campaign reform is playing in 2016. frank of thede national journal joins us to talk about the legacy of nancy reagan. ♪ good morning. welcome to "washington journal" it's the morning after the final republican debate in florida ahead of florida's primary, ohio and others next week. we will show you highlights from that debate last night. also this morning, looking at the endorsements. ben carson set to endorse donald trump this morning in florida. we'll cover on c-span 2. yesterday we covered sender mike lee endorsing ted cruz, the first member of congress, in the senate anyway, to endorse ted cruz. i want to ask you this morning

whether those campaign endorsements matter to you. join the conversation -- you can join us on social media. we welcome your tweets @cspan wj. c-span.facebook.com/ we will show you some of the highlights. here is how last night's debate in miami is playing out on the front pages of a couple newspapers. a look at the "washington post." they look at the staet din -- the state dinner we just showed you on c-span of the obamas welcoming prime minister trudeau. a novel approach, talk about policy.

the debate is sometimes sharp and also serious. thed of the race for nomination, donald trump adopted a more subdued demeanor, passing up opportunities to strike back when his opponents try to engage him. common totrategy front runners. a similar tone in "the wall street journal." toner headline "gop rivals down debate duels." bighe brink of five primaries that could and the presidential race,the four contenders adopted a more civil tone and what could be the final debate. taked trump attempted to on a more presidential posture as he refrained from attacking his rivals or taking the bait when they went after him.

to our question about endorsements. arson is going to endorse donald trump at a news conference set for 9:00 eastern this morning. we will cover that on c-span 2 at 9: 00 a.m. here is the headline -- "carson set to endorse trump ahead of the florida vote." ben carson was on fox news saying there are two donald trumps. the trump the co television and who gets out in front of big audiences. then the donald trump behind the scenes. they are not the same person. one isa actually a thinking individual to that one is someone you can reason with easily. he's very comfortable talking about issues and recognizing he does not have all the answers. a night and day difference. that is ben carson. do endorsements matter to?

we hear from ed in woodbridge, virginia on our democrats line. caller: no, endorsement does not matter. i'd like to say that donald trump's comments about the muslims is really exactly corrects that the muslims hate u. s. host: let's hear from our independents line. kenny in hyattsville. do endorsements matter? it does not really matter. [indiscernible] king weather endorsements matter. 538.com.e where things stand with the candidates.

we look at the democrats and republicans. they assign a point value. marco rubio with the most representatives endorsing him with a total of 168 points. ted cruz with a number of representatives, one senator, mike lee and a couple governors. john kasich with one senator and a couple of governors. and donald trump and one senator, jeff sessions. allary clinton garnering number of democratic members of congress and many senators and governors. and bernie sanders with just four or five representatives each. looking for your comments as well and twitter. @cspanwj. a tweet from karen on the tone of the debate. she writes trump did not do well answering the question about violence at his rallies. >> do you believe you have done anything to create a tone where

this volatile be encouraged? mr. trump: i hope not. i i will say this, we have 25,000 people. people come which are meant as passionate love for the country. in some cases, you are mentioning one case which i haven't seen. when they see what is going on in this country, they have anger. they love this country. they do not like seeing bad trade deals or a loss of their jobs. i know. i see it. there are some anger. and there's great love for the country. >> some of your critics point to quotes you have made these rallies including fabric 23. -- in february 23. " i would like to punch him in the face."

him.k the crap out of knock the hell. i promise i will pay for the legal fees." mr. trump: we have some protesters that are bad dudes. they are really dangerous and they get in there and they start hitting people. we have a couple big, strong powerful guys doing damage to people, not only the loudness but doing serious damage. if they going to be taken out, be honest, we have to run some -- host: from last night's republican debate, donald trump. as ben carson prepares to endorse donald trump. do endorsements matter? it's jim in hot springs, arkansas. good morning. caller: yes. a donald trump supporter.

he is a businessman and very successful. i've been in business my whole life. i am 65 years old and retired now. hirehenever i wanted to somebody i would put up a fore hire sign. if i got a large number of people of applying, the cost of the hiree would go down. that is the problem today. we have so many people looking for a job and not enough jobs to go around. and they talk about breaking up the big banks. they need to break up the big corporations. if you're a scientist are looking for a job, there is not that many companies that you can go to. a presidentuld trump break apart big companies? what would you like to see his policies be in that regard?

i think that they need to break them up like they did in the beginning of the country with the antitrust laws. they basically have monopolies, if they have 5% of the sales of a particular product in the whole country, that is too much. what they do is, they borrow money at 0%. when a competitor gets big enough and give some trouble, they buy them out. they borrow all the money from the banks at 0%. they just took in that company on mergers and acquisitions. and reduce the amount of competition. big: you're talking about companies. walmart is based in your state and arkansas. what about companies like walmart and amazon? i these the companies you are talking about? caller: i'm talking about all these large companies that have

a large percentage of the sales in america. even if they have 5% of the sales, then -- in america, that is too mcuh. -- too much. they are going out and buying all these companies and reducing the work force at that company. you've heard all the stories about walmart going into towns and all the small businesses go belly up. host: let's move to princeton, new jersey. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. we arehat do you think, asking about endorsements and do endorsements matter for candidates? what are your thoughts? caller: i think they should not matter as much as they do. one of the leading thinkers in america about -- wrote a wonderful short piece the other day or a couple weeks ago. tv show.en on a

he said he was going to support bernie sanders. a bit viral. he later wrote a piece how uncomfortable it made him. some people vote for somebody because he said so. writer ise does as a to get people to think critically about themselves. i think it was thoughtful of him recognizing the influence he has. who areome other people thinking about these endorsements with think critically about what it is they are asking their followers to do when their own message has been think for yourself. host: i realize you're calling on the democratics line, but does an endorsement like ben carson for donald trump add more to his prestige on the republican side? say.r: it's hard to for ben carson supporters, as

much as they had overlapped with trump supporters, all it is is momentum now. it can't hurt. host: appreciate your calls. welcome your comments on twitter. a couple here. this one is from mary who said " i had the greatest respect for is carson, although it ludicrous to run for president without experience. he has gone crazy. an endorsement from carson does not matter to trump, i'm sure." a news conference this morning in palm beach at 9:00 eastern on c-span 2. up, independent line, frostburg, maryland. caller: good morning. did embrace carson mr. trump. one of the things historically in our country, all of our presidents which come from

wealthy backgrounds -- teddy roosevelt, franklin roosevelt, john kennedy, bush one, all of these gentlemen made it a tremendous impact on our country. they understood money. teddy roosevelt, he broke up, the creator the antitrust laws to give us prosperity for 30 years. then franklin roosevelt did the same thing. gave us prosperity for 50 years. john kennedy gave us civil rights and human rights and voting rights. bush one made our military, he and reagan made our military greater than any on earth. so, these presidents who come from wealthy backgrounds like donald trump, they are able to understand better than some of bought politicians we have. between trump and bernie sanders, though it's would be too great people to represent us

as president. host: while the debate was going on in florida, at the white house last night's state dinner for the new prime minister of canada justin trudeau. this is a front page photo of the washington post." the story about that that talks about the issue a tweeter earlier mentioned in terms of some of the associated violence related to trump campaigns. this is a report from "the washington post" about the incident the other day with michelle feels -- fields. he writes "the the original trump crew stood at the fringe of the news conference watching as the boss trash talked his competitors. hawked trump products and paraded the media. they smirked and laughed.

