespread. using this guy in the germanwings program would maybe

be a junior fight instructor in the united states with 600 hours. on the other hand, in the military, we have people find nuclear bombers who have 1000 hours of flight time because they are under an intensive training program. one of the questions is, can you apply that to civilian aviation? host: two are for the call on the line for airline pilots. your thoughts? guest: many good points and a couple left out. he is so correct about -- not apprentice system, but a pilot in the united states have to work up through the ranks and you are building a record. in the united states, and there was huge reason when this law went in about one decade ago but a pilot flight record must go with him or her from airline to airline. the airlines must sure that, so if you have a problem in your first job or second job of training, that record now goes

with you. because now to get on the airlines, and again after the crash in buffalo and the families of those victims forged ahead and wanted this change, you have to have 5000 hours and there are exceptions. there are always exceptions to faa rules, but that would give more exposure to other people and in the united states, there would be a career track record or employment record that must go with that pilot from job to job. if there are gaps on that job record, for example, the german pilot had a suicidal tendency problem and dropped out of training for six months or show, that would show up on the record. obviously, if it was properly reported there are ways to get around that. that is an important thing. he also lied about the testing. i was in the federal government for almost 15 years and i was in positions of law enforcement investigative positions and at

dot as inspector general. i was subjected to random drug testing on was my entire federal career, and they are supposed to be random. what is really important about this drug test is that the only screen for certain things. both in-flight drug testing and in government testing. a screen for illegal drugs marijuana, cocaine, whatever is on the list these days. i am sure meth. i am so old i don't think they had meth back then. and they test for alcohol. all of these other things that could be in one system and the talks screen is not therefore -- the tox screen is not therefore it. all you have to do is go to this great resources and one of the most important public resources of the ntsb besides finding out what happened in accident and make recommendations so it does not happen again is the

database. in this database, what you need to do if you are curious about how widespread the issue of persons in taking psychiatric drugs and not being fully forthcoming on infamous question 47 on the medical exam, is look at the number of tox screens where the toxicology screening information turns up drugs in the postmortem analysis of the pilot's blood or other organs. you find it is kind of alarming. the statistics to talk about the general population to how many americans are on some sort of lewd -- mood enhancing or psychiatric drug, certainly a large percentage. you would just assume that at least part of that extends to the pilot workforce. if you look at these toxicology screens, using that as the case. you find antidepressants that they had not reported to the faa. other side of the argument, if

you require these drug screens to see if they are taking mood enhancing drugs, then they will not take them. i think that is pretty -- i think that is in it -- an excuse. if you find out they are not complying with the law and don't take their medication, that reasoning makes no sense. instead, the faa -- with faa doesn't you need the drugs is to stop using them for six months and see if your body can acclimate. if you are still good to fight with them, the faa can give you a special certificate. there is a way around other than just saying i will not tell them and i will fight illegally. host: another headline from "the wall street journal or go the copilot -- the wall street journal. copilot was seen in years ago as a suicide risk and they are saying that it is hard for airlines to detect. that piece in today's "the wall street journal."

former head of security at united airlines say passengers should not lull themselves into believing that the germanwings tragedy could not be repeated. quote -- we are talking about those topics this morning. airline safety and pilot mental health screenings with mary schiavo. she joins us from charleston south carolina. we will go to jane waiting in illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my question is because of his breathing, that breathing issue, could this pilot could

have been practicing his dissent? was he out of it that he could just be practicing his dissent and did not realize where he was at/ -- where he was at? guest: no, i don't think so. with the combination of what has been linked to the german press on what was on that cockpit voice recording and the statements. i think they were pretty -- and it -- as investigations go, they were forthcoming about what they heard on the tape before the tape was leaked. there were too many things that the pilot had to do manually. is he had not have taken the extra step of locking the other pilot out, it is a third step have to do. otherwise, the pilot could have gone back in because there is a code, 32nd delay before this lockout mechanism goes -- 30 second delay before the lockout

mechanism goes in. the pilot had to move his hand and do a lockout mechanism. otherwise, the other pilot could have gotten back in. the dissent, and they could hear this on the cockpit voice recorder and you can hear -- it is amazing when you can hear but they heard him change the dissent. they put intentions -- he dissent -- he intentionally put into the dissent at. i don't think there is a possibility of a mistake. the breathing to meet suggested possibly that they could hear it and it was very calm and regulated measures. it is also possible he took some kind of medication that gave him this fall's calm -- false call to carry out the murder. i think what was strangers to me was not a word. i worked for a family of the

victims from egypt air and on that cockpit voice recording the homicidal or suicidal pilot said in arabic, i put my trust in god and a series of things. it was clear it was intentional. the cockpit voice recording was turned off and you can do that by pulling the circuit breakers and suicidal-homicidal pilots pool the circuit breakers. here, just this deliberate dissent and heavy breathing with no response. that was a bit different from prior pilot murders. host: i should give our viewers the correct line to join in this morning. we are doing them differently. by region, eastern or central time's up, to a 2-748-8000. mountain pacific 202-7

