later, gary seymore talks about the iran nuclear program and negotiations. as always, you can join us on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. congress in recess for the july 4 holiday. negotiations continue between secretary of state carrie and iran foreign minister on that country'snuclea -- that country's nuclear capabilities. the greek prime minister calling for nationwide reefer random -- referendum that could decide on the euro.

it is sunday morning, june 28. tomorrow, here in washington the final decision is expected to be passed down from the supreme court. thursday, there was a decision on the fort will care act. on friday, on same-sex marriage. chief justice roberts telling the senate that he viewed his role as the umpire in chief. that is what we are discussing this morning. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. if you are an independent, (202) 745-8002. justice roberts, is he the umpire in chief? you can allso send us a tweet at @cspanwj.

or find us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. headlines outside of washington, d.c. all focusing on the supreme court and same-sex marriage. the front page of the "amended journal-constitution" -- on the edge of change. front page of "the chicago tribune" -- no longer made this liberty be denied. from "the new york times" -- chief justice roberts defense what he calls steady restraints. he helped save the affordable care act for a second time. on friday, when he dissented on his decision to a constitutional right to same-sex marriage

liberal said he -- chief justice roberts remains more apt to surprise that his colleagues and more likely to disappoint. he seemed to use this week's opinion as a steady practitioner of judicial modesty. that story is available online. joining us on the phone is lawrence hurley of thomson reuters. thank you for being with us on this sunday. let's talk about rulings expected to come tomorrow. what can we expect? guest: there are three cases left. the court will decide on the lethal injection process in oklahoma that will get a lot of attention, though the case itself is not linked to any major ratifications. the court will also decide a major environmental case on air pollution regulations.

those are the two big ones. there is another one about arizona's redistricting process. host: let's talk about the two cases getting so much attention. first, king versus beer burdwell. what are your conclusions? guest: i think in some sense it was not a huge surprise that chief justice came out this way considering how he voted when the court upheld the affordable care act on constitutional grounds. it would have been slightly unusual for the law to be found constitutional, but effectively gutted. also, what is interesting, what perhaps has not gotten as much attention is justice kennedy was also in the majority , not just the chief justice of

the republican appointees. kennedy, of course, was on the other side in the previous case. he switched this time. it showed that there were two different cases, two different legal questions. host: on friday, the ruling on gay marriage -- you had four different dissenting opinions written by those for who did not go with the majority. how unusual was that? guest: it is fairly unusual especially the chief justice was one of the dissenters. he read a summary of his dissenting opinion in the courtroom, which justices do from time to time on the losing side, but is it is the first time he has done it since he has been on the court. host: a number of stories on network news. really a week that changed the nation. so much happening on the issue of the confederate fight andes

to two supreme court rulings. would you agree? guest: i think what is interesting is often the supreme court decisions are important to lawyers. people perhaps not see the made immediate impact. these two cases have very profound and immediate impacts. the marriage case allowed people to marry in states where they could not afford. the formal contract basically took a big political issue off the table, at least for the time being. even another decision from a few weeks ago, the court issued this decision about confederate phonics on license plates in texas -- confederate flags on license plates in texas. host: skating critiques from -- scathing critiques from justice

scalia. as you read his dissenting views, what are your thoughts? guest: justice scalia is well known for his dissenting opinions. obviously, at the end of the year like this with a high cases, it is not surprising to see vitriol from some of the justices on the losing side. it would seem like business as usual. host: there's always speculation at the end of the term whether any of the justices would step down. any sense that we would see that this term? guest: there has been no indication of that to date. we probably would have known by now. host: lawrence hurley who covers the supreme court for thomson reuters, thank you for being with us. the story from -- this story from "the washington post" --

decades of battles converge for momentous decision. it says, it feels like a blink of the eye, as of friday, states are required to offer marriage licenses to gay couples. that story this morning from "the washington post." of course, the affordable care act is also the other big decision from the supreme court. justice roberts is chief? -- is he the umpire in chief? [video clip]

justice roberts: judges are like umpires. they do not make the rules, they apply them. the role of the umpire and judge is critical, to make sure everybody plays by the rules. it is a limited role. no one ever went to the ballgame to see the umpire. judges have to have the human of -- the to recognize they offer right innocent -- they operate in a system. they have to have the modesty to be open to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench. mr. chairman, when i worked in the department of justice it was my job to argue cases for the united states before the supreme court. i always found a very moving to say, i speak for my country. it was after i left the

department and began arguing cases against the united states that i fully appreciated the importance of the supreme court and our constitutional decision. host: from september 2005, that video is available at c-span.org. let's get to your phone calls. is the chief justice the umpire in chief. we will begin with pat in new york city. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i think we need to be aware that we cannot be prisoners of the president. the last three days for democrats have been very good. if you look at roberts' court since 2005, what i'm troubled by is the long list of conservative decisions, whether it is cutting floating rights -- voting rights , citizens united, the decision

probably handed down tomorrow with nonpartisan redistricting. obviously, hobby lobby, i could go on. i think, very conservative justice. he was appointed by republican resident, he certainly reflects that. not an umpire. host: this tweet -- i would say chief justice roberts was not political in the king be able -- king versus birurdwell decision. caller: i think he is not umpire. as far as the ruling on same-sex marriage, i would like to say that yes, homosexuals are free and should be free to do whatever they want. it is their personal business.

i have no it just whatsoever. to impose that on society, overrule state laws, overrule the wills of religious institutions, and impose it on society, it even if there is a majority. majority does not make it right. if the majority says that they will strip the rights of everyone here, that does not make it right. we have taken a step towards saying our society has no value is. let me demonstrate that. given this ruling, can anyone give me the logic for saying, people cannot have multiple marriages? a woman may want to be married to three or four husbands, and vice versa. what is wrong with that? is homosexuals can get married why not? if people want to walk naked in the streets -- i mean, if only guide for judgment is personal

liberty, and to force the on society to accept it, we have taken a step towards taking away this country's values. they are not just religious. yes, they are religious values but also natural values. it has been unnatural and unacceptable to society. like i said, what they want to do a private is their business. host: you think on those two examples that you put on the table, the court could take them up? caller: sure. is someone challenges the law and says, i want to get married to 3, 4, or five women, what is the core going to say? if someone says, i want to go to a public beach and be nude, and

other people are offended by it, that's their problem. i know there are places where people can be new, but in public -- most beaches do not allow that. what is to prevent them? what we have done is taken the concept that we as a country do not have values. what we do have is a worship for liberty. liberty comes first, regardless of what that liberty is. host: we will live leave it there. bill king has this, it yes, justice roberts is the umpire in chief. by the way, in interesting look at a gallop poll dating back to 2001 it you can see the convergence, the dark green is those who approve of the supreme court, and the light agreegreen,

those who disapprove. there is significant change from 2001. from the walkie, robert is up next, democrats line. caller: good morning, steve. speaking of religion, yes definitely, we aren a nation that originated with freedom of religion. that also means that we do not have to cater to a specific religion, like the right-wing christian far right people. as far as judge roberts is concerned, fantastic guy. he ticked me off on his view of decisions. he takes off -- ticks off

republicans on other decisions. right now they are wallowing in their grief and misery due to the fact that he decided certain things for this past week. i think he is doing a tremendous job. the person is not doing a good job on anything is fox news. everything they have said has been on the wrong side of history. host: one of our viewers saying that he is the "um" in chief. bloomberg politics with this headline -- barack obama's unexpected best friend, chief justice john roberts. a senior fellow from the cato institute writes -- he is also

the co-author of "religious liberties for corporations," justice roberts combines to save the president's signature legislation, is he a secret liberal? no writes the peace, he is the epitome of a small group of conservatives, his mission is not to expand the conservative revolution, but call balls and strikes. being judicial eumpire requires hard plays and squinting. you can read the full story online at time.com.

that opinion from a representative of the cato institute. richard from arkansas, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. give me a moment. i just woke up. with all that education with roberts, all those lawyers of their -- up there, they do not get it. they're are missing a point. it is not about religion. it has everything to do with one word marriage. there is no resolve this planet why they could not come up with the la law of civil union that carries the exact same thing as marriage, thus saving marriage for a man and a woman. unfortunately, we are now under the rule of nine unelected officials and a man with a pen. quite frankly where did we go

from here? we are no longer "we, the people," we are now "me, the government." host: thank you for the call. this tweet approval or disapproval of the supreme court about equal, maybe they are doing a good job. and, from "new republic" -- the decision showed how focused the chief justice is on enhancing the court's power. "new republic" says that when

statutes are ambiguous, log requires the court to refer to an agency and its reasonable interpretation rather than an interpretation. next is charles, joining us from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing on the sunday morning? host: doing fine. thank you for joining us. caller: i feel really good this morning. i think the supreme court did real good on what they did this week with obamacare, and for the equal rights for people to marry. everybody knows that the last six years have been shaky. everybody remembers when obama says, the last two years, that is when you will see a change. right here, we have the kkk sitting outside, when all the

flag and everything started. they let you know how the country is split up. everybody who is against -- not the democrats, but obama -- they will lose. i remember when the president -- mixing, i remember him -- nixon i remember him. i think president obama is the best president we have ever had. like i said before, i called once before to c-span, and i said the law of the land will prevail. it did this week. host: john roberts is not proving himself to be an ideologue, huge 48 scotus -- for a scotus justice.