some of the news media treated them like a joke. now they are winning so much their heads are spending. from the beginning, they had been willing to fight for their candidate sometimes to a fault. when donald trump to send it into the crowd after speaking tuesday, the insect to defend -- the instinct to defend kicked in. pressed fields forward to ask the republican front runner a question. i watched as a man with short cropped hair grabbed her arm and took her out of the way. fields stumbled. 'i'm a little spooked,' she said. no one has grabbed me like that before." that is the writing and the style section this morning of "the washington post." this is christopher and inglewood, new jersey, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i strongly believe that the politicians should be heard about the issues that we all care about. endorsements, i think, are nice but strongly i believes that the real issues we need to be heard on on the most important. because the politician who needs to be elected are the fact that the people must be coming first instead of the the endorsements. issues like bullying our public school system and so forth must be addressed fully enough in our elections as well. how much school safety needs to be also addressed to the candidates on both sides of the aisle. as a former candidate myself who ran for assembly, i strongly believe that this is one of the issues that iran on -- i ran on that that really gave me a boost in my political life as a

citizen who stood up. host: you ran on the issue of school bullying? hawir: bullying in waiis to bai -- in ha should be deemed as a hate crime. host: why do you suppose that has not been a bigger issue in the presidential campaign? caller: i'm afraid it has not been addressed fully because i think it has been lost in the malay -- melee with other issues. the youth need to be heard on this issue because they want to know how, as a president, what will they do to address the issue of bullying and so forth. that really is making me very sad. i think it should be addressed in the next debate. host: appreciate your comments. here is the headline about last night debate. "trump brags he bringing the voters -- front runner calls

them to smart and unified behind him. jake tapper called for a serious debate and the candidates did lower the volume without the shouting. spectators could hear their thoughts on immigration, trade, jobs, education, israel, counterterrorism and social security, a big issue in florida -- during that event, jake tapper asked about trump's comments on muslims. >> islam hates us. did you mean all 1.6 billion muslims? mr. trump: i mean a lot of them. >> do you want to clarify the current? i've been watching the debate in there talking about radical islam, but i will tell you there is something going on that maybe you do not

know about and maybe a lot of other people do not know about that there is tremendous hatred. i will stick with exactly what i said to anderson cooper. >> i know a lot of people find appeal in what donald says. presidents cannot say anything they want. it has consequences here and around the world. let me give you one. this couple, i met on furlough because they are missionaries in bangladesh. it is a very tough place to be a missionary -- it is muslim. their safety and security is very much relied upon friendly muslims that live alongside them. that may not convert but protect them and look out for them. and their mission field really are muslims that are looking to convert to contrasty anti-. -- convert to christianity. have all me that the hostile environment because the news is coming out that leading political figures are saying america does not like muslims. there is no doubt that radical islam is a danger in the world it i can tell you if you go into

any national cemetery, arlington, you will see crescent moons. world,anywhere in the you will see american men and women serving us in uniform that are muslims. they love america. as far as i know, no one on the state has served in uniform. anyone out there that has the uniform of the united states on and is willing to die as someone that loves america and the matter what their religious background may be. host: from last night republican debate, showing is some highlights in this first hour of "washington journal" and asking whether endorsements matter. we welcome your comments on twitter @spcspanwj. steve says " endorsements matter carson saying they are behind trump doesn't

scare nothing will." "in termss who says of endorsements, not at all. areracists and bigots voting for republicans." @ welcome your comments, too, cspanwj. let's hear from our independents line in ohio. it's charles. caller: good morning, sir. call.you for taking my i think the only endorsement that matters is the endorsement of the american voter. the people in hollywood that endorse people, you know, they've got this crazy left-wing deal going. i don't get why, what britney spears says or whatever should

determine -- i think donald trump, to me, is a huckster. i'm an independent. elections.different i have voted for democrats and i have voted for republicans. larges hubris is so that i do not see any other state in the world -- host: your primary is next tuesday. do you want to share with us you think you will vote for? caller: you know, i really respect and like governor kasich, but i do not think he has got enough room for him to even make a dent. the only thing he could do is keep trump out. i really like ted cruz. i like the way he sticks to what he says. he did what he said he would do. a lot of people do not like he

did what he said he was going to do. kasich, but i think i'm going to vote for ted cruz. host: he mentioned hollywood. that is a tease on the front page of "the washington times." "stars are aligned against trump." hollywood heavyweights turn their ire. like pressing hands into freshly poured concrete, denouncing donald trump has become a right of passage this campaign season. conservatives have seen this movie before. tinseltown has never been especially welcoming of republicans or their ideas. vitriol,evel of complete with a racially charged screenplay of spike lee joint has reach new heights this election cycle. carol next up in salisbury, north carolina. a primary coming up on tuesday. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just heard on cbs where

hillary clinton is making trumpts about donald campaigning out here where andle are acting unruly saying things. she's telling us that when you are in the white house to have to be decent and respect for. -- respectful. i guess you forgot that bill will be coming along with her. and everybody remembers how respectful of the white house he was. when you start throwing stuff out like that it donald trump, you need to remember that you have been there before and we have seen how you act in the white house. and we see the disrespect and you talk about young children being able to watch something on tv. the healthcare that you have

just passed has destroyed all of the people out there. the senior citizens' health care has been totally ruined. i'm in my second month of this year, and already spent over $600 on drug prescriptions. and last year this time it would have been way less tha nhan half this much. but now we have got a deductible that we got, because we have got to pay for obamacare. we now have a payment that we would not make -- we weren't making last year that we are making because of obamacare. we need for hillary to talk to us about how you got to act decent in the white house. host: let's get another view from north carolina. a democratic caller. caller: yes, sir.

to begin with, that lady that just talked. i do not think hillary has forgotten that bill was in the white house. think endorsements help you one way or another. what i want to talk about. hillary and bernie having this argument about the bank bailout. and the auto industry. ides the auto industry, the bank bailout worked. wall street works. i read an article in "usa today" says the bull market started in 2009?of, what was it, we gained over $16 trillion in value. i remember that debate. they voted it down but -- the next day the stock market fell 900 points. the next morning we were going into depression.

they had to stay up all night and bernie voted against it. he was wrong. hillary was right. it worked. we are great. and he was just, you nkow. -- you know. that is the fact. i hope the hillary political people are listening. quit arguing about detroit and argue about she was right and bernie was wrong. he wanted to punish people. he didn't make no difference who broke it, it was broke. host: sounds like you were vote for hillary clinton tuesday. caller: i've voted for hillary clinton. host: front page this morning of "the new york times." they look at the trump rallies in some of the protests that have happened. some of the incidence of pushing and shoving and more than of

heaven at some of donald trump's rallies. " risk is political act of 2016? protesting at rallies for donald trump." when she learned that donald trump would campaign in louisville where she is a student, she walks into a fedex store, created to colorful signs of picking his head on a pig's body. then she steeled herself for what has become the most dangerous recurring acts committed by ordinary voters this 2016 presidential cycle -- protesting mr. trump inside one of his rallies. the moment she held up her sign, trump supporters began shoving her and screaming racial slurs. did i enjoy being treating like trash? not at all. and we she came away unharmed. the same cannot be said for a protester punished in the face by a supporter on wednesday as

law-enforcement officers were leading him out of the campaign rally in fayetteville, north carolina. he deserved it, said the assailant." john mcgraw is the assailant. afterd "inside edition," the confrontation captured on video. "next time we might have to kill him." mr. mcrgraw was charged with assault and battery. authorities said they were preparing to charge them with communicating a threat. as mr. trump has unleashed the pent-up fury of economically displaced americans a fervent movement has materialized in response to people determined to publicly even if it means withstanding shouting or violence. in recent weeks the demonstrations have intensified, breaking his train of thought and challenging his ability to command the room." this is brian next.