48-8001. you will go with joe. caller: i have heard a lot of people on tv talk about the two personal. i cannot find the that anywhere. is it possible that this is a confusion because i understand that since we've got these new doors, there are different configurations of airplanes. some have cameras like the germanwings one, but other planes are not equipped. they are having the fight attendant come into the cockpit as a way to usually identify the present who is knocking on the door. it seems to me that if we really had to people in there to keep an eye on the pilot we would have to train the flight attendant -- here is what you do in case the guy starts acting up or -- you know, we would actually have to have -- you are

putting another person in the cockpit you potentially crash the plane. i we going to give fight attendants all that same type of medical stuff we give pilots? you have to remember that egyptair crash, back i was alone for about 15 seconds, i think and he managed to get the airplane into configuration that when the pilot came back in the cockpit, he was unable to recover it. host: mark dubowitz --mary schiavo. guest: he makes a great point because the origin of that will was innocent enough and that is that something happens to the pilot, and we have had cases of the united states where pilots have suffered heart attacks, seizures, blacked out. then you have a situation where something has happened to the pilot and other one might be using the facilities and you have a fight attendant in their to say, hey, get back up here and get on the call -- the communication line and get things moving. it starts out innocently enough for it was simply a safely measure.

also, people would recall that helio's flight. the pilot. -- that killed the pilot. they eventually passed out and died in a fight attendant came in. some of this actually does not stem from people expecting that pilots will try to kill passengers but the fact that they might have a medical emergency which has happened many times in the past, so it wasn't innocent origin that has secondarily the beneficiary -- that has a secondary beneficiary. i don't mean to suggest in any way that i think those doors and fortifying a cockpit is imperative in this day and age and i would not like to see a backtrack on that at all because as soon as we do, the terrorists -- they never left. they were out there watching the aviation system at all times. the first terrorist attack was in the 1930's and there have

probably -- i have lost count and i wrote a book a while back and at that time, there was a count of about 880 terrorist attacks on airlines in the 1930's, so they will be back and they are looking for other threat connectors. i think those doors are important and i would not like us to go back on that improvement. host: is there a thought now going into three trained pilots in the cockpit in case somebody has to leave? guest: no, and you won't like that thought now. in the aviation newspapers and in cutting age technology, the thought now is well, if we have to protect passengers from pilots -- and i don't believe, i think most pilots are extremely well-trained and wonderful and at one point in my career -- the trend now and is the headlines in aviation journals today, is to have one pilot in the cockpit and an override private on the

ground much like a drone pilot so you can override it. i think this security threat there is a rather tremendous if you have ground override of a pilot and it would pose more dangerous. there was another line out there in the aviation journals today that we go with pilotless planes which i also don't agree with. i think the extreme is going the other way. they are saying, well, we can control them from the ground and an argument we heard on september 11 that that technology was in existence but not all commercial airplanes at the time. it is different. host: let's go to preston, connecticut, where l is waiting. -- where bill is waiting. caller: i was wondering when these pilots have their examinations, why can't there be a polygraph machine? if they are asked questions about mental health, they could

not hide the problem and it would become more evident to the examiner that they did have a problem. one other thing, that pilot's girlfriend, one report was that too was a stewardess or attendant, and she knew of his medical problems. she knew he had a problem. why didn't she say something about that? why didn't she tell people that he had problems before this happened? guest: what, exactly. you could put people on polygraph, unfortunately polygraph are open to interpretation and i think a simpler way with to be requiring a drug screen at the time of the application and screen for any other kinds of drugs. one to take it before -- one they quit taking it before the exam question mark well, maybe they will, but it might surface and questioning. -- taking it before the exam? well maybe they will, but it might surface and questioning. i think a random toxicology

screen for psychiatric drugs along with drugs and alcohol which are are ready done, give you an objective way. last less -- and it would be less difficult than a polygraph. they would certainly be labor-intensive and i can't imagine that, it is possible but difficult. the fight attendant girlfriend, there are a lot of reports of various girlfriends out of germany and we don't know what airline to works for but one certainly hopes it she thought he was a danger she reported but there is no indication she did. pilots do have an obligation. host: let's hear from another pilot on a special line we have four airline pilots. bill is calling them from great find, texas. caller: i want to share an anecdote and i thought of using it at the time, but in light of

the incident, it seems to be a little more serious. after i retired, i flew some contract flights down in peru. in talking with my peruvian cocaptain, he said in an initial trainings and screenings to become a pilot, they have to go through a mental survey. in their system, they assume anyone who wants to fly is mentally unstable, so you go through and see a psychiatrist and they try to determine where all the -- where on the crazy velcro view our. most of them fall and an acceptable area and pass their psychological evaluation and they go on. i thought it was amusing at the time, but now it seems to be a little more serious. just thought i would throw that out there. guest: well, it certainly is. one of the tolls that we have in the united states, and it is very serious and airlines use it and the ntsb is hugely supportive of it and it looks at