"john roberts, the umpire in chief." that is this morning from jeffrey rosen inside "the new york times." next is like from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i have been doing a little research and found a couple articles from salon.com and another one that gives information on roberts.

they feel that his obamacare decision was the result of being blackmailed because of his illegal method to adopt to children that he has. i do not know if that is true or not, but i know this information is out there by salon and drudge . i think people should look into it because that would explain a lot about his decisions. host: you need to clarify. what do you mean by illegal methods? caller: i have the article but it is rather lengthy. he did not go through the proper adoption process. for that reason, he opened himself up to people who wanted to blackmail him. host: who would want to blackmail him? caller: i don't know, steve. that is the question.

why would he make decisions to everybody's surprise. this blackmail information has been going around for a while. this is information people should look for, it might answer some of their questions. host: john of "the new york post" -- the twisted logic of john roberts' obamacare ruling. we will get to your calls and comments on your view of the chief justice, is he the umpire in chief? we welcome our listeners on c-span radio.

two views this morning from inside "the washington post" -- we will go next to james from cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. when i was in school, i was taught the legislative branch rights laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. what has been going on for a long time is the supreme court legislating from the french. these justices are so drunk and intoxicated with their power they think it is nothing to legislate from the bench. it is time to get some term limits for these judges and get them off the bench.

these judges perform as though they are kinks. i'm sick and tired of it. host: ruth marcus writes the following, roberts is no liberal squish, not even a centrist squish, he is a deeply conservative jurist. him andnext is jerry from new orleans. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i will get writt away from itv here

for a minute. i'm calling about judge roberts and his decision on the gay marriage thing. i am thinking -- he looks at all the dynamics going on. i do not have anything against. what i do have a problem with is you have to examine -- they did not say anything about couples with kids. i am thinking what will he do to the kids? kids are bullied enough in school. what will he do to them and their friends. what kind of influence will you have on them? host: john has this point, scott

tus is the only umpire that has to explain in excruciating detail a blown call. chief justice roberts explains his position on the fertile care act -- you can read the online at slate.com. next is mike from wisconsin, the hometown of paul ryan, the chair of the house ways and means committee. caller: good morning. i like the discussion this morning. i know paul ryan. i sit next to him at church once in a while. host: do you really? caller: on roberts, i think he is his own intellectual. all the justices are political people.

they are political. i think he is consistent. i do not agree with his view, by think he gives proper respect to the laws of the past. he understands what the role of the court is. especially on marriage, i thought he was right on as far as the constitutional guidelines . people who pay taxes have to pay more for the underprivileged in society to get health care. that is a very simple look. i think that lines up with his viewpoint. he is not going to be pushed around by anyone. i think kennedy is harder to

understand and roberts. i think roberts is intellectual and not emotional. i think the other justices are very emotional. some of them, i do not even know why they come to listen to the arguments, there decision was made 15 years ago. it is a great discussion, and i'm glad we are looking at the court. we are here to look at the conflict between the lower courts and us and allow congress to make the laws. i like his approach in his job. host: thank you for adding to the discussion. we appreciate it. jim has this point. many umpires make wrong calls. what about the politics of all

of this? "the new york times" -- as left wins, gop reflects. by the way, we will continue to cover the presidential campaign. on tuesday, chris christie will make it official. we will have live coverage expected to get underway midmorning on tuesday.

by the way, tonight, to profile interviews. senator rand paul and senator bernie sanders. the speeches are also available on a website as we talk about their life and careers. senator rand paul out with a new book and senator sanders talking about his evolution vermont politics. bobby is joining us from cincinnati. to justice roberts, is he the umpire in chief? caller: yes, i believe that is true. he does not necessarily going on the decision that i would make. he shows that he is in tune with what he believes and what is right with the people -- right for the people.

they are the cornerstone of our society that keeps the other two balance of powers and check and does the right thing for the people. i was not able to marry the person that i loved. i feel vindicated. i would like to say this. finally, i feel like an american. host: by the way, coming up on c-span's "newspapers" program,, julian castro. the case involving the texas department of housing -- you can read the essay online at weeklystandard.com. next up is harold.

good morning. caller: good morning. i and disappointed in justice roberts. i think he is legislating from the bench. i am afraid that history doesn't show the supreme court is right. dread versus scott. ruling after ruling have gone against the people in the law. this is crazy. we even have groover who says they voted the way they did to induce the states to set up their exchanges. that they wrote it that way to set up their exchanges because of they didn't, they would not get the money. now, they are doing the opposite. this is crazy. i wish somebody would put the supreme court under control so they don't come up with these

crazy rulings. host: thank you for the call. david larson has this point. a look at some of the newsweeklies. bernie sanders is on the cover of "in these times are co-from "national review" a piece on bernie sanders. "the atlantic" -- technology will soon embrace millions of jobs. "the weekly standard" is taking a look at its summer reading. "politico" magazine -- who lost iraq?

good morning. are you on the air? caller: yes. i am in new mexico. host: i apologize. caller: i think the decision regarding gay marriage goes back to the first amendment. when the first amendment was ratified, we essentially created a division between church and state. it was a ragged decision that we have been trying to clean up over the years. there is no reason and the world by government should be involved in marriage. marriage was something developed by various churches. it should be their purview that people in their congregations can get married under the rules and anyone else doesn't want to do that, that's ok.

host: jodi says this, there comes a point where the republican way of governing is on the wrong side of scotus. this is a photograph from 2003. an earlier case from the supreme court -- robert barnes writes about the protecacted cases. c-span continues to push for cameras inside the court. you can check of the debate on c-span.org. caller: good morning. i appreciate c-span, and great show. my comment is that i have a lot of gay family members, gay in-laws, gay friends, love them

to death. i do believe in the bible, i am nondenominational. i believe in god. i have heard people say stuff about changing the american fine. i met american -- i am an american, i love being america. if they need to change it, they should change it to the $. that is what this is about. i was a republican, i'm very ashamed of how they treated this president, and i do think it is because he is black. i doubt i ever vote republican again. i am ashamed to even say that i do lots of how they have done it. thank you very much. host: thank you for the call. senator ted cruz on the senate floor. in "national review" calling get

a lawless supreme court. james has a street -- has this tweet. steve is guilty for not showing his viewers the groover tape. that is not true. we have shown it, as well as clips from gruber and responses on capitol hill. glenn, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. this is glenn from washington d.c. it is interesting to hear the different opinions that are occurring. what we fail to realize is in the united states, our laws, in terms of marriage, came from europe. it is a gift of common law.

if we look back at the case against the territory of wyoming, we realize that a family in ohio that traveled to the territory of wyoming sued the territory of wyoming for not a case of divorce, but a question of conflict of state law. the territory promised any person who would come there that is a bot and anchor of land for two dollars, they would get another acre of land for free. the grandchildren of mr. hill sued because prior to leaving ohio, he promised that he would send for his family.

the supreme court read decided -- redecided. it was like a battle that came down from the sky and rested on a person shoulder which is one man, one woman. there has been a reinterpretation of that. it is not a question of being umpire in chief, it is a question of growth. the united states has grown from that old common-law version of one man, one woman to embrace marriage as something that cannot be considered constitutional if you did not a -- if you deny a person the right to marriage. host: suzy has this point the

gay marriage decision is pure civil rights issue. joining us is robert from kentucky. caller: i enjoy c-span immensely. i would just like to say that roberts, judicially on the court , has voted for business when business issues come up, big business. if it is not about big business, i believe he is an umpire, he calls it the way he sees it. when it comes to defending corporations, he has never come down against them. obamacare, he came down with the corporations because it would cost them a lot of money. that is all. host: from great britain, this essay from "the independent" -- the u.s. supreme court on trial has it become too powerful for the good of the country? front page of "the new york times" -- bias in jobs and

housing. good morning welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. it is very interesting, all that for opinions. host: we try. caller: everybody has a right to get married. what you have to look at now is the next movement is whenever the people getting married of the same sex start adopting straight children. since life start at conception, and some people say that his life the child does not have legal rights until they reach the age of maturity. if you want to deny the right of the child to be adopted by a straight couple, or gay people. you have the right to marry whoever you want to marry. host: and would -- edqiwin have

has this. a couple book mentions that we want to share with you. number one is "the wright brothers," number three is bill o'reilly's book. there is also an article on the selfie vote. remember, you can check all of our programming on c-span two of booktv. coming out, dr. ezekiel emanuel will join us to talk about the affordable care act. later conservative columnist

and talk show, armstrong williams, will be here. he is the cousin of the slain pastor. he will also talk about the lessons of charleston, south carolina, and how the gop should respond. first, our "newsmakers" guest is julian castro. he talks about a number of issues including discriminatory housing, allowing people to sue using statistics, showing patterns of discrimination. [video clip] >> what it does do is it gives us certainty as we go forward with complaints that we can fully use this tool, and we will use it. i believe in using it, we will help ensure that people of

different backgrounds have the maturi opportunity that they ought to have. >> this is not about getting over discrimination. it is about getting at settler types of discrimination in zoning laws. can you give us a sense of how pervasive you think this all is not intentional discrimination is in the housing market in the united states? >> all of us remember, folks who were alive at the time, the overt discrimination they talk about. thankfully, that overt discrimination does not happen.

there is a legacy of discrimination that exists and policies that have the same affect. that is what this case is all about. this case was about how the state of texas allocated low income tax credit and essentially stacked more and more housing -- low income housing in low income areas, and those residents were mostly minorities. it may not have been intended to aggregate minorities together invalid low-income neighborhoods, was the effect. this tool gives us the opportunity to go to communities and say, look, this is the disturbance right -- discriminatory effect that your policy is happening, is there a reason you are doing it this way? host: are "newsmakers" program

follows the "washington journal. co. our guest this week is the secretary of housing and urban development. we want to welcome dr. ezekiel emanuel, and adviser to the president, works on before, and currently at the diversity of pennsylvania serving as feist provost -- vice provost. let's talk about the supreme court ruling. surprise? guest: i was not surprised. i sat in on the oil markets -- or arguments in march and predicted that it would be 6-3. i thought justice kennedy made clear his view, and i thought the it was a pretty clear decision based on the law. host: is scathing critique from justice scalia. guest: i thought it was a little

over-the-top. he said, read it, it is just the words. i thought in the world arguments, which has not been given enough attention, in the first five minutes, justice breyer made clear that this is like reading the tax code. a lot of these words are defined in the bill. you have to look at the way they are defined. he said this important phrase, such exchanges refers back to the state exchanges. i think that just from reading, the text was clear. justice roberts said, you have to read the bill in whole. if you read the bill in whole they want to improve the health care system and not undermine it. if they went with the plaintiffs, they would undermine

the system and it would collapse. it is also message to future lawsuits that we do not want clever technical arguments you have to be with the spirit of the bill to improve the health care system. host: the president said he thought this report court should not have taken up the case. guest: many said that they took it up prematurely because it was make its way through the circuit court. there was my view that it was premature. remember roberts asserted that the court will interpret these bills, it will not be a regulatory agency like the irs. that could be considered a grab of judicial power. host: is it significant that the chief justice wrote the opinion? guest: i think it was more significant that the decision was 6-3. when the chief justice rights, he does write the opinion.