on the independent's line in waldorf, maryland. caller:endorsements are very im. they continue a lot about a candidate. if you look at ted cruz come he got an endorsement from jeb bush. euros a look at ted cruz's endorsement of the supreme court justice john roberts who gave us obamacare. not auz is claiming to be republican insider. not a part of the machine. he has you look at it, worked for the bush administration for many years. his wife worked for the bush administration. his wife also works for goldman sachs. ted cruz has exposed himself yesterday in calling all trumped voters foreign-born. of being of a

certain demographic. insinuating that the only people who vote for trump are white people. now, that says a lot about ted cruz. his endorsements say a lot about ted cruz. you thatrks for tells he is a part of the establishment. he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. i appreciate your comments. host: john is next on the republican line. good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you. called is ajust michael savage listener. that is understandable. you cannot repeat everything you hear on the radio. it is not always accurate. i agree with him when it comes to -- yes, endorsements do matter. you have to follow these people's support. there was an earlier statement madeby one of your callers

in regards to fdr. to businessmen. i think one thing i would like to point out is that j edgar hoover -- who was a? not j edgar. herbert hoover was a businessman. on otherd tariffs countries products coming in here. i think the thing that was reiterated by fdr was retaliation therefore, our products were being cherished. so, therefore, you disrupt the business. there are some indifferent points to cover with this topic. another caller referring to hillary clinton in the white house. yes. let's not forget the campaign hillary clinton endorsed and expose whenth bills

women came out slowly and nutty. were hillary was a big supporter of those comments. that werewomen allegedly accusing their husbands of sexual assault and criminal activities. >> part of our coverage i wrote the chelsea clinton event, even bernie sanders ahead of the illinois primary we will have live coverage of bernie sanders coming up tonight at 9:00 eastern time. also, in terms of endorsements, the one will focus on this morning is the ben carson endorsement eastern time this morning. that is in florida. we'll have that live over a c-span2 as well. and, to that, the washington post headline this morning, carson plans to endorse trump at a friday event. i want to go down a little bit and talk about senator mike lee on thursday endorsed senator ted cruz. making him the first sitting senator to back the primary. he did so on the home turf of

senator marco rubio. he said quote come i am sending the signal that it is time to unite. when asked what type of signal his endorsement was for senator rubio. he said at the time is finally at hand where we as republicans need to unite behind one leader. all of this is happening on the day that the u.s. senate finished their work on a bill for prescription and opioid abuse headlined in the washington times. congress now gets the issue. senate passed legislation yesterday to combat description the opioid epidemic. the washington times writes that 44 people die each day from overdose on prescription drugs. , four outto the cdc of five arrow and users get hooked at abusing pain killer first. in some places, it is more deadly than car accidents.

the states that will help monitor rectus is. they will expand the number of sites of painkillers. distribute the- drug prevented in overdose. the bill gross to the u.s. house. just in case you're keeping track of a vote count, both senator ted cruz in marco rubio missed that vote. mike is a democrat. caller: thank you. question, ir your want to talk on your show for two reasons. number one, i do not know it your political affiliation is. i can tell. number two, i find you very professional. you give people an opportunity to express themselves. that is what i enjoy about this show.

i think that the right wing pundits talk from the people. the way you conduct this message in contrast to who i know is a and, the conversation -- host: speaking on behalf of the other hosts, we all try to do really well. we all try to be fair and open. caller: you are being professional. host: go ahead with your comment. i appreciate she's begun up for your colleagues. our talk about my experiences. people have their minds made up. that does not swim with me.

he tended to think that he was speaking about a situation where the president had an aristocratic act ground. better asem to do presidents, that is a false narrative. lincoln look at abraham , or you look up lbj or even hoover, they made impacts on this country. they did not come from wealth. that narrative to me is completely false. is, richmond have a better chance of becoming president because of the way the country is set up. my takes you far. the fact that there are more richmond and the presidency and they had an impact does not aally correlate, if you are

rich man, you have a better influence, that does not really add up. host: mike in georgia, thank you. minister of canada making his first visit to the united states. a welcome to the white house yesterday. a state dinner last night. we covered the arrival and toast last night. you can find that it c-span.org. john bennett roll call this morning. be canada's could progressive air. looking at the impact of the visit. john bennett said the joint press conference with the canadian prime minister had all of the hallmarks of a torch passing between progressive leaders. they reference liberal values that they both share. he even gave trudeau advice on coloring his hair and the stress of his office turns a great. the first question in that conference focused on american

politics and the rise of donald trump and 2016. here's what the president had to say. politics,e of those which i have not contributed to. i do not think that i was the one to prompt questions about my birth certificate. i do not remember saying hey, why don't you asked me about that. question whether i am american or whether i am or whether i have the best interest at heart? those are not things prompted by any actions of mine. withint you are seeing the republican party is, to some degree, all of those efforts over a course of time.

environmentating an where somebody like donald trump can thrive. is just doing more of what has already been done for the last 7.5 years. the joint news conference yesterday. prime minister justin trudeau arriving yesterday in washington. president obama goes to texas and a front-page story in the money section of usa today explaining how he looked at the video of their arrival last night of the white house. sxsw as a touch of politics. they write a 10 day interactive film and music gathering. that kicks off friday with one of the biggest headliners of the thirty-year existence. president obama by michelle obama five days later. they will be the first sitting u.s. president and first lady to attend the gathering. the president will sit down with evan smith for a conversation on

civic engagement. michelle obama will discuss her learn initiative aimed at helping girls around the world attend and complete school. we go to the independent line. richard in massachusetts. coler: how are you doing at -- doing? i'm wondering if you could do a show and get a republican congressman and a democrat and have them talk. i know the country is left. in thes of people country are on ten-year work pleases. , with have six years only created 14 million jobs. how many people have been laid off ergo so come i wish somebody would explain what is going on. it is why people do not trust the government. they do not tell us things.

and, message for bernie sanders. people, if you know you will not win come ask people to keep giving you money to help someone else whose like you to run for president. you know, you hear the republican said we have the liberal media. if you investigate that and find out who owns these media companies, comcast. all wealthy people. they are not liberal. so, we need to start talking about all of these. we have wolves in sheep's clothing. it is the news media. thank you. here is dalton in georgia. on the democrat line. thatr: i would like to say the caller who said endorsements do not matter that much, they certainly do not matter to me

because if bernie sanders is the nominee for the democratic party, which he is not a democrat, i would not vote for bernie sanders. if hillary puts her support behind bernie sanders, i will not vote for bernie sanders. i want to follow-up on the caller from north carolina. he was exactly right that hillary was right to bail out the banks. my wife had paid into a 401(k) for many years. and, she would have lost every bit of that if bernie sanders had his way about it. that is olomana i wanted to say. thank you. are in north carolina. asking you if endorsements matter. this is steve on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm guess what john kasich color blue dog democrat.