this in crash investigations and that is crew resource management. see our -- crm. the pilots are supposed to challenge each other. it can be the senior pilot -- for example, we had a $14,000 an hour pilot in the asia crash in san francisco and you had a senior pilot permit with the junior, and there was a pilot evaluator in the cockpit. regardless of that, that is not how crm goes. you are constant lisa challenge decisions and have a constant work related -- you are constantly supposed to challenge decisions and have a constant work-related conversation on every flight. crm would also help figure out what the problems are, but in this case, the guy had just --

the suicide-homicide had it only had 600 hours and that is not a lot of hours and a lot of people to observe. i do think there should be a basic psychological screening. all sorts of industries do it in the united states. you don't want to expose coworkers to somebody who has a problem or you want them to get help, so i think there should be a screen. i don't know what the peruvian system is, but i don't assume host: can a pilot who is concerned about themselves go and seek treatment without the theater of losing their wings if they get found out? guest: not really. you are supposed to report if you take any medications that are not approved by the fda. the fda has a list of medications that if you go through my dream. and it doesn't -- if you go

through a monitoring period, and it doesn't affect you it you can fly. there are a lot of jobs you can do that with. some heart medications various other medications. you have to go through this test period with the fda. and some waste -- in some ways they are treating depression differently than heart pain. i think someone with a mental impairment should be asked to do something else -- shouldn't be asked to do something else than someone with a physical impairment. when i learned to fly, if you felt the low 2120, you were done. we have come a long way since those days.

i think we will continue to progress. host: from new jersey, david is waiting. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my recommendation would be that the united states government immediately removed all protections of confidentiality under the hit by regulations -- hipa regulations, and make all physicians who treat pilots mandatory reporters, like we do with teachers and people who work with children. and any penalty for someone who does not report. guest: i would agree with part of that. i do think that the medical examiner, the person who will give the pilot his or her medical class 1, 2 or three has

to have access to medical records. i do think the pilot should be required to sign some sort of an access to medical information to the doctor. it would be a doctor to doctor disclosure. it is certainly not as an invasive -- you have to disclose your own insurance company. i don't think a doctor should evaluate someone just based on a questionnaire. i would agree with that. the problem with when you start handing that stuff over to employees and the federal government is that i don't think anyone in the federal government will review those records, and they are qualified to do it anyways. the airlines don't really want to have all the kinds of information, i suspect. their policy now is that you pilot, have to pass the medical and it is up to the doctor to do

that. i would put that back on the doctors. if they suspect something, they should not give the medical, and raise the issue. that is where he gets murky. what the fda does with it is a question. they don't do much with it. i think the examiners, the doctors, should have more responsibility, but also access to medical records. host: about five or 10 minutes left with mary schiavo, the former inspector general with the transportation department. appreciate her coming by. james is up next in western new york. good morning. caller: good morning. they give for taking my call. i think the airline should be responsible to make a fast emergency landing. they have no plan b on any airplane. before you laugh at this, consider we put very large

objects on the moon and on mars, and we get them down safely. if there were an alternative like maybe the wings could drop away and a parachute could deploy, or have airbags, or some kind of retro rockets -- something that would take the plane down in absolute emergency. there is absolutely nothing. right now, it's is the plane is in trouble, we assume, oh well we only lost one out of 1000. not too bad. there's absolutely no backup plan. that's my thought. host: is the technology their? guest: you know, that's not far-fetched at all. the technology has been around for probably 15 years. there are small private planes where they have a parachute system. small private planes are very light, but there is a large ring , often between a passenger --

if i were the pilot, it's right here, a ring, and you pull that, and you get a shoot. there's also a system large enough, all the way up to a 747 that has a series of parachutes, but it has never been tested or purchase. the technology is therefore a shoot system. other things would to radically change the plane obviously taking away the wings would weaken the structure. as a failsafe, the best technology has been the parachute. that has not been extended or tested on the great plains. i would expect that anytime soon. perhaps something as basic and straightforward as the second

person in the cockpit may have alleviated this, and certainly drug testing on a full toxicology screen. this crash not accident -- host: jim is waiting in georgia. caller: good morning. i'd like to bring a little reality into the full story here. if you look at the safety of the overall industry, i know the lady said, it's only one in 1000, but let's look at really what it is. the answer to this, frankly, is the initial hiring and screening and personality analysis. a lot of airlines do that. you have a personality test to attac detect those characteristics

that we do not want in the cockpit. let me just say, this might be a shock to you, but even if you have another pilot in there there is no way that you could stop it pilot if he decides to, at any given time, to put the airplane into and unrecoverable situation. airliners do not have the structural strength to pull out of a deep dive. look at air egypt. you have the pilot fighting with the other officer. what you have to rely on is the fact that most pilots do not want to kill themselves. look at this one little tick over hundreds of hours of flying. the key -- obviously, we police ourselves too.