i think he wants to make sure that his view is the one that holds. host: he brought back margaret versus madison. his point was the intent of the law. guest: right. he makes clear that you have to read it the bill in its entirety, you cannot focus on a single phrase. there are multiple sections where it is clear that congress is treating states who have not set up their exchanges equivalent to those that have. he is make it clear that courts can understand the bill in its entirety. remember jefferson's response which was he lights a result but he did not like how it got there by giving the courts the

power to review this legislation. you might say thathe same thing about this decision. host: our guest has authored, or edited, nearly a dozen books including, "reinventing american health care." he is affiliated with penn in philadelphia. our phone lines are open. we have a line set aside for those of you enrolled in the affordable care act. that number is (202) 748-8003. you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. join us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. or send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. is anything else on the affordable care act on the horizon? guest: cries there will be a

fault, i believe on various other aspects like an independent body that tries to keep health care costs under control if they go too far. i think the idea of the subsidies and exchanges is pretty secure. that is important. i think it will allow the health care system to focus on what is important now which is improving the quality of care, making sure it is high-quality, taking out bad actors and make them improve, and also keep cost under control. that is changing the way we deliver care and focuses in on keeping people healthy. i hope the big legal cases which are really a distraction are put aside, and we can focus

on these other important issues. they are imported for education. health care important for education? if we can keep see costs down, that gives states more cash flow for other things like education. host: before we get to calls the commons, when to go back to the of limitation and debate over the four look act. one of the arguments made by republicans is that this white house, very early on, never worked with republicans. democrats had a majority in the house and senate when president obama was elected in 2008 it is cannot read the -- you cannot write the past, but if you could go back, would you do anything differently? guest: the president was very

committed to bipartisan bill and worked tirelessly to get republican senators to sign on. you may remember the gang of six. olivia snow was pursued. i remarried very -- i remember very well that she sent requests for the bill. i had to make sure those things were in the bill. she did vote for the bill in committee, but when it got to the floor, did not. the notion that we have not worked with republicans is false . it is people not paying attention to what happened early on in 2009, between january and august, when congress went home for recess. that was a period of very intense working. you may ask what they never put

down on what they needed in the bill. i'm not sure that charges correct. there are certain things we could have done different way. i have written in my book about some of them. i think our communities and august 2009 was not the best. i think we could have done a much better job. that is when called with one home and got a tax on the affordable care act. i do not think we did a good job tried to explain what is in the efforte affordable care act to the american public. the idea that we have not worked with republicans is false. a person spent a lot of time trying to get republicans on the financial committee to come over. host: our guest is dr. sicu emmanuel, the younger brother of the mayor of chicago and white house chief of staff. guest: i am the older brother.

host: we will go to steve in chicago, speaking of the windy city. caller: dr. i did some homework for a gal. i think she is 50 years old. she lives on her husband's death benefit. she is a widow. she needed insurance. i did everything possible. we got her insurance just fine. the problem is her deductible is $6,000. i think i found one for $4000 but even the $4000 is the killer . is it anyway that this thing can be rectified down the road where these deductibles -- that is a huge problem for people.

the only other 1.i want to make is when you pass the bill, harry reid -- it passed under reconciliation, which i did not like. i will wait for your answer. thanks. guest: let's talk about the first issue which is the large adjustable's and high deductible plan. there is a growing sense of the country that we might have gotten too far out ahead of ourselves with the high divisible plans. one of the venture to -- one of the event of getting insurance is if you have a catastrophe stroke, cancer, the bills are in the thousands of dollars. you are protected from bankruptcy and losing your house, or whatever, to pay for medical care. on the other hand, $4000 for most americans is a lot of

money. if you have some serious health problems but not a disaster, it could still be a big pitch. i think that is something that will have to be faced over the next 3-4 years, how to keep the dirt of those -- deductibles down. a lot of employers have been shifting. their premiums have not been rising very high. nonetheless, they have been shifting more cost over to workers with these high deductible plans. i will tell you, i just recently signed up with my employer, the arrestee of -- university of pennsylvania, and they put $500 in an account so that i could pay off the deductible. for many people, those plans are a good deal because it brings your insurance bill down a fair amount of money.

and mike is over -- in my case over $100. that is the kind of trade-off. we do need to protect people. there are a variety of ideas of how to do that. drug coverage could be reasonable right out of the box, that is very one important method that we need to consider. host: our next caller is john, and enrollee in the affordable care act. caller: i like to try to explain this to you. when i enrolled in the affordable care act my premium was $75 a month. when they asked me how much i was going to make this year, i said i didn't know. so they base my premium on that.

so if i don't make what i said i was going to make, they want a subsidy back. they say that if you are making less than $30,000 a year, you're living in poverty. i'm making $20,000 a year, so we are living in poverty. so now i am in a catch-22. i am darned if i do and darned if i don't. guest: thank you. yes, mississippi is a problem in the issue of not expanding medicaid, and not allowing people to get insurance. we do need to bring pressure on states to expand medicaid. i have made a prediction that by the end of the decade, all states will expand. people need coverage, it is good

for the state. the federal government picks up so much of the bill for the expansion. the subsidies are links to your income and income can be hard to predict for many people from one year to the next. they don't know how much they're going to pay. people want to those subsidies to be fair. i think linking it to income does make it fair. in your case, i don't think he -- think that you are correct that $30,000 is the line for poverty. for a family of two, it is less than $23,000. i didn't get all of your income, and i don't want to broadcast that on tv. but for someone like yourself you will probably get a subsidy.

in mississippi, because the state has not expanded medicaid, that is not a possibility for you. host: a tweet from one of our viewers says, obamacare is here to state. republicans didn't want to work with obama on aca. guest: i think the narrative is going to change now. i don't think that in the 2016 election, i don't think it will be a big deal. one thing that we need to do is worry about the deductibles. it is about businesses, shifting things around it to make people more prudent. i think we will shift into health care reform 2.0. fix up some of the problems that the affordable care act didn't deal with and handle the unintended consequences. i think that health care,

because it is 18% of the gdp, it is a big issue. it is always going to be part of the mix. at the heat, rhetoric, intensity, those are going to be substantially diffused in the 2016 election. host: senator ted cruz says that the supreme court is lawless and he says that the supreme court -- their own oath. >> the obama health care law, regardless of the ruling continues to be an expensive failure. there have been so many broken promises by this president about health care in america. which to me is the reason that this health care law, the support of it across the country, remains at a low. people were promised that if

they liked their coverage, they could keep it. millions have lost it. the president promised that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. millions have lost their doctors. he said premiums will go down by 2500 -- 25 hundred dollars per family. instead, premiums have gone up. when i take a look at this, and ask why support is so low, it is because most people believe that for them personally, it is a bad deal. a have higher co-pays, higher deductibles, all of which makes it a bad deal for them personally. so i would say that obamacare cannot be fixed. that health care in america must be fixed. host: that was from the floor last thursday. your response? guest: first of all, let me make it clear.

republicans have had five years to offer an old alternative -- offer an alternative. they have never offered anything that covers all americans offers equal coverage, and handles health care costs. every replacement plan has been ruled by the congressional budget office or other people as costing more people, not covering all americans, it is all a misnomer. obamacare is actually doing several things for the budget. it is reducing the deficit. it has extended the life care -- the lifetime of the medicaid trust fund. it is not a lot of money and a failure. it has controlled health care costs. health care costs have been at extort -- at historic lows.

it is not that the premiums are going up, it is because the employer is shifting more of the responsibility to the workers. that is something that has to be addressed over the next five years. it is an issue that needs to be focused on. but employers can't take all the savings for themselves and make workers worse off. host: we mentioned this earlier we asked, is the doctor on obamacare? guest: no, i could not get on obamacare. it would be illegal. my employer offers health insurance. i am legally not permitted to be on obamacare. caller: on the independent line, good morning.

i think it should be extended. i look at it like this a liberal program in church republicans don't like liberal things. but the most successful thing that happened in the last 12 years was socialized banks. who created socialized banks? republicans. guest: if you look at health care, what has been popular? medicare was passed in 1965. many people opposed it, no one would want to take out medicare and abandon it. it has become part of the system. similarly, the affordable care act, many people opposed it. i believe that in 10 years time,

people will say it did expand coverage in this country. it has approved quality care -- has improved quality care. it has improved the system. it is not a perfect bill. no one who worked on it thinks it is a perfect bill. it is the b plus bill. our real challenge shall is to improve the bill and make sure that it helps the system improve the quality of care and lower costs. that is the big challenge. i would respectfully disagree. we are not going to eight single system. we have a very vibrant system. that is going to be the structure of it. whether we like it or not, we will focus on how we deliver care, not on how we pay for it. host: i want to mention our

guest, he has a long resume. he is currently at penn.. he serves as the chair of the ethics board. among his books, reinventing american health care. dave from pasadena, maryland. caller: good morning. you can put a whirlpool. , people like senator ted cruz -- you can put out a whirlpool of facts, but people like senator ted cruz are not going to change. i would like to take a quick victory lap for him.

i want to think the tea party for inventing the derisive phase , obamacare. and now it will forever be called obamacare. not the affordable care act. in perpetuity, that will be the name, thank you tea party. i guess you don't know because it usually like you always say you do. guest: we will see. i think again, in a decade, we will look back and say it did a major job in restructuring health care, and improved it in all sorts of ways. i think the important thing is that the american public will benefit and history will be on president obama's side. host: there was a phrase

referring to the affordable care act as this generation's social security. would you compare it to that? guest: it is more complicated then so social then -- obligated then social security -- complicated than social security. this bill reinvents the entire health care system. it tries to change it to make it much more positive. to keep people healthy. that is a much bigger risk. social security came in from something bad. the affordable care act came into 70% of the economy and try to change that. that is a much more complicated arrangement. social security is taking in some money and paying out some

money. that is much more complicated when it comes to hospitals, and how people pay. caller: thank you for having me on. for me, my health care prices went from $385 a month in premiums, along with about $1700 deductible for my family. my premium went up to $890 with $12,000 deductible. in order to make it affordable, we had to split our care between the two of us. my wife and i are on individual policies. so the deductible for an individual is $6,000. on a joint plan, we had a