i would like to endorse him. i know it is not working. i have an watching all of the republican debates. he is the only one who makes any sense. the problem is that he makes sense. he really blew it with republicans when he took that medicaid money to help poor people. i mean, i am with him. why do not want to help these people? i'm sure he blew a last month when he said he believed in global warming. people are not listening to the guy. he is the best one of their. .o, wake up wake up north carolina. wake up florida. let's get somebody in there who has the experience and the know-how to get this country running. i do not believe the country has got to helena handbasket. wherein way better shape than we were in 2008. i would like to call on all the republicans out there to get

behind somebody who really has a plan that can help the country. thank you. four 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 republicans. 202-748-8002 independence. you can send us a to eat at c-span wj. the debate last night happened in miami. carolinainois, north with the headline in florida. trump, and rubio in florida. the republicans trust trump most to handle the issue at the economy. trust donald trump the most. immigration is 45%. 36%. obviously, the issue of u.s. relations with cuba coming up in a debate ahead of the primary.

especially as president obama prepares to be the first president in many years to go to cuba. here's how candidates responded less night. >> i would love for the relationship between cuba and the united states to change. that would require cuba to change. made, theres were are now hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into the castro regime. to carry outhem the transition or the military continues to run the country. nothing will change for the cuban people. there has not been a single democratic opening. not a single change on the island. things are worse before the opening. is that nowng worse the cuban government has more money to build up their oppressive apparatus and maintain permanency. >> what i want is a better deal. right now, cuba is making a better deal.

we do not make good deals. we have people who do not have a clue. i heard recently that the threat was made that they want reparation for years of abuse by the united states. nobody is talking about it. we will make a deal and then we will get sued. agreedt stuff has to be to now. we do not want to get sued after the deal is made. i do not agree with president obama. i do agree that something should take place. 50 years is enough time. >> i think this exchange highlights a real choice for republican voters. one it comes to foreign policy, do you want to continue on the same basic trajectory as a last seven years of the obama for policy echoed what comes to these deals, cuba and he ran, they were negotiated by hillary clinton and john kerry. there is a real difference between us. donald supported hillary clinton and john kerry. what he said right now is that he agrees in principle but they

are doing. the only thing he thinks is that they should negotiate a better deal. i have a fundamental disagreement. i believe most government republicans and most americans do believe that we should not allow aliens of dollars to go to nations that hate us. host: part of last night's debate in miami. back to your comments on whether campaign endorsements matter. we are in virginia. democrats line. good morning. >> good morning. i am not commenting on the endorsement last night. i have a comment about donald trump saying that the majority of muslim americans have an issue. that is not true. there are one billion muslims living around the world. of fanatics and crazy people such as isis and the taliban is less than 50,000. what the fanatics are doing,

there are fanatics in every religion. what they're doing is not what islam has dictated. it is a religion of peace and harmony. do not forget, we have these fanatic groups who chop the heads of more muslims than non-muslims. they are killing more muslims with suicide bombing than non-muslims. and, when donald trump says muslims hate us, remember one america attacked the taliban, and other muslim countries they joined the united states. one america attacked a muslim country and rock, saudi arabia, bahrain, gave america the basis for the military support to attack them. so, saying that most muslims hate us is simply not true. for a future president of the united states trashing one billion muslims just because a few thousand fanatics, i do not

think it suits the future president of united states. host: thank you. here is sandy and lexington, kentucky. republican line. caller: thank you. as far as endorsements go, they do matter. for me, it does not matter at this point in the game. i do not know if you have heard that ben carson is endorsing donald trump. that means a lot to me. even though i've already chosen donald trump. particular, what is his endorsement mean a lot to you? it means a lot to me because i respect ben carson. it might help other people who have not decided. goes, we donald trump have never had a businessman as president. this country, and this stage of the game needs a smart businessman. the country needs to be run like a business. we need jobs, we need training. we need a lot the donald trump understands.

my boss has an employment agency. a doctor friend of first put it this way. their offer donald trump. doctors and nurses at the hospital. he said that many doctors do not have good bedside manners. they are excellent surgeons. excellent doctors. that is donald trump. he does not have good bedside manners. i guarantee that if he gets picked, he'll be the best president we have had in years. this cuts, one thing, yes he is egotistical, that is something where he will not lose. he hates to lose. he will do everything he says he will do. >> your lay not reasons why people would love him. you probably heard our previous caller from virginia concerned about the comments he made in the interview about islam. how does he counter that feeling among americans might the german who called a moment ago.

ago? caller: we should love everybody. as far as muslims, they all fall the corrupt. not all muslims are terrorists. so, we should embrace every religion. if people can be like children and just love each other and make friends right away, they do not look at color or religion. they're just kids. that is what we need. being like children and just loving everybody. have goodes not bedside manners. i do not approve of what he said. in fact, i did not like the comment he made about marco rubio. the debate before this one. i was furious that he made that comment. host: now, you supporting echoed -- support him? caller: my boss explained it up by bedside manners. plus, people are fed up.

this is what is happening in the country. people are fed up with the establishment. host: thank you. wj,, on twitter, at c-span we have tweets on do endorsements matter? we say endorsements only matter to the insiders. issues matter for the people. here is one from james who said an endorsement from a politician is helpful to tell me not to vote for. andaid benz carbs endorsement is revenge on ted cruz. they said donald trump is getting endorsement this morning of dr. ben carson. that is 9:00 eastern time. we will cover that news conference live on c-span two. here is a bond in california. independent line. yes.r: i think endorsements matter when money is involved. should noter, it

matter. as far as a doctor, like that woman said, i do not want a doctor that has bad bedside manners. when it comes to treating me, we have to work together. me, heot just treating is working with me and i am working with him. we have to be equals. , the onlydonald trump reason he has ben carson is that he thinks he will pull in black voters. i hope no person of color votes for donald trump. because, he has done all these fraudulent things. if she can forget about all of that, something is wrong with her. donald trump is a narcissistic person. it is onlytic person about them. it is not about us. there surely will -- if she really wants to win, what americans do not understand is that congress makes the rules. we have a tiered government. congress makes the rules.