if you fight with someone who is a real weirdo and keeps to himself, and causes problems personality wise, there are ways within the industry and airline pilots association that we police ourselves. host: i will let you jump in. guest: you know, i agree. in terms of policing ourselves airlines have to police their pilots. pilots police each other. the u.s. system, where pilots can aid on which route they want and who they don't want to fly with -- i won't name names, but there was a recent crash in the united states where it turned out that no one wanted to fly with this particular pilot. a lot of people had tried to not fight with this particular pilot, and that pilot had a reputation and was known -- in that case it was not a fatal crash and not intentional, but in some ways the policing of each other is absolutely correct. to add, the statistics -- i can

say here think of six intentional downing's of aircraft by pilots in the last 30 years. it is a small number. i can also think of two flights in which they were able to fight off an intruder. one was very famous. it was the federal express flight where another federal express boy was in the junk the and they had to fight each other off for control. an extra person can make a difference. there was a fight with someone tried to get into the caught it -- before 9/11 -- again, they had to fight them off. i think always a next her prison in the cockpit, even if it's the flight attendant, or whoever could make a difference. the caller is right. host: mary schiavo, i want to thank you for your time this morning. former inspector general at the transportation department.

appreciate it. we will be right back here on the washington -- on "washington journal." we will get an update on the final hours of the negotiations they are having in switzerland. we will return to our question that we asked at the beginning of the show, is the senate still the world's greatest deliberative body? you can start calling it now. we will be right back. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has learned about the e history and literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> he was born in 1912. we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma, where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who were disenfranchised. people who were migrant workers

who found themselves in california literally starving. he found this vast difference between those who were the have and have-nots, and became the spokesman for their music. would he recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening station that featured 46 songs in his own voice. that's what makes the recordings that he did make so significant and important. >> ♪ this land is my land this land is your land from california to the -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: we returned this morning to the question that we asked

at the top of our show, is the u.s. senate still the world's greatest deliberative body? this follows the opening ceremony of the edward m kennedy institute. here are some headlines from this morning on that dedication ceremony. this from the "washington post" -- engaging in nostalgia for a senate passed. one other from "the new york times" -- praising a senate member, collegiality, and calling for more of it. that's what we are tying up. how the senate has changed in this age, and who are the examples in the senate that you look to today to run the body. the president of the united

states was at that ceremony yesterday. he talked about some of the senate customs during ted kennedy's era in the senate. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] prez obama: any of us who have had the privilege of serving in the senate know it is impossible to not share heads awe of the senate around you. an awe inspired by his brother jack. ted waited more than one year to give his first speech on the senate floor. that is no longer the custom. [laughter] it is good to see tom daschle here because he may remember what customs were like back then. ted gave a speech only because he felt there was a topic, the civil rights act, that demanded it.

nevertheless, he spoke with humility. i wear, as he put it, that a freshman center should be seen not heard, should learn, not teach. some of us, i admit, have not always heated that lesson. host: we are asking our viewers is the senate the world greatest deliberative body? that quote from james buchanan talking about the senate. viewers also responding on facebook and twitter. on her facebook page, terry said, the greatest deliberative body left in the world is the u.s. town government. it is, for the most part, the only body left is not the holden to special interests. this will remain so until term limits are a limited.

phone lines, if you want to join the discussion this morning, democrats can call at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. we will start with james in chattanooga, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling on the independent line because i consider myself independent. i am a 65-year-old vietnam veteran, and i can recall when everybody sat down and talked. there was a these labels. now, we have to label ourselves to separate ourselves from one another. it is sad. it is so sad. i went to vietnam and fought for the freedom of all, not just for

democrats, and not just for republicans, or independents. now, you have a congress of their that doesn't want to talk to each other. that is the most immature situation that i've ever seen in my life. host: when did it change for you ? when did you see this change? caller: a change for me more than 40 years ago. ronald reagan. i served under ronald reagan just as loud as i served under bill clinton. i'm still a former active veteran with a disabled veterans association. we do not call ourselves republicans or democrats. we are all american veterans. it is depressing, really, to see our country at such odds when we have sacrificed so many soldiers just for the privilege of being called an american. thank you c-span. this topic touches me dearly, just because they are not willing to work with the

president. host: that was james in chattanooga, tennessee. this morning, our phone lines are open. if you want to join the conversation, we are asking if the senate is still the world's greatest deliberative body in the wake of the dedication ceremony yesterday in massachusetts to the senate and to the memory of former senator ted kennedy. here is a bit more from the presidents speech yesterday. [video clip] president obama: we can fight on almost everything, but we can come together on some things. though some things can mean a lot to a hold of people -- whole lot of people. it was common ground to come to a compromise to provide health care for millions. it was common ground to provide for kids with disabilities.

common ground. not rooted in abstractions, or stubborn rigid ideologies, but shared experience that led ted and john mccain to work together. to work for a stronger more just immigration system. a common desire to fix what is broken. a willingness to compromise and pursue of a larger goal. a personal relationship that lets you fight like heck on one issue and shake hands on the next. just cut julian or -- through ted's brand of kindness and humor and grace. host: in the wake of that dedication yesterday "christian science monitor" has this story.