$12,000 plan -- $12,000 deductible. ironically, the carrier that had the cheaper plan is the same carrier we had to go on and purchase the essentially, same policy. i recognize that there are differences. but there were differences that we didn't need, like maternity. that is my only comment. it is what happened to me. i just wanted to let you guys know, and the people listening. guest: i think this is an important issue. there are some people in the country, not a huge number, where they were able to get a very good deal in the old system. either because they were healthy, relatively well-off,

and insurance companies, because they could slice the market and charge higher rates to people who had pre-existing conditions they could charge low rates to people who were otherwise healthy. one of the benefits of the affordable care act is saying that you cannot do that to people. you cannot say that if you are sick, we will solve it to you -- we will sock it to you. people who were underinsured, one of the benefits of living in a community, it is that you might not need a particular service this minute, but other people do. we are all in a collective. some of the benefits that you got as part of the affordable care act is no deductible for

preventative services. which in previous insurers didn't have. there are other benefits for children, vision and dental care. it may be true that hugh at this status your life didn't need maternity care, but you may have needed it before. we recognize that we may not need some things, but other people will. and there are some things that you will need that other people won't. that is part of what an insurance pool needs. and you did benefit from many of the things in the affordable care act, as you yourself recognize. i think there are some people who got an extraordinarily good deal before by insurance companies slicing the market. but that was unfair then, and it

has to be fairer now. host: our topic is health care stemming from this week's supreme court decision. larry is joining us from florida. caller: hi. two things. i think the price rise has to do with two things. it has to do with insurances. if you are buying tomatoes, you see the price. you go to another store, you see cheaper, you can select. here, you say insurance, no one knows the price. it could be $1000, it could be $5,000.

that is why the price has risen. the second thing is medicare. you pay a little bit before your 're 55, and then a little bit when you are 65. if the price is controlled medicare could be profitable. you are supposed to pay for it. guest: i think you are absolutely right. the issue of price disparity is one of those issues that will become very important over the next few years. many people with high deductible plans are responsible for paying out-of-pocket, and as you point out, they don't know what the prices is. in health care price

transparency is only half the deal. you also need quality transparency. we are not quite there yet. over the next five years, this will be a major area where there is a big push to get more price transparency, especially on things where we can ensure that the quality is similar. like taking a ct scan or an mri scan. that is a place we are going to go, and people will demand that information. they are financially responsible for more of the health-care bill. you have to rush him one of the key points going forward. host: on our republican line, steve is next. caller: good morning. i am a physician, a hospital administrator, and formerly a

solo practitioner. i have a good grasp on this. i wonder as you enter the calculus of the initial plan, why not allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines? competition will reduce prices. that one step, is a simple step or at least it should be. why is that not part of the plan? guest: first of all, that is a major compromise that would be required by states. many states have state insurance boards. they have different responsibilities. in some states they can review premiums and negotiate them, and in other states they are much freer. states are jealous of those responsibilities and want to make sure that difference insurance plans -- that

different insurance plans meet the needs. i think that is why there hasn't been an attempt for federal government to force an agreement. they are not willing to be forced into that situation. any state could say that they are willing to accept any insurance plan from any other state. but they are not keen on it. we need more skeletal plans rather than by creating competition for delivery. right now we need to focus on making sure hospitals are more efficient, and doctors need to be more efficient.

we need to keep people healthy and stopping to provide unnecessary services. host: we are getting a lot of tweets on jonathan gruber. the economist had a bigger role in the development of health care. -- of health law. guest: absolutely. his responsibilities were limited. he ran a model of trying to predict if you changed insurance premiums deductibles, what would be the costs to the states? that was his main role. as far as the conversation for how much to include in this and that, that was not his role. he had a model. his model was very good.

they developed a model to predict, and our use of jonathan gruber went down after that. he did not have a major influence. he ran it to make sure we understood what we were doing. he was not involved in policies. host: we go to alan, in las vegas. caller: good morning. i wanted to say thank you to everybody, because without expanded medicare, i was not eligible for treatment. i found out i was hepatitis c positive and was able to get treatment. at that point, it is hard to find coverage. he is leaving and going back to

practice medicine in europe -- but i can't thank everybody enough. that saved my life. guest: this is the reaction for providing health care to everyone. everyone needs it. we don't know what illnesses we have. high blood pressure or hepatitis c, they don't produce symptoms but they have long-term effects. i think that was a big incentive for the president to make sure that everybody could get the health care that they needed to have their lives saved from these illnesses. it is a major victory, as you point out. it doesn't mean it is without frustrations. our health care system is the size of the economy of france. we are going to have friction and problems, and the big issue

going forward is to solve those problems methodically and to improve the system. it is no mystery to everyone in the system that we have problems. but as your story indicates, we have tremendous victories from the affordable care act. host: and, you are on the line with dr. ezekiel emanuel. caller: hi, i have been taking care of my senior parents. my father passed recently. my parents were very blue-collar. they never asked for anything from the state. they went through their savings while they were in the nursing home. now my mom is on a set pension. she is on a plan called past --

i just took her to her doctor, and through this agency, she was switched from traditional medicare, she was switched to a new medicare be/medicaid mix which her doctor doesn't offer. i wish c-span would do a program on seniors to help us be informed more. because now she is required to switch doctors. do you think we will see what keith olbermann referred to as medicare for everyone? and what are the administrative costs for the doctor's offices to deal with different insurance companies? i think it was 50%-20%. guest: i don't think we will get

medicare for everyone. the insurance companies are not going to let that happen. we have a democracy, it a lot of players can influence that decision. i don't see that happening in the future. i do think administrative costs are high and complex. i see them coming down over time. part of the reason they are high is because people have to negotiate deals with different insurance companies. one of the issues of one of the plans was for administrative some, but there is a lot more that we could have that would substantially reduce costs. there are upwards of $20 billion

per year that could be saved by simple vacation of the billing process. that is a major area to look for savings over time. host: one of our viewers is saying that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, he referred to the president as a liar. guest: i was in the room for that, and in most of these cases, it is not the affordable care act doing that. it is insurance companies deciding to not use certain products and changing the insurance. the affordable care act did not force them. everything was ran fathered in if they didn't offer it. but they said it was a dying market, they want to get out of that part of the market. they want to use a growing part of the market. that is why people have to change their doctors.

it is because of insurance companies, not because of the affordable care act saying that you have to change your doctor. that is not a fair criticism of the bill. host: dan is joining us from oregon, up early. caller: yes i am a lower-middle class individual. i used to have the cadillac plans. for 40 years, i paid no premiums and just about 100% of every doctor visit that i had was paid for. once obamacare kickstand -- obamacare kicked in, my deductibles aren't being met.

so i understand what we have done for 2% of the population. i'm curious as to how it benefits the other 98% of the population. guest: expanded coverage has gotten more that -- gotten more people into the system. it has done good things for people on medicare. drug costs are being taken over. the doughnut hole is going to be shrinking by the end of the decade. preventative services have no deductibles or co-pays. you were one of the people who had a super deluxe cadillac plan. but for most americans, your benefits were not what they were experiencing. we have had low health care

inflation over the last five years. some substantial portion of that is the affordable care act. that has been a big benefit for many people. insurance rates that had been skyrocketing have been moderated. so for most people in this country, it has been a big benefit. again, you had a super deluxe plan. that was not the norm, not at all. that kind of plan is not the standard. you cannot say that 98% of the public look like you. you were the opposite. you were the 2%. plus, now knowing that if you were unemployed or if you had a serious injury or illness, you still have coverage. host: our guest is the chair of

the department of medical ethics at the university of pennsylvania. he is a senior adviser to the president on the affordable care act. he is the author of, reinventing american health care. thank you for being with us, dr. ezekiel emanuel. guest: it was my pleasure. host: stick around for armstrong williams on race relations in the united states, and the killings of those nine individuals at the ame church, including because in of armstrong williams, the pastor. and later, he served as a one-time advisor to the president, when washington journal is back.

♪ >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe that most of these people who are examining should be on the couch themselves. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they have i contact or a firm handshake. i try to listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking.

>> one of the many tragedies of richard nixon is that he wasn't self-aware. there are endless ironies. richard nixon had a psychiatrist. his doctors said he was careful -- his doctor said he was careful not to psychoanalyze nixon. he gave him mild there be. but nixon -- he gave him mild therapy. but nixon hated therapists. he said he didn't carry grudges. but he was one of the greatest carriers of grudges of all time. and that has hurt him, because lashing out at enemies is what hurt him. >> we talk about the defeats

that destroyed richard nixon tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back armstrong williams, the television host, columnist and over the last few days, he has been talking about the personal loss. guest: pastor clementa pinckney was my cousin. his parents and my parents grew up across cornfields from each other. my brother was a colleague of clementa pinckney.

they were very close. the stevenson's, the williams the howard's. host: you were in charleston on friday as president obama delivered the eulogy. guest: i was moved by the president singing "amazing grace." you could tell it was not planned. it was so emotional that he got lost in the moment. he did not have to do that, he did not have the best voice, he didn't plan it. the way the bishops rows behind him --rose behind him. it was so moving.

he reminded us of what the church has meant to not just the black community, all people, especially the black people. the church was the place when they could go find comfort and strength. it was a place of refuge for them. the president reminded them of that. it was profound. host: this has led to a renewed debate over the confederate flag and what it represents. are you surprised by how fast things have changed? guest: including myself, i have not always advocated for the flag coming down. my attitude was that the flag didn't come down off that whole because of the attack on those nine innocent lives.

we must realize the messages of those symbols they can do wonderful things and they can do things that lead to terror. we all need to revisit that flag, no matter what it may have meant in the past. on a historical note, the confederates lost the war. when you lose a war, you don't usually get the right to continue to display your relic. they usually end up in a museum. when they asked robert e lee if he wanted to be buried and his confederate rick alia -- confederate outfit, he said no, it would be illegal. host: there is a picture in an

article by bruce levine, it shows the picture of the confederate flag. his point is that the flag was always racist. modern-day racists are not displaying their meeting. guest: it was their economic engine. obviously it was a symbol of slavery. but you would think that more than 200 years removed from that, that americans would overcome slavery to segregation to the civil rights movement to the terrorist attack on the church. you would think that the hearts and minds would be able to see what it has brought on this country. but the terrorist has reminded young people, people who are

removed from this, they have reminded people of this kind of thought. you have to wonder what his parents and community put into his head and learning. if there is one, there is more. anyone can pour hatred and bigotry, and superiority into their children. we must all look back on ourselves and our children and ask what we say to our children when no one else is listening. ultimately, they become who we are. this can lead to the kind of terrorist attack on, not just a black church, but any church in america. this is an awakening. we do need a conversation.