the president can veto it or pass it. that is who they should go after his congress. if they do not do their work, they do not get paid. host: thank you. donald trump was asked about the discussion about what would happen if the republican race wound up going through to the convention. it was a contested convention. here was his response. >> first of all, i will have the delegates. let's see what happens. let's see. but, if somebody does not have the delegates, i guess there are two of us appeared that canon two of us who cannot, by the way, but is not meant to be a criticism. that is just a mathematical fact. ok? if two of us get up there, i , if they if marco governor, if ted has more votes than me with formal delegates,

of a quiver gets to that position as opposed to solving the artificial number which is a very random number, i think that whatever gets the most delegates should be victorious. there are people in washington having fever dreams of a rocard convention. they are unhappy. they want to parachute in their favorite washington candidate. i think that would be an absolute disaster. we need to respect to the will of the voter. it is one reason why in the course of this election, everybody appear has worked hard. donald is right. only two of us have a path to victory. donald and myself. have 360oint, i delegates. he has 100 more than i do. point beingthis donald and eight separate states. geographically, from maine to alaska. from kansas to texas. all over this country, we have

beaten him. so, for the people at home, if you are one of the 70% of republicans who recognizes that if we nominate donald trump, hillary winds. of last nights debate. ahead of the primary five states. wall street journal front page this morning is looking at a downed ballot race in ohio. their headline in ohio, in the o'connor, patrick writing this piece. the blue and white notice that it has caused quite a stir. this store is politically incorrect. we say merry christmas, god bless america. we salute the flag and say god bless the troops. if this offends you, you're welcome to leave. ted schuller owner of the bakery voted for john boehner until the former house speaker quit in october. this november, he is backing the

least and are like candidate, donald trump. quote, at least i know i am not getting more of the same. mr. boehner resigned from his ohio seat under threat of a conservative revolt within his own party. he remains with the former house speaker's legacy here soon to be swept away by forces unleashed by donald trump. mchenry the remainder of the piece. he party establishment helped build here across the u.s. has been hit by a one-two punch of a conservative revolt which began with the tea party wave in 2010. this followed by the collective mr. trump. following 15 republican candidates are battling in the ohio primary for the right to compete for mr. boehner's former seat. many want to distance themselves from mr. boehner. back slap her

personality that once made him so popular in congress. as get a few more calls on do endorsements matter? bob is up next in florida. welcome. caller: good morning. i want to comment saying that i do not think endorsements matter. do not even think that play science matters. i think that if somebody is watchto read the paper or the news, they will get their information from that. they will then vote accordingly without the endorsement. ok. now, to charles in cincinnati. our democrat line. yes.r: endorsements matter only two people that look at who the person is endorsing.

trump, people are not doing their investigation. when i say trump is a good businessman, trump said his companies are under investigation. there are people protesting against the hotel. golf course people are protesting. more people not investigating who they really want? host: a few you quick tweets on bernie sanders. endorsements for bernie sanders matter because, policies are in sync with my preference for bernie. for bernie sanders, live a rally coming up in illinois. 9:00 eastern time. that will be over in c-span2. let's get to one more call here. this is done in tennessee. republican line. caller: i do not think endorsements matter. we saw that with marco rubio. i do not understand. tennessee in this area, where called the bible belt area.

people'sunderstand faith has just relaxed. you know, i do not see how anybody of faith could vote for donald trump. i do not understand. i know that is probably a sin. i will ask for forgiveness. i do not understand how a person of god could vote for donald trump. i have four children here. i cannot let them watch the debate. i cannot even teach them about this debate. you ifill it matter for this endorsement by ben carson comes in this morning? caller: i like ben carson. i also like ted cruz. you can tell they are people of god. you can tell that ben carson is relaxing his fate for anybody to go to donald trump.

you know? i just feel that. anybody that reads their bible and watches donald trump has to know wholeheartedly that donald trump is not walking with god. we appreciate all of your opinions and calls. washington journal continues. next up: rules big with mark numeral it's. he is with the defense of democracy. we talking about this week's missile test the iranians and what it means for the recently reached to joint agreement on the iran nuclear deal. later on, marcus stanley who is part of the group americans for financial reform joins us. he'll be talking about wall street reform and where we are in 2016. more coming up here on the washington journal. ♪

>> joint c-span today at 1:30 p.m. eastern time for the funeral service for former first lady nancy reagan at the ronald reagan presidential library in california. first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and laura bush will be among the dignitaries attending the funeral. mrs. reagan will be buried next to her husband at the library. coverage on c-span comes c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> i'm a teacher. the most important thing to me is education. a candidatesing very closely for their programs in education. i've not been happy with the last 15 years with the poor standards and common core. i would like to see that changed. i will vote for either bernie

sanders or hillary clinton. i am happy with both of those choices. i am interesting to see how that would turn out. >> i'm voting for ted cruz. because, he is a constitutional scholar. he is eloquent, and he has good principles. >> washington journal continues. is mark thehis now director for the defense of democracy. talk aboutorning to the test this week by the iranians on ballistic missiles which certainly made news. it raised concerns about possible violations of the iran nuclear deal. tested? what have they how might this violate any agreement with the united states and the other countries?

thank you for having me on. this is obviously very important for congress and the world. iranians continue to test ballistic missiles. they are working on putting satellites in space to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile program. it really only has one address which is the united states of america. the reason that is conferring -- concern is that we resold the nuclear deal on the assumption that they would behave and stop these unlawful tests of missiles. stop supporting terrorism. stop all the aggression. have not stopped. they have intensified. this is a concern because if you have a nuclear warhead and a missile, you need this. they are continuing to work on a number of those tracks. the government know ahead of time that gave them the impression that the iranians would pull back on

testing these missiles in go the actual to the iranians to note -- to negotiate. the administration agreed to them. they is an assumption that would have massive sanctions because of the deal. quitenow, we have seen the opposite. and, it is a clear violation of the un security council. they are not allowed to develop or test are manufactured missiles capability -- capable of a nuclear warhead. this is inconsistent with un security council resolution. the treasury department has posted sanctions a few months ago. host: so, specifically, are these tests a violation of the united nations agreement? the united nations resolution? or of the joint plan of action? it is a violation of united nations resolution.

the joint conference of plan of action which is the nuclear deal that was reached. of then direct violation un security council. that is not just my view, that is the administration's view. that is why sanctions were imposed on them in january. if they want these missiles, as vice president biden is in the region, visiting israel, is there an understanding or reason to believe that is what they did this? certainly, they were doing this prior to the visit. there is no mistake that it is not only about force projection and capabilities and one day having a nuclear warhead they can deliver. it is also about the value of propaganda. the iranians are always looking for opportunities to take hostages under gunpoint. they have taken other americans hostage since the deal has been reached. it is the perfect opportunity

with vice president biden to stick it to the americans. operationally, but also from a psychological perspective. just want to read the piece from the united nations security council resolution. to 31 calls. not to launch ballistic missiles or develop projectiles capable of delivering nuclear projectiles for eight years. of eight years, they will be allowed to engage in an expansion of their missile program. in terms of warheads, or what they're able to do, they are able to test. but, under the joint plan of action, any terms of nuclear warheads, their ability to develop that would be diminished. in the early years, it has been diminished. what the iranians did was negotiate a pathway to nuclear weapons. there are restrictions and their

begin tohat will disappear. they disappear at your five. at your age, as you mentioned, when the new embargo goes away. that you're a when they can now begins to centralize the future. basically, they will engage in significant enrichment. 15, itas years 13 and will eventually fall to zero. what they did was negotiate a deal where, outside they get economics relief. the restrictions on their programs disappear over time. the pathway to the nuclear through the development of warheads. clearly, on developing ballistic missiles. they are already at it. directorhe executive of defense of democracies. we welcome your comments on twitter at c-span wj. about your organization. what is your principal focus? guest: we are a think tank

focusing on national security. we have been around since september 11. focus on terrorism. primarily focused on the middle east. we also focus on russia and china. host: after the test, it was interesting and the fact that you talked about the reigning response and the u.s. response on the missile test. a plans toe says walk away from the new deal. again, they threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year hours after the country breached the international agreement testfiring ballistic missiles. their most recent test which violates the security council after the the day international community's watchdog association disclose that it was prohibited from publicly reporting these violations by iran. it is the iaea the international thecy for overseeing

missiles. why are they prohibited from theyting on this? well, report on nuclear activity. part of the concern is that the recent iaea report actually is less detailed than the previous report. once again, the administration promised we would get more transparency, lo and behold, we get a report that does not talk about enrichment levels. it does not talk about whether iran is making any progress towards complying with the verification and inspection responsibilities. but, here we have a report that is less transparent. again, that raises concern about what we negotiated. really, were supposed to get the silver bullet of this deal that no matter what they did, we could verify and inspect the report.