"can new senate institute honoring ted kennedy foster bipartisan cooperation? we want to hear from you this morning. answer this question, is the u.s. senate still the world greatest delimiter body? caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. go ahead. caller: i just passed my 80th birthday. i'm and i thought this are in the marine corps. i think our problems of the last several years have been -- in terms of the party that you are related to -- is the republican party, and their attitude in terms of having a nickname called the party of no. i hesitate in saying that because i grew up when the

republican party was founded. they've got a surprise coming in 2016, if they do not change the attitude of being and ti-literally everything that comes up. host: do you think the democrats do a better job of compromising? or do you think there's any compromising going on at all? caller: there's no question about that. it's an attitude that actually involves the president and our dislike for him. there's a lot to that. believe me. it's unfortunate. it's a fact. host: crystal is up next from new bedford, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. figure for taking my call. the gentleman that just spoke is totally on point. it's so sad.

the disdain for prez o president obama makes them not want to do anything. everything is obama's fault. when our republicans going to start working for the people who voted them in. they are not working for the people anymore. i do think that the democrats are open to do any kind of -- but the republicans will not do it because they do not like obama. host: do you think democrats in congress were better at working with a republican president -- president george w. bush, when he was in office? caller: absolutely not. let's face it. no, no. i do believe that democrats worked fairly with him. he did not work fairly with

them. look at what he did to this country. everything is still obama's fault. it's sad. it's sad that the country has come to this. host: let's go to our line for republicans. jake is waiting in new hampshire. caller: good morning. i have two points i want to make. the country and the congress all went south when alcor did not -- al gore did not concede the election that he lost. the democrat party wanted to get even ever since. second point i want to make is democrats don't want to work with republicans. there is no such thing as them compromising with the republicans. and it hasn't been for years. i will hang up and listen to your answer. host: thanks for the call from

new hampshire. andy is up next in smith grove kentucky. line for independents. caller: good morning. i grew up watching tv, reading the newspaper, and had a great deal of respect for senators such as fulbright, patrick monahan, that kind of respect those kinds of people are no longer there. there may be some that have come in that keep their openness available to them, and to their constituents, but it has been very sad to me that the rancor lack of historical knowledge actually.

that's why we are continually repeating errors of the past. it is a sad day for america. we may one day look back on the quote decline of america as having begun in the 20th century, perhaps with the contract of america that seem to set the stage for a lot of -- host: and d, do you think the ever present i of the camera is one of the reasons for the loss of collegiality, especially in the united states senate? it was something that president obama alluded to when he said that ted kennedy regretted that arguments are now made to cameras and not colleagues, directed to a narrow base, rather than the body politic of the whole. caller: there may well be a lot

of that. on occasions, beginning with present -- president eisenhower to have seen some of these people through the years. egos are such that -- it's very disappointing. if you have one grand vision of a person and then see how they actually quote walk, talk, and don't listen. it's very disillusioning and disappointing. yes, cameras i think perhaps lend to that somewhat. host: happy to discuss that topic, as well. we are talking about the institution of the u.s. senate. is it still, as it has been called in the past, the world's greatest delivered of body. first, we want to turn to an

update on the deadline of the iran nuclear negotiations. we turn to the "new york times" tehran bureau chief. thomas erdbrink joins us. guest: thanks for having me. host: what's the latest on the talks? there's word of a possible extension. what are you hearing in tehran? guest: being in tehran means i'm kind of on the sidelines. i'm like other people here, we do not know exactly what is going on. all that we are understanding -- the feedback we are getting through the iranian media has been rather unclear. we are hearing that there may be a deal later today. of course, there is a clear

deadline tonight when the day and. at the same time, there is talk of extension. it has happened many times in the past. it is definitely a possibility. i'm very sorry that i'm not a able to enlighten you more. host: how would you describe that these negotiations are being described by iranian media there -- is it optimistic, pessimistic? guest: i think most of the iranian newspapers and websites are following the trends of the negotiations. is the negotiating team says that the negotiations are going well, then you will read here that the negotiations are going well. there is one main exception and it is one of iran's oldest newspaper. it is a state newspaper. they have been the only vocal