for me, it doesn't matter how much i have invested in my ideology the loss of lives show us that i am one to abandon my ideology. because it is a fact that race still exists in america. we need to talk about it. host: our guest is armstrong williams, our phone lines are open. but first, more from the president as the service took place in front of more than 6000 people. president obama: for too long, we were blind. the confederate flag stared at too many of our citizens. [applause]

it is to a flag did not cause these murders. but as people from all walks of life, republicans and democrats now it knowledge -- now acknowledge the flag has always represented more than just ancestral -- ancestral pride. [applause] for many, black and white, that flag was a reminder of systemic

oppression. and racial subjugation. we see that now. removing the flag from the state capital would not be an active political correctness, it would not be an insult to the valor of confederate soldiers, it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought the cause of slavery, it was wrong. [applause] host: armstrong williams, as you hear the president again, your response? guest: it is an important message. i know some people may see it as political. but this is what the president believes.

it is what the people wanted to hear. but i think with removing the flag, with all that the president spoke about it is one thing about our family. we knew who we were. we knew we were descendents. we knew what our family stood for. we knew that they did not expect us to have children unless we could take care of them. they expected us to have a good education. they expected us to have good communities. the expected us to carry ourselves like gentlemen. they expect us to embrace morals . they expected us not to judge people by the color of their skin, but by their content, they really believed what martin luther king stood for.

and so because of that, many of us became contributing citizens to our environment. and many times, if children grow up feeling worthless, they will go out hearing names that they were called by parents, into places where though names -- where those names are reinforced. so when we instill the self-worth in people, self-worth and self dignity, even the bloodstain of racism can't alter you from achieving and accomplishing all those things. self-respect, discipline, hard work sacrifice, all of those things must be integrated. host: you cover the table as a critic of the president on some

of his policies. guest: i voted for the president. it was something very important. it was history. i did not want to close my eyes when that day came and realize that i did not vote for history. it is about the fact that we have had a country when every other president was white. you're not going to convince me that they are all qualified, or that they were the best that the country had to offer. i come from a belief system as a business owner and as an entrepreneur, i don't necessarily agree with the president's policies on things. the second time around, i voted on my belief system.

i voted with my pocketbook. i voted what i thought was best for the country, and i didn't see that in the president. host: let's hear from larry and washington d.c.. you are on the line with armstrong williams. caller: good morning. we in america, we are facing a dangerous situation. the incident that happened in charleston s.c.. we look at the physical, but there is a spiritual realm. when that man stated what he wanted to do, it was going to happen. we are looking at a racial meltdown, it will affect the entire world. this is a dangerous situation. there is racism on all sides. there are white racists, black

racists, american indian racists. it is a spiritual problem. we are heading towards a race war. guest: it is an illness that is infecting the country. you never know how it will play out. i had a chance to walk through my hometown where i have buried my father and grandfather. you would have been shocked to see people black, white, old young, they all help professionals -- held professionalsprocessionals. they let us know that they were moved by this. they let us know that they

were going to be better about their children. and let me tell you, if that is the price that we have to pay if something good came out of that then all nine have not been in vain. host: the democrat line, in virginia. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a few comments. the confederate flag is a philosophy. historically to black people in the world who were enslaved through the middle passage, 100 million of us died for slavery.

that was in america and england. so -- supports the democracy that we live in. it needs to be changed. we are still at the bottom of the totem pole. america is the richest country in the world, and has the largest incarceration rate of african-americans. guest: american blacks are not at the bottom of the barrel. what we so often see in the media is sometimes the worst portrayal of african-american life. there are so many young people

that make incredible contributions to this country. and the parents, many of them are still married to the same spouse for a long time, but they are not highlighted. the media has a role in what is being enforced. if you don't see the good images, the good things that they do, those things are reinforced in what people believe and what people become. in that, racism does exist. if racism did not exist, i would be so bold to say that in terms of the situations people find themselves in, not much would drastically change. it is about the choices that people make. it is how they take advantage of opportunities. it is how much they're willing to sacrifice. about passing on a legacy of

greatness, sometimes we falter on this. host: mrs. henry from michigan on the independent line. -- this is henry from michigan on the independent line. caller: good morning. the confederate flag was a battle flag. the civil war didn't start over slavery. not until 1863 when lincoln brought it in. there flag that they were flying over -- the flag that they were flying over was actually a battle flag. now the american flag, they started slavery under that.

even today, the flag is still there. nobody is saying anything about the united states flag. but the war memorial flag that americans died under the south they were still americans. and if you read the speech of lincoln at gettysburg, he recognized the southern soldiers as much as he recognized the northern soldiers. host: thank you for the call. guest: the feelings of our founders show that they did not realize that under moral leadership that we were all created equal. when you put in place certain policies, it makes some people better than others. it is a long process.

there is no one but themselves to blame. that is why that today there is no sort of substitute for morality, for right and wrong. you must understand that slavery was wrong. you introduce the fact that it was because of the color of their skin. but we must be better than our founding brothers. we must find that race doesn't matter unless we allow it to matter. you cannot hate or reward someone, based on race. we must realize that as martin luther king said, a man and woman should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. host: armstrong williams, he can

be held weekdays on xm radio. he is also seen on wjla here in washington. you began working with senator strom thurmond. his son is now fighting to take the flag which is in irony to his father's policies. guest: yes, but i must say that i'm a proud graduate of a historically diversity. yes, the state senators spoke about the flag, and he gave a

profound argument as to why it should be taken down. listen, it is hard to argue with. people want to continue discussing what the flag really means. but unfortunately, the content of america has been released and there is nowhere looking back. everyone is being touched by the massacre. no one can imagine that in the most sacred place of our lives and everyone knows that on a wednesday, you won't find many people, so for him to show up and find the love. and for him to say that he almost changed his mind, that for his consciousness to be so dead that when he saw the best

of humanity in that place it was still not enough for him to stop. and still. those families have forgiven them -- forgiven him. he has not asked for forgiveness. he has not said he was sorry. what kind of human being is this? caller: good morning. i am so glad to be able to speak to armstrong williams. i am an african american woman. i am so glad to have the opportunity to talk to you. i want to agree with you on two points. when you talked about the media showing negative images of african-americans, and not all the positive lives that we see in our communities. i also want to mention the part about how important it is for parents, especially african-americans, to teach hard work and self-respect. i'm concerned that too many

african-americans are embracing the freedom that we have, and that is wonderful, and they get to dress and say how they want but i am concerned that we are losing those values about how we, as african-americans project ourselves. should we have to have these restraints? no, from a freedom standpoint, we shouldn't. but i'm afraid that we are not holding onto the need to say that there are positive images. and if we don't protect those then the images that you see out there are going to be what people think about african-americans. thank you so much. host: thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. guest: this country should

demand that the music industry take the hate, bashing of women the use of the n-word the use of things that don't promote self value, we should demand that they change the music that these rap artists put out that is detrimental to all communities. because some of these young men grew up without fathers and these rap artists becomes their father images. it is confusing them and turning them away from their moral compass. and families across the board should demand better music and better values in this music so it will enhance our culture. so we don't go to the sewer, we go to the highest point area because whether you like it or

not, it is important to them. and they played out in their lives. host: guest: we discussed this. he used it as a reference. i did not feel he should have but i was tired this -- i have never in my life used to the "n" word. i have never in my life used one wanted profanity ever because i never heard it among my mother and father. they sought as profane disrespectful, and crude. the bottom line is, i understood what the president was trying to do but i would have preferred that it did not come from the president of the united states. host: bernard is next, st. petersburg, florida. democrat dr. ezekiel emanuel. caller: you just had a gentleman, and he stuck about

the war between the races. this is the same attitude that drove the in man to go into that church. this in my net 21-year-old, i wish you would have spent more time with him because that same spirit is still out there amongst people. what kind of grace -- the only one we should have is over against evil. guest: absolutely. there is no black humanity there is no white humanity. there is humanity. and a part of all of us dies and suppers watching the unnecessary death of those nine families. i think people are beginning to realize that people do not kill because they are black and white. they killed because of behavior and ideals. we've got to change that. we've got to communicate and uplift each other. i was so moved in charleston on friday how strangers just walked up to people coming out of the church and they were teary-eyed and hug them and said, i am here are you. something has awakened in them and maybe there is a real

beginning in this country that is necessary. if you noticed in charleston unlike other places that have been in turmoil, no hate, no violence, no protest, no burning down communities. the south is a special. i am so proud to be a son of the south. people like to denigrate the south, laugh at us, but there was a special bond among people. we understand each other, we respect each other, and we know each other. and i will type, and i believe this, had this been any other place in this country, i am afraid of what would have happened. the south sets an example of people coming together, fighting the greater good, finding the meaning of this tragedy and uplifting this country to its highest height. host: among the books by our guest, "useful idiots: how democrats got it wrong in the cold war." let's go to blake in alabama.

good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a big admirer of mr. armstrong. i heard them on radios before. mr. williams, what you just said about the people in south carolina and the south is one of the things that stuck with me that i actually saw the power of christianity when one of the most difficult circumstances that any of us will have faced killing, and then for people to stand up and or give the killer invoked such an emotion among even the ardent supporters of the confederate flag that everybody said, we have to bring the flag down. and i have a different view of this president. i don't have any admiration for the way he acted following the shooting. i know you have it.

he invoked the "n" word like you were talking about and i did not really all of his statement, but he was enticing antagonistic views and he was rescued by your people in the church and the way they reacted after the killing. he had an option, the president, to join the church when he was in chicago. i am sure there were churches like our churches, but he chose reverend wright of it there. he had a choice to react after shootings like this in fort hood , which was also inspired by hate and symbolism was there. islamic symbolism, arabic symbolism, and he said he suggested violence. if this president was a rescued by your people, you should be proud of it. i am proud of your people and this president should not be given any credit whatever happened friday.

he just rolled on the way he saw just like any other astute politician. guest: he is the president of the united states. he realized the significance of that moment. in front of global -- he brought global attention to it by coming to get that eulogy and made a national day of mourning. he gave us time and you could see the hands of god working on the president. you could just see amazing grace working on the president. and we all are working progress and the president is no different. i will tell you that our family was very proud and thankful that the president found the time to come and mourn with us. not only the loss of our loved one but the eight others who died also. host: laura following up on an earlier point saying that the grace of those families embracing forgiveness is breathtaking. that's good to in baltimore.