you mentioned vice president biden was in israel. we posted his reaction following the test. he tests he -- he warns israel for testing missiles. he said they show strength by their military to coincide with his trip. they also talked about the elections by the moderates who backed the new president and supported the nuclear deal. it was criticized by hard-liners including members of the revolutionary guard. the deal was fully implemented in january. joe biden said that the united states will act if iran violates the nuclear pact. said all policies outside the scope of the accord will be closely monitored. the u.s. act in response to these missile tests? how can a? is a lot we can do. if you look at key sectors of

the economy, the mining sector, the metallurgy, construction, telecommunications. we take each component of the missile and go to what area of the economy supports it. you actually have a powerful economic sanction you could impose. that is the only thing that will get their attention. these sanctions that have been imposed go where the ballistic missile components are contained. the iranians will reconstitute these human networks. if you hit the sectors of their economy coming hit them hard. that will wake them up. it has been proven that is what gets their attention. that is why they came to the table, because of the economic sanctions. left inne or 10 months the obama presidency. what would you like the president to do to either to the nucleardd agreement or policy before he leaves." -- leaves?

make it very clear to the iranians that the united states will use all forms of national power to push back against their military aggression. what we have seen is a pattern where overtime they threaten, we exit back off. we are not using estimates of national power to push back. so, they believe they can get away with everything. the president has 10 months to show that is not the case. he can set a precedence for the next president. next president will find himself or herself a very difficult position where the iranians will be pushing aggressively. threats have been undermined. we have calls waiting period we're talking about the iranian nuclear test. 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 republicans. 202-748-8002 independence.

let's go to ken who is in florida. are you with us? caller: indeed. good morning. i am reminded that you're talking about this man been a moderate. their winning the recent elections. i remember johnny was considered a wonderful moderate and come his calculus was that if we drop a bomb on israel, we destroy israel. if they retaliate with nuclear weapons, they will certainly -- we will kill 5 million people in israel. they will kill 20 million iranians. then again, we have more shiite theims so, therefore,

calculus is that we will win. of course, he also threatened the united dates. , two yearshis book ago, almost rationalize about and pullinghe had wool over the european union negotiators. and, you know, obviously, i am taken back that we had that much naivete. ask he believed that the iranians would amend their behavior and that they would act treaty observers and this thing. guess santana said those who refuse from history are doomed to repeat it. host: we appreciate it. guest: your well-informed. you are correct. the secretary negotiated the negotiated steele said that with iran, the negotiation -- the

election is between a hardliner and a hard hardliner. so, she is under no illusions about the government. she is under no illusion about the rigged election. it was election were most reformers and moderates were disqualified. overwhelmingly, it was an in then won by those extremist camp. he called israel a one bomb country. a terroro in charge of campaign in the 1990's and early 2000 of terrorist attacks abroad as well as assassinations of dissidents. so, they are not moderates. their dedicated revolutionaries who want to preserve the revolution and the raising. host: let's hear from eddie on the independent line. manchester, connecticut.

are you there? i apologize for that. try eddie in manchester. is that you? how are any of our world leaders going to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem, when, all the world leaders, if you look at how these leaders treat their own people, how can any leader from any nation, trust anyone's government? it is like this. if the american people are the ones voting on everything that hits the floor of their house, it affects their lives and the direction that their nation goes with theirey pay for

tax dollars and their lives, i do believe a new voting system to go in with the one we already have in place, our votes would actually count for representatives. host: i will let you go. you're a little off topic. or is peter in ohio. we're talking about the iranian nuclear test. how about lorraine in illinois? go -- there? you go ahead with your comment. will it be heard? i cannot hear myself. host: trust us. caller: my comment is about hillary.

how theyunderstand allow this woman to run for president when she has such a dirty background. because those boys died she did not do what she had to. she played with the government. and, if i was a layperson like anybody not in politics -- you have to run. we are talking about the iranian nuclear test. to point outnt some reaction to the missile test by hillary clinton calling for sanctions after the missile tests. what additional sanctions could be used against them to prevent this." -- this? i'm glad you mentioned secretary clinton. she came out taken a much tougher line than the obama administration on the missile

tests and regional aggression. she understands that if she is president, she will inherit a very difficult situation. she does not want to be in a situation where american national powers have been significantly diminished and credibility. she is coming out in signaling that if i am president, i will not let you get away with missile tests and terrorist attacks and supporting torture in syria. about powerful sanctions. sections that could hit the economy. , if they hit the supreme leader's holding company. the supreme leader has a $95 billion holding company. recently been listed under the nuclear deal. that is relisted and sanctions can be used to target the terror fund. that will make an enormous difference.

they launch came out and said test word done by the revolutionary guard. explain to people who talked about the portions of the iranian leadership. the revolutionary guard is setup up to defend the revolution and regime. it was set up by the first supreme leader. likeutionary guards are stormtroopers of the regime. the answer to the supreme leader. defend theey are to resolution and regime. they do not have accountability to the normal military? guest: they answer to the supreme leader. the president has had a very tense relationship. on the other hand, the latest budget was a 30-40% increase. he is also, publicly defending the program. they were supporting the

revolutionary guard. they had the missile program, nuclear program. host: they said the missiles were actually marked with words like israel must die. if the launch is meant for an audience more than just the u.s. and israel, but for other regional powers as well? guest: think the wording on the missile is entirely consistent with things that the leaders have been safer decades. we are regional force. we are capable of very punishing force projection. don't mess with us. revolutionary guards are not tempered and their rhetoric.

host: does go to fort madison iowa. -- for madison, i will. republican line. -- fort madison, iowa. caller: i am 49 years old. i have been watching c-span for 25 years. we have been teaching the same propaganda like hitler did to the youth. they are teaching a german people that the jews were evil. he died. the iranians have done this since 1979. that is why we put sanctions on them. in my mind, the president has helping theeason, enemy. the snake that can

talk. it promises it will not bite. the person picks it up. the snake bites them. the person is why did you do that? the snake says i am a snake. iranians have two out of the three largest terrorist organizations. why is he helping? and hispresident obama entire administration, including hillary clinton violated their laws. treason is helping the enemy. host: can you tell us where the iranians are getting their ballistic missile technology? guest: they have a very vibrant and robust domestic policy.