voice against the talks. as of yesterday, one person came out and said that the deal was in shaping up. it will be a bad deal for iran. i don't think we will get everything we want. that shows how some people are thinking here. overall, when you look at the media, everybody reflects the feeling that most iranians have. people want to see a deal and move on from these 10 years of nuclear debate and sanctions. this is something you see often reflected in the media. host: if there is a deal reached in the next several hours before the deadline, or if there is an extension and the deal is reached, who would you expect in iran to make the announcement on that side? would it be president rouhani, or the supreme leader, coming out to talk about it? guest: i think it will be so dramatic, especially because

this will not be a final deal. it will be a shift toward the deadline of june 30. it would be disseminated through the state television news program, which is the main form of masked a mutation in this country, and that is how people will know if there is or is not a deal. host: thomas erdbrink is the tehran bureau chief from "the new york times." we appreciate the perspective from on the ground there. we have about one half hour less on today's program. we're talking about the u.s. senate and is quote from buchanan they called the senate the world's greatest delivered of body. you think it still is the greatest delivered of body? -- delivered of deliberative body?

michael is waiting in illinois. line for republicans. caller: i am 62 years old. the only time the democrats want to come together on anything is when they are not in power. i've dissatisfied with the republicans because when they are in power, they do not try to do anything that helps -- or benefits the people of the united's of america anyway. i'm going to digress here. this present administration is hurting america more than it is helping america. the media is not putting out real news as to what is going on. it's all just a stage show at

this point in time, as far as i'm concerned. i've dissatisfied with both parties, to be quite honest with you. at this juncture, i don't think the senate is doing any delivered to -- deliveredberative thinking on anything. it's vaguely basically two sides of the same coin here. host: do you think the ever present camera has a thing to do? caller: the ever present i have a camera is not focused on the real issues. the, the media is not focusing on the real problems also. the public is only getting a perspective of what is going on -- of whoever controls the media

is wanting to get. there is so much information out there that we are not getting that would aid us in determining what we think. to give you an example obviously the democrats lost in a major landslide recently in voting. none of that was taken into consideration by the democrats or the administration. obviously, people were dissatisfied with what is going on at this juncture. host: that was michael in illinois. people aree also very dissatisfied with congress as a whole. here are some of the latest polls that have come out. this fox news poll noting that 76% of american registered voters disapprove of congress. just 17% approve of congress with 7% not having an opinion. that is from earlier this month.

we want to know your opinion of the u.s. senate, the institution of the senate. do you think it is the world's greatest deliberative body, as it has been called. that was used in a column from "roll call." will hear from kenneth. caller: i agree with the last caller. republicans are not doing anything. not passing any bills. the senate has the opportunity to be the greatest deliberative body, of course. but what are they doing? they are with the people with big money. i have a question for you. how much money has been spent on trying to repeal obamacare?

host: i don't know the number off the top of my head, but i'm sure you have an opinion on it. caller: too much. as far as democrats not conceding the loss. of course we are not conceding the loss. president obama one two elections, and the republicans shut down the government. to have people forgotten about that? how much money was lost during that time. host: dori is up next from missoula montana. caller: big for taking my call. i deftly feel that our senate is no longer the greatest deliberative body. you asked one caller about what you felt the change came along. i think it became apparent to me at the point that we put our president in the white house on the basis of lost votes.

never recovered, never counted. it has all gone downhill since then. it has been very dishonest between the senate and the president. i think that we all sat here and watch the camera put present in the that we didn't even elect. host: are you talking of voter fraud issues? caller: my opinion -- i probably have limited knowledge -- but might opinion of the conduct or when george w. bush was first elected, there were voters in florida that created a situation that was never clearly resolved. they went ahead and put the president in. host: do you think it created a lack of trust that is reflected in today's dealings in the senate and the dealings between the senate and white house? caller: absolutely. host: dave is up next in

michigan. for republicans. what do you think? caller: good morning. hello? host: i can hear you. go ahead. caller: the opinion seems to be heavily towards the democratic side of the issue here. i'm going to take a counter argument. i feel it is much more the acura argument -- accurate argument. it seems like this question is only brought up when republicans are in power by the media in general. the media in general leans far to the left. there's only like one channel on television today which is conservative -- broadcast with a conservative viewpoint. that is the problem with america. you have stations broadcasting with liberals viewpoints and conservative viewpoints, but no

stations broadcasting with the truth. at one point, if you allow more. the iranian issue. you, on your network, had people calling in from ukraine right after the coup. people from the east part of that country were woefully telling america to stay out of the business. and the people in the west were thinking obama for having their back in the undertaking. in other words, obama was involved in that coup the very night the it happened. yeah, that was the end of it. it has never been broadcasted in any part of american media since then. not even on fox. when dennis kucinich tried to say it, o'reilly took him off the air with the commercial. we are not allowed to know the truth. that is the biggest problem. the senate itself is hiding it.