good morning. caller: good morning gentlemen. good morning, mr. williams. on behalf of my confederate ancestors, i would like to support the continuing fly of the flag. we have always said this is not just about the flag. we have become an american taliban in this country. we have had people call for the taking down of stained glass in churches with the picture of robert e. lel ate the national cathedral and the digging up of grades of others in tennessee. we have had people in new orleans company destructions of monuments put up hundreds of years ago. we have created a reign of terror this week. a taliban to do these kinds of terrible things. they are recognized as veterans. we can have their graves marked with tombstones supplied by the united states government. we can debate the causes of the war and slavery and that sort of thing, but this is just wrong. guest: you know, i appreciate

the caller because many people are hurting and impacted by this. love the color feels strongly by it, and there is political correctness that is in play and there are those in this country who would take this to unknown limits -- it would be unlimited but they would want to do but the good thing is american people are fair. the american people understand that the confederate, no matter whether or not they were on the wrong side of the war not they are still part of this nation and our fabric and reminds us of who we are. when the smoke clears, we will find how to deal with these confederate symbols versus what teachers talk about. i think our governor of south carolina nikki haley set the right tone. remember, they were -- senator lindsey graham and senator tim scott got there.

because you could see something deeper moving in this country. i think when it is outside and then, the confederates will still be proud of their legacy and all the relics people talk about removing, many of those things will remain in place. i think the main issue right now is the flight. host: your role of the carson campaign, let's go to kevin in watertown, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing, mr. williams? guest: fine. caller: you are conspiring. i was very inspired. i never called him before. i'm a small business owner. i am obviously white but that is not my people. my people are business people. we are part of everybody. i like the things you said about people need to get up and do what they need to do to survive. and take charge of their own lives and their futures. it is just not there anymore. as a small businessman you get

stepped on. i have never taken a dime from the government. we pay our taxes. we do our jobs. i even part of the machinery deals national association which is a government not funded organization. that is what we do for our business. but this country, we are back and forth on race to race is ridiculous. you either do or you don't do. i got that impression we've got that spark inside of you lit up when you were talking and it's impressive. i stand behind you. i don't want to say -- you are inspiring. t y very much for saying the things you say and i hope that our children, and my youngest water is 17 and will graduate that we are down in virginia because he came on a fishing trip between her junior and

senior year, so we came down to do some cap fishing, but that is what i like to do. i like to hunt fish. i do have guns. i do not carry a gun, i do not want to shoot anybody. i do not like they were shooting last two, so i left. that is not what i am therefore. what happens to the people like us with the values and the desire to really want to do something in life because you want to leave step for your children and you kind of sad that. i got to say that you have sparked an inspiration inside me. host: kevin, t y very much by the call and we will get a response. guest: our parents raised a flock of children and my mother and father did a tremendous job. my mother's children in that we have an elected big brother who serves the community serves the state. and i have brothers who are

entrepreneurs. i have my sister mary who is a social worker. what we learned from our parents is that the best and worst that happens to us has to do with the choices we make every day. no one owes you a living. you are not entitled to anything. we are born in between that and we die. in between we have to do hard work and have self-discipline and self-respect. i believe if you work hard and sacrifice and continue your education and know how to treat people, you find the humble way and believe in god and try to serve and give back, that the lord will bless you. my brothers and sisters do not stray away from those values just like clementa. we know who we are. we are the descendents. many kids today have no identity, no self-worth, no belief system and they are lost in the wilderness. host: deborah is next jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, why was the young men treated so different

when they captured him? they do not throw him on the ground nor did they ask him to get on the ground. there were no knees in the back of his neck and then he was flown on a private check back to south carolina. i just do not understand why was he treated so special when most black men, if they knew he had a weapon, most black men would be dropped to the ground. and then you see three or four officers on his lack. i don't understand why he was treated so different. guest: you know, i have heard this argument. every situation is different. they handcuffed him. you know when it comes to forgiveness and when it comes -- we cannot -- i would not want the cops to don't him to the ground and stomp on him. i would not one that. i would want him to see the best

of humanity. i would want him to see that life is not going to treat him the way he treated others but i will say this -- he should be executed. he committed a horrible, horrific sin. he should pay the price and the governor of south carolina has asked for the death penalty. and i think he should go through the process because all of us are innocent until proven guilty, but there is no question he has admitted his health. let him go to the process and let them set the date because there is no about -- there was no doubt he will be found guilty. and the price of his same should be at execution. host: headline -- republicans still do not care about black people come a why did you appease racist history is a piece and i much of this because you are involved in the ben carson campaign, and african-american running for president. guest: i am his business manager and advisor for a long time but no involvement in the campaign. but he is my very good friend.

host: are you supporting him? guest: of course i am. i am always supporting him, so why would i stop now? he is a good man, i know him. ben carson has spoken eloquently on the issue of race. it is racism. it is so easy to say that republicans are racist, but let me tell you -- you can find racists anywhere. it isn't a person's heart not the party label they were and i do know the republican party that has made great strides, especially on every level to reach out and heal the wounds in these communities. get what senator rand paul did who was also a presidential candidate. he is one of the first people who called for a visit for what it was. he was praised by the civil rights movement. there are more people like rand paul and others in this part that stand firm on these issues. if people choose to listen and hear what they are saying. host: if he got the nomination? guest: it is not about if you can get the nomination, that

depends on the american people. it is a wonderful thing that so many people have decided to put their hands in the ring because they care about this country. they make incredible sacrifices. the american people, especially in the gop, are looking for the right ones i can move this country forward. dr. carson, like everyone else, has turned that vote, or that respect, and in the end it is we the people who decide who the nominee is and who the next president will be sworn in in 2017. host: our condolences on the loss of your cousin. armstrong williams too wide for being with us and sharing your thoughts. we are going to take a short break am only come back, we will turn the conversation to negotiations in vienna, austria. gary seymore, a former advisor to the president, will be joining us from boston and we will get the very latest was following the story. she and listening to c-span's

"washington journal" on this sunday morning. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> next the all congress is out american history tv is on prime time on c-span3. featuring a different history topic each night. monday, the manhattan project the production of the first nuclear weapon during world war ii. tuesday, a symposium on the 1955 debate between james baldwin and william f buckley junior about the american dream. wednesday, highlights of our 2015 c-span's city tour. thursday, examined the text of the declaration of independence and efforts beyond preserving the original document. friday, we are in yorktown virginia, to cover the reckoning -- the welcoming ceremony of the ship that brought representative

lafayette to america in 1780. watch our special primetime edition of american history tv starting monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. two in every week and as we tell america story on american history tv from c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston is gary samore. serving from 2009-2013. now associate with harvard university and joining us from boston. thank you very much for being with us. this is the headline -- sectors that kerry in vienna austria and he tries to hammer out a deal with his counterpart from iran. the deadline is tuesday. this is a self-imposed deadline, will it be met? guest: no, it will not be met. no one expects it to be met. the goal is to complete the agreement in early july. in particular, they are aiming for july five or six.

which would allow them to submit all the paperwork for congressional review by july 9. and i would ensure a 30 day congressional review. if they miss that deadline, the july 19, and the congressional review becomes 60 days. so the administration would prefer shorter review if they can get it. host: what are the biggest stumbling blocks? guest: you are really five or six issues. i think the most important is that verification and enforcement mechanism for the agreement. in particular, the p5+1 would like to set up a mechanism to allow for inspections by the international atomic agency of any suspect site in iran including potentially military facilities. or other sensitive facilities. and we also, the p5+1 are also demanding that the iaea be given

the authority to interview iranian scientists as part of their investigation of past weaponization activities. so far, supreme leader has said publicly that that is a red line. no military facilities will be subjected with inspection and a scientist will be interrogated as he puts it. this issue will have to be resolved before an agreement is possible. host: at washington post.com, the headline -- ask secretary kerry begins the final round of negotiations on iran nuclear talks, joining us live on the phone from bn is, relative who was following the story from austria. thank you very much for being with us on a busy morning for you. guest: thank you. host: you point out the story that there still seems to be a to fight between the u.s. and iran. you are hearing that from the iranian foreign minister. what you can you tell us today? guest: well, the u.s. acknowledged about half an hour

ago. it is unlikely they are going to make the headline of june 30 and they are already planning to stay for what they say will be a few days longer beyond that. a say they have made a little bit of progress, but that they can issues that divided them are still there. the issues are sort of those and seem to rub off around the timing of the sanctions release and the pace it will be at. and the other big issue is access to these military sites. at military and all sides, not only military sites, excuse me. there is a difference in interpretation from the agreement. they have gone back and they are still tinkering with what they thought he had agreed on back in august, back on august 2. they still have a lot of work ahead of them and it is not

clear that they are going to be able to accomplish anything in the next couple of three days. nothing is evident. foreign minister is headed back to iran to an expected to come back tomorrow. host: carol morello, congress is out this week but if they continue for a couple of days, does that pose political pressure for the administration? how long can they continue these talks before lawmakers in washington, one week from now, will begin to wane publicly? guest: july 9 is basically the practical political deadline they are facing. that is when they have to send an agreement with all of the annexes to congress for a 30 day review period. as a comes in after that, that review period extends to 30 days and that prevents -- and that

poses political problems for them. [indiscernible] host: did the secretary of state's injury to his broken leg hamper these negotiations in any way? guest: the state department says no. they continue to have phone conversations and he was actively engaged in them. so much of these talks seem to revolve around the personal working relationship that has developed between secretary kerry and foreign minister sharif. it is hard to believe that it has not had some effect, even if it is a small one. and that may be why they are taking a few extra days to catch up. they only arrived late friday night. host: a sense of copies talks are taken place, you point out in your story in "the washington post," prime minister sure he passes on chronic back problems and that has some impact on the length as they sit down and try

to hammer out the details, correct? guest: that is correct. also, the head of the iranian atomic energy -- energy agency was sidelined. he was hospitalized last month with a perforated bowel and is still recovering, so he is only produce in these talks by telephone. host: carol morello is covering this story for "the washington post." you have always been gracious for this time, especially during busy negotiations. inc. so much for being with us. guest: thank you. host: you can read her story inside the paper. we are rejoined by gary samore. can you go through the framework of what the p5+1 and iran are dealing with? guest: back in april, they announced the basic parameters of an agreement. i would say there are three pieces of that. first, there are physical limits to iran's ability to produce

material for nuclear weapons. that is separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium. there are different limits in terms of how much i meant have to reduce its capacity and for how long the limits persisted. second part of the agreement is that inspection and monitoring system. how you verified the agreement to ensure that iran is complying. and that word piece is sanctions were leaked which is what iran gets out of this deal. and that has to do with which sanctions are lifted at what point. keep in mind, there is a very complicated tangle of sanctions that have been imposed on iran. there are u.s. sanctions, sanctions the european union and the human security sanctions. in particular, in the case of the u.s. we have a very broad range of sanctions against iran. only some of which will be lifted. the nuclear related sanctions.