many parts of the program are being produced. through china and elsewhere in the region, they are getting these components. there were still dependent on foreign suppliers. they were making it much more difficult to get these components. the iranians have had decades to set up these networks. they set up alternative networks. they shut down one and another one pops up. we can play a game of what kimmel trying to go after them. over the key sectors of their economy that are producing these opponents. -- components. are domestic industries that help the iranians develop these things. host: we are reading this morning that russia has shipped the first at 300 missile system to the iranians.

they said this is a defense system for them. how do russians complicate the implementation of the nuclear accord? guest: well, the russians and chinese greatly complement -- complicate the implementation of this deal. they are aiding the iranians. the are not waiting eight years. as you mentioned, eight years as the embargo goes away. the iranians can legally develop the component. they can deal with other terrorist organizations. russia and china are doing deals that are game changers in respect to the balance of power. they have an on again off again deal. we will see if they actually end up delivering this. shown that the russians

have proof that the iranians are sending sophisticated missiles to hezbollah and seven lebanon. we will see who action continues to comply with those requests. israel is note, waiting for their own self-defense. washington post reported that israel is launching a multibillion-dollar defense can destroy ballistic missiles and orbiting satellites. let's go back to calls from new york. on the independent line. i hope i get your name right. caller: yes. good morning. i was born as an american in iran. tonderstand the continuation ensure that the ballistic missile policy is not violated and, we should pursue that. having said that, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of the current government of iran that really has low popularity with

its own people, by the same years wer the past 37 have really destabilize the entire region. destabilized an ancient nation of thousands of years. compared to the air countries in the persian gulf region that have really served for 70 years as a post for easy production and transfer. then, you realize, that if you alienate as, the previous caller called, the snake has a choice to bite. the problem here is to strike a delicate balance of ensuring that ballistic technologies are dealing with the current government as unpopular as they

are inside the country. by the same token, do not alienate the 80 million iranians who, since -- modernization in the context of their culture. earning respect in the border nations. that is where foundation for democracy has to advocate for rather than trying to focus on the military. host: a good point. we will get a response. guest: you are right. we do a lot of work, not only on the topic of today, but on iranian human rights issues. the vast majority of iranians despise this regime. they have been living under a regime that has set up mass repression.

executions were at record levels last year. over 1000 executed, most without due process. have -- human rights abuses have skyrocketed under president rouhani. he is not entirely responsible with that, but the fact is the rainy and regime in its entirety is a revolutionary regime dedicated to repression abroad and oppression at home. we have been inadequate in our support of the iranian people and continue to perpetuate this democraticran has a system. the elections are rigged. we have former ministers of intelligence, having one code elections, are bea characterized as moderates, despite the fact they are responsible for murdering dissidents.

host: mark dubowitz, you teach courses on international negotiations at the university of toronto. a couple of comments and questions on twitter. this from steve, who says sanctions do not seem to work anywhere. iran threatens israel, but the real threat for the usa is north korea. it is a little off our topic, but there are rumblings about north korea. they are the ones doing the rumbling. what do we know. guest: north korea is exhibit a of where the iranian regime could be going. we signed a nuclear agreement with the north koreans in the 1990's. it was flawed and they violated it. we also -- they also have a sophisticated ballistic missile program.

extensive cooperation between iran and north korea on ballistic missiles. it is the perfect example of ,here a rogue regime could go if we continue to permit it to violate agreements and take ofantage of deflated -- deeply flawed international negotiations. that isrea is a country clearly threatening our neighbors in asia and the united states. there is more we can do in north korea. there are new sanctions that have been passed by the u.s. and the u.n. security council. it is a regime that is fragile, in that it depends on illicit procurement and financial networks to keep its regime in power. north korea is a problem from hell. iran is a problem that will be from hell, unless we recognize they are support for terrorism,

their missile program, will be a huge problem for the u.s. going forward. already racked by sectarian warfare and bloodshed in has enormous should you for the u.s. host: what is the range of a ballistic missile and an intercontinental ballistic missile? the missile could be short, medium, and long range. 50 kilometers to 1500 to 2000: murders. hit has missiles that can israel, our gulf allies. an is working on an intercontinental ballistic missile, as is north korea, what can go tens of thousands of kilometers which has as its target the united states homeland. that is the prize for north korea and iran. have an icbm -- the only reason to have one is for a nuclear

warhead and to be able to threaten the united states with a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile. it would leave the ultimate blackmail. dan on our republican line from ohio. sanctions wefting already have, giving them the billions of dollars that were frozen, we have no leverage at all. that is why they are not waiting eight years but doing this anyway. but eight years goes fast. even while they were negotiating, the supreme leader "death tog chants of america" and it seems this administration is naive. what we have not been better keeping sanctions in place and putting more pressure on them in order to get them to act the way we want? this sure did not work. guest: i think you are right.

we should have intensified pressure. in 2013, the iranian economy was four to six years away from a severe balance of payments crisis. they were ready to implode. the administration eased up on pressure and began their it withion, and began the most valuable concessions to iran. gave up those in the beginning of the negotiation. keep youriating, you most valuable concessions at the end. that is what the iranian state. -- i wasays some port always in support of negotiations. my concern is it is a flawed deal. it gives iran a patient path to nuclear weapons and allows them to build up ballistic missiles. so we have very little leverage left. we gave it up at the beginning

of the negotiations. now we are trying to deal with all of their malign activities with very little -- few arrows in our quiver. our guest is mark dubowitz. we are asking your thoughts and comments. we hear from ralph in augusta, georgia. have three points. all of our leaders who were going for the republican nomination have already stated the first the in office, they will tear that agreement. nationsss if the other went along with it. the other thing is we are just hurting the people in your own, not the government. -- and my point is last point is there is no wait you run will fire missiles that would reach us that we would not

be able to intercept in a reasonable time. wouldbelieve that israel intercept it. would you respond to that, please? will take them in reverse order. we do not want to take the risk a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile would head to the united states. it is not a risk the u.s., israel, or the saudi's orb bahranians want. the problem is that the instruments of coercion we have use against states often go down thehe disadvantaged, to injury of the people. that is unfortunate. but we do not want to goal -- we do not want to go to war with iran. two do it peacefully.