they don't want us to know that we are the ones that actually are responsible for the ukrainian president gone. we are all satisfied with knowing lies in this country. host: the issue about the debate of collegiality of the united states senate. happening not just now, but when democrats were in charge of the senate as well. it was brought up by former senator orrin hatch. he gave a series of floor speeches into 2014 about this issue. in his first speech on that, he said, my colleagues, with a matter of first-hand experience don't know any different. let me say this, the senate has not always been as dysfunctional as today, quite the opposite. until recently, the chamber lived up to its reputabletions

as bi greatest delivered a body. we routinely defended our institutional prerogatives, but if unfortunate that is not the case today. you can watch that at c-span.org. the senator, of course, now the pro tem of the u.s. senate. brandon is up next. caller: good morning, my good man. listen, i am 34 years old. i was born in 1980. i had the pleasure of seating in the democratic convention in 2012. it was a very and lightning experience -- and lightning experience. there were some very knowledgeable people.

however, the first time present obama ran for election, i did not vote for him. the second time i voted i was led to vote for him i. i highly regret that. now, i think that as americans -- whether we are republicans democrats, independents, i think we should all on together and look at what is best for the states. if you want to listen to military strategy -- my brother is a sergeant in the army -- i love him and i pray for all of our fellow servers every day of my life. host: branding, can i ask you in this polarized political environment that viewers are describing, do you think a

senator can continually get reelected if they routinely work with the other party? if they continually reach their hand across the aisle? caller: if it's truly a sincere agreement between both parties yes. if both of their hearts are in it. not just 100%, but 110%. it would deftly work. i look to -- as a gentleman. i think we should actually care about this matter. i don't cap of your republican, democrat, or independent or of any national creed color

gender, or sexual identity, i think we should all faces with knowledge. i want to be honest with you america is looking at another david and goliath situation. host: brandon in oklahoma on this issue of senate elections. coming up, some news on that front out of illinois. here is the "chicago tribune" front page this morning -- emmanuel extends lead over garcia. duckworth first to toss. duckworth, age 47, a two-term democrat, who lost her legs in the iraq war in 2004 announced her bid yesterday in a two-minute video. the battle for that seat being listed on "the washington post"

as the senate seat that could most likely slip in the . -- flip in the next election. writing it doesn't help that former congressman walsh, a tea party favorite, is considering a challenge. remote is up next from virginia. line for republicans. caller: good morning. good morning. host: go ahead, ramona. caller: i was so inspired by the senate thing for kennedy. both the republican input and the democrat input. this morning, all of the

negative, it's about the republicans upset me. i am very upset about the black feeling that people do not like the blacks. that is not true. i remember very much that -- i was i campaign very much for the blacks. one of my congressman. i said, we are not taking care blacks at all. i am for -- i was very glad to have a black president. much better than clinton. i'm glad he got in. i think is doing a good job on health for the elderly. i don't agree with him on the immigration.

the senate is wonderful. congress is wonderful. c-span is wonderful. i don't know how we could exist without c-span. host: who do you think in the senate is actually acting in the right way as to how a senator should work with colleagues and get legislation through? do you have a favorite senator right now? caller: i really don't. i'm trying really hard to decide who to vote for. i like them. host: that was ramona in virginia. several said is expected to run for the presidency in 2016. some news just yesterday about potential announce the coming from marco rubio of florida. of course, we saw the announcement from ted cruz. we expect an announcement coming

in the next few weeks from rand paul as well. eric is in florida. line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. host: go ahead. caller: i just want to make two points. as i listen to everyone speak, i do think that we still are the greatest the limited delivered a body -- deliveredberative body. whether you like present obama or not, you should have respect for the united states. i think also you should not vote for your party you should vote for the person who is best for the job. i think that is what it comes down to. if you're not happy with how things are going, you should look at the people you are electing. i think that is what comes down to. host: thanks for the call from

deerfield beach, florida. robert is in fitzgerald georgia. robert, thanks for calling c-span. caller: thanks for having me. i think we are one of the best bodies in the world. at the same time, everything seems related to obama. from the jump, it was said that we will not work with that guy. they stay true to that. i truly believe -- let everyone decide to vote and vote with their heart. nothing will change. it's been hijacked by a lot of right-wing radicals. they don't want to pay taxes. they are just wrong. host: that was robert in fitzgerald georgia. one of the major debates happening in this country right now stems from the passage of the religious freedom restoration act. legislation and signed into law by governor mike pence.

mike pence has a column in today's "wall street journal" talking about his feelings on the legislation. also, the editorial board of major papers across the country writing about it all is well. this is from "washington post" -- freedom to discriminate. here's the editorial board of "the new york times" -- religion as a cover for bigotry. one more from "wall street journal" -- the paradox, they write, many activists or liberals have become more intolerable of people who hold cultural or religious views.