even after those sanctions have been waived or lifted, we still have numerous sanctions against iran for reasons that have to do with human rights or support for terrorism and so forth. one of the complicated issues here is exactly coming up with the precise language and formulation for which sanctions will be lifted and which will be kept in place. obvious he, the iranians have a very strong interest in having that defined because they worry that even if we lived some sanctions, we may reimpose others. in which case, the benefit for iran of accepting limits and constraints on their nuclear program would be lost. host: area code is 748-8000 14 republicans and 202-7 48-8000 four democrats. you can send us a tweet. we are talking about the deadline tuesday for the u.s. and european leaders to come to an agreement with iran. gary samore, i want to get your

reaction to this from iran's supreme leader on the nuclear deal. he said "freezing iran's research and development for a long time, like 10 or 12 years is not acceptable. all financial and economic sanctions imposed by the un security council, the u.s. congress or the u.s. government should be lifted it when we sign and nuclear agreement." this response to this statement from john kerry last wednesday -- john: what matters to us is what is agreed upon within the four corners of a document. and that is what is yet to be determined, so it may be that the iranians will not fill out which case they will not be an agreement. and i have consistently said that this will be determined in

the last days by whether or not the outstanding issues that we have been very clear about are in fact addressed. if they are not addressed, they will not be a deal. host: ask secretary of state last wednesday. your reaction. guest: we have seen this behavior before. last summer when they -- when the negotiators were facing a deadline, the supreme leader gave a speech where he laid out what he called red lines, which were unacceptable to be united states. that delayed an agreement but months later, the iranians compromised in a way that we could accept. this may very well be the same thing. the supreme leader may be making these statements and red lines in order to strengthen the bargaining position of his negotiators, but if iran really wants an agreement, they will have to compromise because the

position that he announced earlier this week are unacceptable to the u.s. and other negotiating countries. host: our guest is that executive director -- director for research at the beaufort for -- center for science and he is also a nonresident senior fellow at brookings and the president of united against a nuclear iran. william is joining us from kentucky. good morning. caller: my comment is -- and i know i don't know all of what is going on with negotiations, but if i was iran, what i would say is i would agree wholeheartedly to everything you are requiring. if you abide by the same thing. host: we will get a response. to -- thank you, sir. guest: yes sometimes the iranians have said it is unfair that they are being required to forego the development of nuclear weapons at the same time

the u.s. and many of the other countries involved in these negotiations, u.k., france russia china, they have very large nuclear weapons. and that is not under discussion, but that is the nature of this negotiation under the international treaty that governs nuclear weapons, iran has made a treaty commitment not to develop nuclear weapons and the negotiations are about making sure that iran complies with what it claims to be its own policy of not pursuing nuclear weapons. a separate issue is dealing with the efforts to disarm countries that already have nuclear weapons on including the united states. of course, there has been some progress in that area. in particular between the u.s. and russia, very dramatic reductions since the cold war. but the process of achieving complete nuclear disarmament meaning that all countries have

nuclear weapons would have to get them up, not just the five permanent members of the security council but israel, pakistan, india, that will take many many years and that is really beyond the scope of this negotiation with iran. host: ask somebody who once advised the white house on this issue, this white house, your biggest concern is what? guest: i think the biggest concern is stopping iran from building nuclear weapons. we have very good reason to believe that iran is seeking a nuclear weapons capability. they somewhat than 20 years of their activity, including much of its secrets. the president, i think, correctly understands that if iran acquires nuclear weapons or even the option to produce nuclear weapons, that would pose a very significant security threat to the united states and to our allies and partners in the region. the purpose of this negotiation is to prevent iran or at least delay for a long period of time

iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. host: which is what 20 irvine says in this suite -- the delay favors iran. they work on a bomb while getting sanctions lifted. they will sign, get the lifted and charlie have a bomb. guest: it is to make it impossible for them to work on a bomb all the agreement is in place because the agreement includes a range of verification and monitoring measures that go beyond the normal safeguards of the iaea. of course, you cannot be 100% confident that these additional verifications and monitoring measures will work. we know from the past that iran tries to cheat and carry out activities and secrets. whatever inspection system is put in place under the agreement , will continue to need u.s. and other intelligence agencies will need to continue to monitor and collect information about iran.

the combination of intelligence and inspection works properly, then iran will not be able to secretly pursue a nuclear weapon while complying with the agreement. host: greg, good morning to you from midlothian, virginia. independent line with gary samore. you are next. caller: good morning. i have one comment in one question. who is to say that even if they come up with a deal that israel is not going to back independently from the u.s. and except that same deal somewhere down the line? secondly if they are deciding they are not going to accept inspections, why do we continue to negotiate? it seems like it is a one-sided, privily -- pretty heavily weighted on iranian sigh wouldn't it be better to walk with from the table now instead of continuing on these negotiations?

it is sending them a message, a strong message, that you are going to have to come back to the table with some kind of reasonable position. host: thank you, we will get a response. guest: thank you, greg. those are both excellent questions and comments. when israel, prime minister netanyahu has made it very clear that he does not accept the agreement that is emerging. he does not think it does and up to constrain and reduce iran's nuclear program. he has made it clear, continue to make clear that he does not consider israel to be bound by the agreement. as a practical matter, i think it is very unlikely that israel would carry out a military attack if the agreement is reached and implemented. at the same time, if iran were to be found in noncompliance or to renege on the agreement in the future, then i think israel

was feel more free to carry out a military strike if it had to. on your second question, the reason why we are continuing to stay at the negotiating table and to be patient even though this is a very long and frustrating negotiation is because under the current interim agreement, which was reached back in late 2013, iran has rosen most of its nuclear activity -- has frozen most of its nuclear activities and we have kept most of the sanctions in place. under the interim agreement, we actually benefit, in my view from a prolonged negotiation because we are achieving our objective of slowing down their program while at the same time continuing to inflect economic punishment on their economy. i think the iranians are actually at a disadvantage as this negotiation is carried out for months and months because

they are not getting any major economic relief and at the same time, their program is frozen. i think the administration is right to be patient, take its time, continue to negotiate through summer if that is what is necessary to get an acceptable agreement. host: our guest gary samore joining us from boston. the coordinator for armed control and weapons of mass destruction. we are focusing on the negotiations now underway in the vienna, austria. tuesday is the deadline but as we heard, that deadline is not expected to be met. we have aligned set aside for those of you watching and listening outside the united states -- 202-748-8003. ipo lines are divided for democrats, republicans, and independence. those are on the bottom of the screen. this week from john saying to the young people of iran with the negotiations to go forward? how would you respond?

guest: well, keep in mind that the people of iran are divided by class and it is to be just like the rest of society, so i don't think you can categorize young people in a simple way. but i do think there was a large segment of young people in iran who are -- many of them speak english, they have had some western education or higher education, and i do think among those people there is a desire for an agreement that would and iran's isolation, create new openings for contacts with the united states and with western countries. the supreme leader how many -- leader is very aware of that sentiment. i think he is concerned that improved relations between iran and the west will actually end up undermining the ideological support and legitimacy for the current government which of course is a deficit. based on shia islam.

the same time the supreme leader has two respond to some extent to pressure for change and reform and opening. he also is very worried about that and will try to contain it even in the context of an agreement. host: from colorado, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this nuclear deal, i don't think there is much accountability in what iran says. i know all about the nuclear -- the world like nuclear cash worldwide nuclear, but i do think john kerry has been accountability and i think they will do it they want and they will revisit it years down. host: two your connection was not clear but we got the essence. gary samore, inc.'s john kerry

not have the credibility or the wherewithal to negotiate properly with the u.s. guest: keep in mind that it is not just john kerry. the way these negotiations are set up, it is p5+1 the so-called, which is -- it is the so-called p5+1 the u.s., you can, germany, china, and france. it is a multilateral negotiation. the u.s. is taking the lead and most of the heavy lifting is being done by -- bilaterally between the u.s. and iran. the value of an agreement is that it would be supported by all of those six biggest countries and most important countries in the world and the un security council. that is the perfect protection against iran cheating because we know they have violated their treaty commitments and understandings before, but it does provide some measure of determinants so that if iran

reenacts or cheats on the agreement, hopefully the u.s. and the allies would be in a good position to resume economic sanctions, political isolation, and if necessary, use military force. host: this is a tweet from another viewer who says, isn't a stock iranian economy the best way to promote a modern i'm a non-extremist iran? guest: well, the experts will argue about that. there was one school of thought that agrees with that. if you open up iran's economy, it will eventually not right away, it will eventually strengthen those sectors of the society that paper reform and moderation. and get iranians a stake in not pursuing nuclear weapons because that would jeopardize the economic benefits. there are others who argue that when there is an opening sections of society will benefit the most will be the irgc, the

more hardliner elements, so-called islamic guard because he had very heavily influenced connections with the economy. i think it is very difficult to predict the future evolution of iran. this is a revolution that took place in 1979. frankly, it survived much longer than anybody expected. i would like to believe that over time it will moderate or change, but i do not think we have a very good record in predicting what happens in iran, so we cannot really base agreement on our hopes that it will lead to moderation. host: stephen from new york good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. i just had a question that, i don't know if your family with charlie rose who is on new york tv, he has a discussion program.