a ceo was run out of mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to california referendum opposing same-sex marriage. we have about 10 and slept in today show. we want to ask you about the u.s. senate, is it still the world's greatest deliberative body in the world? this follows the opening of the institute in massachusetts dedicated to ted kennedy and institute of the senate as a whole. here's the front page of "the boston globe." joe is an vanderbilt beach florida. line for republicans. caller: good morning. i believe there are two milestones here in which the senate has lost its stature as the world's greatest deliberative body. the first is the eradication of the 17th amendment. the senate lost its

accountability to the states. it's not much different from the house of representatives at this point. that was 100 years ago. and recent times, the second milestone, i would say what is it harry reid becoming the president of the senate, and really changing the rules in the last couple of years, not being open to bringing legislation and doing a lot of blocking. host: are you hopeful that things will continue to you worse or do you think they will get better? caller: i am hopeful that things could get better. i want to see what mitch mcconnell will do, and i hope they will reverse some rules that harry reid put in place and put them back to the way they used to be. host: when you're tight about milestones what about the milestone of cameras coming into the senate. do you think a change the way that senators worked with each other? caller: that, i really don't know. i believe in transparency.

if everything is out in the open, they should -- people should hear the people business. host: joe in florida. eileen is up next in connecticut. line for independents. caller: good morning. my question is about the gerrymandering that the republicans have done. they say the democrats do it too. i am an independent. if more people were to register as independent, how would that affect gerrymandering, which is when they change the district around. if more people register as independent, would gerrymandering be possible? host: gerrymandering of course impacting house elections, not so much senate elections. are you saying it is increasing the polarization here? caller: i believe it has. i do. i think with that and voter

suppression -- number one, why would any party have to do that? wouldn't they want to be voted on their policies and merits of their beliefs and instead of having to do these sneaky little things that the general public, i don't think, would agree with. host: do you think the polarization is less in the senate where gerrymandering is not an issue? caller: possible. i think so. i figured starts with the local elections, and then you move your way up. i just think it has gotten people so misinformed about what is really going on with how the ir officials are elected. i know when you're an independent, you can't vote in some of the primaries. some of those rules could maybe be changed to have more people more involved and more informed, and wanting to go vote. i really don't think the democrats lost on their own policies.

some of the policies that passed , but elected officials that were elected don't want them. in this past election in november. i was just wondering if people are aware of that. they voted for marijuana to be legal, but the elected governors don't want it. host: that was eileen. we want to continue this discussion for the next couple of minutes or so. also bring in some tweets as well. we noted some polling numbers on congress earlier in the segment. jim on twitter, why do holes even bother to ask about congress we love our representatives and hate others. let's go to wayne. for independents. caller: good morning. i think that the tone changed

when bush was elected. there are certain things that they did, like when they used democratic as an adjective. dthey never say democratic -- they say dey democratic. it was a delivery think it was really petty. all the media goes along with it. to say the media is liberal is ridiculous to me. there are a couple of little cubbyholes of progressive radio that you can listen to, but there's nothing -- like tom hartman and a b goodm amy goodman -- but 99% of it is controlled by corporate media. the main reason that i watch c-span is so that i can hear everything on s uncensored by

fox news and those filters that twist everything. it is the opposite. i like to see them talking straight to me, without any intermediaries. isaac actually c-span is -- host: your biggest concern about the polarization here comes from the media itself and not necessarily the members on capitol hill, that they are reacting to it? caller: no. i think the members, like mitch mcconnell, when he came in, he said our number one goal is to make obama a one term president. from that point on, they would not cooperate at all. they had a record number of filibusters and filibuster threats, more than any congress ever in history. they were the minority party when democrats were in control,

but they wanted to rule like they were in majority. the action did ruled by using filibuster threats in the senate. stuff like -- they been demonizing obama ever since he was elected. when you for came out, they all started calling it obamacare. they wanted to tie the word that they had demonized to this bill to defeat it. all the media went along with it. 2, 4, 7 -- everyone went along. they couldn't get a judge appointed. they couldn't get anyone from any departments appointed. they got really petty and childish, and would not cooperate at all. host: wayne from huntington beach. on twitter, sea of tranquility

rights, if the senate is the greatest, then you have to wonder how bad the others are. steve is up next. is the senate still the greatest body? caller: of course. the colors have been talking about the supreme court. also, carrying on about the liberal media, is marketing. that's all i was to say. marketing. that's the problem. the media. host: stephen california. our last caller in today's "washington journal." that will do it for our show today. we will see right back here tomorrow at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> here's what we have coming up live. at 1:00, we will go to the national press club with jon kyl hn koskinen. at 3:30 p.m. eastern secretary of state and the and will be speak at the perkins institute. coming out tonight, candidates in chicago's mayor's race will have a form. that is that in a cartesian tonight. this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn

about the history and literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> woody guthrie is best known for his writing of "this land is your land," but he is known for much more than that. he was an advocate for people who were disenfranchised. those people who were migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas and texas during the dustbowl era. he saw this vast difference between those who were the halves and the have-nots and became their spokesman through his music. he recorded few songs of his own. we have a listening station that features 46 of his songs. that's what makes the recordings that he did make so significant.