he was one-on-one with representative from iran within the past two months and the iran representative said, we already have eight nuclear missiles and that is when he admitted. he said, well, we have not used them yet. i have a concern about iran because i have spoken to people high up in the muslim community. i am not a muslim, but they said , well, now the jewish people have all the money but one day we will. that is a great concern because i do not trust iran and it is a great, serious matter. i myself have worked for the united states. i have had to sign secrecy acts and, digital agreements and i think a lot of things are not

said and as people in the military with friends and family telling me, it is best that the american people do not know what is going on. host: how would you respond to that sentiment, gary samore>?? i think the caller is guest: right not to trust iran. i think we have a long history of iran pursuing nuclear weapons of lying and cheating in order to achieve that. fortunately, we have been able in my view, we have been able to review -- delay their programs through a variety of means export controls, sanctions sabotage, military threats political pressure, and so forth. i think our policy will have to be to continue to use these techniques in order to delay and limit iran's capacity because i don't think the current iranian leadership is likely to change its mind about the desirability and the utility of acquiring nuclear weapons.

this negotiation is intended to reach an agreement on ashes i would restrict iran's nuclear capacity -- to expose more comprehensive monitoring measures to ensure they comply with that agreement. if it is successful, it will bias years. it will bias 10-15 years. what happens at the end of that 15 years, nobody can predict. the value of the agreement as it is being negotiated is that it would a sickly by time and the hope is that in that time, there would be sufficient change inside iran so that the government and leadership at that time would not have the same interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. host: our guest is gary samore he is affiliated with the president of united against a nuclear iran and it harvard university's kennedy school of government.

tom from new york city, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. let me ask you this. it is a question of the u.s. incentive to continue these negotiations in the face of the unwillingness of iranians to allow really good inspection. you say we can go on indefinitely apparently with the little noncompliance and non-nuclear bomb was going on at the moment. using there was powerless. how do we know that? we do not have inspectors at the level that we seem to want. guest: actually we do. we have a very good inspection presence at all of the declared nuclear authorities, so we know that work has been limited or suspended or halted at those activities. the question is, is iran carrying out nuclear activities at secret locations?

right now, i am confident that we have sufficient information to note that there is not major activities taking place in secret locations because we have had, we and our allies, we have had extremely good work has been done to our intelligence community to monitor those activities. if there was any question about that, you know that the u.s. government or other governments would be expressing. as far as we know, the only activities are taking place at this point at declared facilities and they are heavily monitored, so we believe that the u.s. government believes that iran is in compliance with the interim agreement. host: john, good morning. republican line from new york. where is that by the way? caller: it is in sullivan county. host: glad to hear from you john. caller: my comment just made by

mr. gary samore concerning the iranian government leadership going back to 1975 as a protectable and difficult and so on -- perhaps we need to go back further, back to the eisenhower administration, 1953. john was the instrument intercept in whole economy and getting rid of mohammed who was a duly elected democratic prime minister for various reasons. if you read a book called "the brothers" you will understand what i am talking about. he disrupted that whole government disrupted the economy, disrupted everything and went in there for one reason -- to gain control of the oil. perhaps we need -- to be very brief -- we need to get back to where we should have been in

1953 in dealing fairly with the iranians and maybe we would diverged what seems to be eminent. thank you. host: thank you, john. guest: i think john points are correctly that the iranians have a deep sense of historical grievance against the united states going back to the 1953 coup against mohammed. i think supreme leader khamenei deeply believes that washington is determined to destroy the islamic republic through overt and covert needs and iran sees the united states as leading an international and regional coalition, including israel and the sunni arab states, to constrain iran's influence in the region and ultimately to destroy the islamic republic. and that is one of the main reasons quite he sees nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapon capability as a strong determined to prevent united --

determined to prevent the united states from threatening his government because he is obviously very familiar with u.s. use of military force against countries that do not have military -- nuclear weapons including libya, iraq, and so forth while the u.s. has been careful not to use military force against countries that have nuclear weapons like korea. from his standpoint, nuclear weapons, i think, he sees that as a very important element in iran's foreign policy and that is why i do not think he is prepared to give them up except under strong pressure. host: cambridge, ohio. good morning to you. caller: good morning, folks steve. i would like to comment on the statement you made earlier in that you said that iran has not been trustworthy in the past. we cannot do anything about iran's trustworthiness but i

question our own trustworthiness. on i think it was december 4 in 2013, you had a guest or member of congress on this program, and called for a nuclear strike on iran. and then you had 47 senators of the united states senate write a choosing this letter apparently trying to undermine the agreement we would sign with iran. and then the american people i don't think want war, but the american people are no longer in charge of this country. host: gary samore, your response. guest: as i say, i think iranian leadership is deeply suspicious

and distrustful of the united states and that is one of the difficulties in this negotiation. the iranians are afraid that even if they and khamenei has said this topic we many times, even if they accept restraints on the nuclear program, they will not get the benefits of sanction relief. as i mentioned earlier, even if the u.s. lift or waves most of the nuclear or all of the nuclear related sanctions, there was to be many sanctions in place against iran. the iranians are concerned that the west will pass you sanctions legislation to reimpose sanctions under a different pretext in their view. one of the difficulties in this negotiation is a profound lack of trust between washington and tehran. both sides have been understandable basis for that lack of trust. host: this is from didi fredericks, if iran does seek nukes for offense, who did they seek to attack and why? guest: the iranians of course

have enemies in the region. they are enemies of israel and at least the rhetoric is that israel should not exist. they are enemies with the sunni arab countries currently event by saudi arabia, they are rivals with turkey, so from iran's standpoint i would not necessarily say they would use nuclear weapons because i think they're well aware of the consequences of use, but the public does not if they had nuclear weapons, they would feel more confident in asserting their influence in the region. of course, iran has been very active trying to expand its influence in iraq syria, yemen, lebanon, and so forth, and the concern their enemies and rivals in the region is that a nuclear armed iran would be even more aggressive and even more confident that they could extend their influence around the middle east. host: from grand rapids, she

can. our line for independent. buck up to the program. caller: hi, how are you? host: i, thank you. caller: listen, it is an interesting discussion but we have over 1.6 billion muslims, there is no representation of -- they predicted that the next target for the west was going to be islam after communism was gone and that is what is happening right now. we are democratic country trying to encourage democracy all over and we pick up the most heinous crime makers like saudi arabia and others who are not democratic. how can we come out with a straight face and say, blame iran but we are doing on the bad things? host: thank you. guest: i do think we are picking on iran because of it is a

muslim country. i think we are picking on iran because they are trying to pursue nuclear weapons and has been for many years and in violation of its treaty commitments. and because the u.s. considers that to be a grave threat to its national security interest. host: next is jerry who was watching this on the bbc parliament channel that airs every sunday afternoon. he joins us from new england. caller: good day to you, says. how are you? host: good, how are you? caller: very well. i will keep this very brief. it is in relation to iran. in iran, the viewpoint that we see of that country is a little less one-sided. in the united states, there are a lot of people, especially jewish americans and we also note there are people who have

are the petroleum industry that are supporters of saudi arabia, they seem to have corrupted the needs and the negotiations in regards to the iranian situation. in the u k, we look at it as their needs to be a two-sided negotiation. there needs to be -- we will get sanctions, but we will also give you guarantees which is we will stop israel from taking military action on its own against you. we will also guarantee your own peace and security. don't you think if we were to offer them the peace of security including the fence if required, that we could bring iran totally in to the fold? -- into the fold, get rid of potential nuclear threat and the world would be a lot happier? in regards to israel, it has nuclear weapons.

i was wondering when we are going to bring it into the agency's view and actually see what they've got so that we can actually protect not just the middle east but also in europe as well in case israel decides to use their weapons in anger. host: thank you for your call. gary samore. guest: thank you very much. this negotiation is about one thing -- iran's nuclear program. it is not about israel's nuclear program or pakistan's the clear program or india's nuclear program, or the british nuclear program. it is about iran's nuclear program. i think that is the focus of negotiation. in terms of security assurances, my understanding is that iran is not interested has not asked for, and we are not prepared to give security assurances. this is all about economic sanctions really in exchange for nuclear constraint. in fact, one of the weaknesses of the agreement is that it is

very transactional. it is focused on a very narrow set of issues. economic relief for nuclear constraints. all of the other many areas of disagreement between the united states and iran will continue even after this agreement. that includes this agreement with the syrian civil war, over iranian support for hezbollah and hamas, over the yemen fighting and intervention in yemen, and even iraq where the u.s. and iran are tacit allies against islamic state, we are still competing for influence in baghdad. of course, there is a whole question of maintaining the freedom of navigation and shipping in the persian gulf. one should not imagine that this nuclear deal, if it happens, is going to transform u.s.-iranian relations. in fact, we will continue to be enemies and rivals and hostile to each other on a broad range of issues in the region. host: we have about one minute

left so quick question from mario in connecticut on the democrat line. please, be brief. caller: i will be very brief. in 2000, the cia incident its members into iran -- they plan to get faulty plans to iran for nuclear plants. ultimately, somebody in the state and the cia gave the iranians all the list of all the cia agents. one year later after promise was informed of the messed plan and everything, was declared iran a terrorist nation. how can we sit up. right now and tell us that iran is a threat and all this when we are the cia has been doing this to them all along? thank you. host: thank you, mario. guest: thank you. i believe iran was put on the terrorist list way back in 1979 because of the hostage situation. that was done under president reagan i believe, in any event

iran has supported groups that we consider to be terrorist groups like hezbollah for many years and hezbollah was responsible for the major attack that killed so many marines in lebanon back during the reagan administration. host: bottom line, negotiations continue and that deadline is tuesday. your prediction is what? guest: i think that will eventually be an agreement. i think the two sides have come very close now that there are still remaining issues that i do not think they are issues that cannot be resolved. i am not confident an agreement will be -- will emerge in the next couple of weeks, but i think that both sides have an interest in continuing the process and getting to an agreement, so i imagine the negotiations, even if they do not achieve success in the next few weeks, they will continue through the summer and into the fall. host: thank you for your insights. gary samore joining us from

boston, now at harvard formally with obama's station. we appreciate your time on this sunday. guest: thank you, steve. i am happy to do it. host: we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time and for clock for those on the west coast. it will get more on affordable care act with mary agnes carey who is joining to talk about the aca. she is a senior correspondent with kaiser health is an vanessa williams of "the washington post" on the 2016 campaign and if there is ever city among the candidates. "newsmakers" is coming up next and a reminder that our interviews with senator ron bernie sanders tonight on prime time as part of our "road to the white house" coverage. you can check our schedule online anytime and www.c-span.org. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great day. ♪ >> later, reactiongreta: this week,

holy and castro -- hooley and castro -- julian castro. we have emily badger, a correspondent with washington post and john prior with politico. jon: i want to ask about the supreme court ruling in the housing case.