sanctions is one way. that hurts people. that hurt people in south africa with apartheid. your first point, i agree. i do not think we can shred this agreement on day one. i think what a president needs -- we are allowed to used sanctions against non-nuclear malign activities iran is involved in. we should put tough sanctions on those. then the iranians can send to walk away from the deal. if they do, let them. they will unravel the deal and we will have international support. we cannot allow this kind of aggression and not hit act with tools of course and like sanctions. it creates a bad dynamic that will go to the regime's advantage. asks bobby from twitter

what is the likelihood israel would start something by bombing iran or other israeli neighbors? the likelihood now is low. the israelis, saudi's, and others recognize that if the restrictions on the nuclear program -- as those nuclear program or sections disappear, iran is starting a program with virtually zero nuclear breakout and more clandestine i'm speak outs. as we get two-year 5, 8, and 10, the israelis and others will have to face a challenging situation. do you allow the iranians the nuclear capacity with both the missiles or take action? faceeaders will have to this difficult choice. when they do, iran will be

stronger and more powerful economically because of the agreement. regionally. it will have a more powerful ballistic missile program. and we will face off against a much more dangerous is wrong. the consequences of military action will therefore be more severe. calls.ore been in virginia on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thanks to c-span and thanks to your guest for being here. i have a couple questions. i am perplexed -- i do not believe our administration are traitors. but i am perplexed as to how they could have seen this deal in a positive light. anyone gets to be elected to be president or secretary of state is they are and india -- if they are an idiot. but there seems to be a deliberate effort in the mid to

thousands on the part of democrats and this administration to ignore the signs of iranians pursuit of nuclear technology. -- they quoted the executive summary out of context, only saying that iran has ceased the pursuit of nuclear weapons, when instead it said they stopped tilting warheads and are focusing on uranian -- they stopped building warheads and are focusing on uranium instead. this thinkingto that iran will not pursue a weapon? in if you could speak to the audience about iran's non-pursuit of high altitude electromagnetic pulse technology, which is where north korea could also go. that is a game changer. in that case, one weapon is

enough to essentially defeat us. guest: thank you for those great questions. the second question, you are right. of an emp attack, firing a missile that is not land in the u.s. and cause devastating damage, but sends electromagnetic pulse that fries our entire electronic industry. everything is so dependent on electronics, essentially it would set the united states back to the stone age. -- theranians have been ve iranians have been firing missiles straight in the air with that in mind. the north koreans have been doing the same thing. clearly that is part of their strategic planning. whether they do that or not, we do not know. but they are testing that. that is why we want to keep nuclear-tipped missiles from the

iranians. i can speculate on why the administration had this deeply flawed nuclear deal. i think they are aware of the mendacity of the iranian program. this administration believes -- it is a fundamental choice. either include a nuclear deal that has -- that buys some time on the clock. or in their mind, go to war with iran to stop this nuclear program. no one wants to go to war with the iranians to stop their nuclear programs, but i think there was a third option. we have the ability to intensify the pressure and negotiate a better deal. there would be two fundamental things with that deal. one, do not have sunset provisions where the restrictions go away over time. number two, we have given up the ability to have his occult

inspections of iran military sites. that is where they have been--i nuclear military activity. based on this agreement at what has happened since, the iran's will never allow his physical access. we will not be able to detect what they are doing. change those provisions, it will be a better deal. injured from fairfax, virginia on the independent line. andrew from fairfax, virginia on the independent line. caller: be careful what you wish for with tougher sanctions. if you have a revolution in iran that overthrows the current government, you are more likely to have something worse than what we have then to get something better. my second point is i am not surprised if iran were developing a nuclear weapon. they have had problems with iraq and with afghanistan.

so it does not surprise me that they would want to have some kind of guarantee on their own security. if yemen had nuclear weapons now, i do not think be saudi coalition would be bombing them. so you have to keep in mind that even though we may not like the iranian government, they are would like tod in see them self survive. that is something to keep in mind when going to the negotiating table. that they are not there to further our own interests. guest: you are right. the iranian regime has interests. they have national interests. they see a nuclear weapon and as a way to guarantee the survival of the regime. but the iranian regime is --sidered the leading's date the leading state sponsor of the obamaby administration. we are not talking japan developing nuclear weapons. but most of us would not lose

sleep if japan, who are three to six months away from that, developing that. and on -- and unlike north starvewho are happy to its people and cause mischief in the region, this is a regime spreading mischief globally. us in thispports regime supports bashar al-assad's slaughter of syrians, which created a massive refugee crisis for the europeans on oured create isis, one of major national security challenges. so in that context, this is not a regime you want to give nuclear weapons capability to under any circumstances, whether or not they have legitimate national security interests to have those. a worsennot imagine regime in iran than the one today. i can not imagine a worse supreme leader than ali khamenei. whatever word, in the wake of

him and the revolutionary guard in the dissolution of this regime would be much better, including what a previous caller talked about. the millions of iranians who hate the regime, who want to marcus he and reform. host: mark dubowitz of the defense of democracies. they can find more at defenddemocracy.org. ahead, we talk with marcus stanley, a policy director for the americans for financial reform. we talk about wall street reform and the campaigns in 2016 and where they stand six years after dodd-frank. later, veteran journalist tom defrank will be here. he covered all eight years of the reagan presidency. ♪

>> this weekend on book tv, live coverage of the tucson festival of books. it begins saturday at noon eastern and sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern. featured authors include douglas brinkley on fdr >> attorney linda hershman on the supreme court. -- ay's teacher authors and a politics panel with ari berman on voting rights. ofoughout our live coverage the tucson festival of books, many authors will join us to take your phone calls and comments. sunday at 9:00 eastern, afterwards with the author of the "black presidency, barack obama, and the politics of race in america."

the practical considerations were once you get elected, you want to be reelected. it is one thing to be elected the first black president, but to be reelected as the first black president may be even more difficult. when he ran the first time, he had no record in terms of national politics. a littlesenator for while. he was a clean slate on which people could put their hopes and fantasies. -- and to project on his body their ideals. but when you have a term, they are supporting you or are critical of you. booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> "washington journal" continues. marcus stanley is a policy director for the group americans

for financial reform. with us in this segment to talk about the state of financial reform some five or six years after dodd-frank and how it is playing in the campaign. and reaction, as well, to the presidentite house to find out where things stand. in terms of the dodd-frank law and where we are five or six years after its passage, how would you grade the obama administration's efforts? guest: i think we are somewhere between a b and c. some real things have been done. they stood off of the consumer financial protection bureau, a historic effort to protect american consumers from the traps of financial products. talking awe are

letter a or close to it. that is a substantial step forward. they limited the level of risky borrowing that big banks do. before the financial crisis, they had $30 to $40 borrowed for every one dollar and hard capital. that contributed to financial instability. every are down to $20 for one dollar. dothe same time, we still not have the key rules of dodd-frank implemented or even written, five or six years after the bill was passed. we have some areas, crucial to the financial crisis, that have not been reformed yet. host: let's look at what the dodd-frank legislation did in terms of the overall look. it was signed by the president on july of 20 10. it creates the consumer financial protection bureau and "t and itoo big to fail"

bailouts of financial firms. it illuminated loopholes for .inancial products gave shareholders a say on exeter of conversation. and enforces regulations on the books. you think consumers are better off now than before the passage of dodd-frank? guest: i think so. we have a situation where the millions ofon dollars in restitution. even beyond the specific moneys that have been won, you have a change of tone in the markets because of that. kinds ofve certain additional protections for mortgages, the most important financial project that ordinary consumers get. so there have been real improvements. it so difficult for the administration to form the cfpb? why did they get such resistance

from capitol hill? guest: that is a good question. it is, in many ways, a commonsense thing to do. create an agency that has a unique responsibility to protect consumers. before, that was put with the banking agencies, who had a divided loyalty, because they were looking to maintain the stability of the financial visit to sharon, increase the profits andhe financial institution protect consumers at the same time. but there was no question there was fierce resistance from for thiss before -- new agency that would police industry. and restrict some of the practices that did create profits. sustainable, but they created short-term profit for the financial set there. anytime you have a new agency that can threaten people's

profits, there will be resistance. stanley, policy director of the americans for financial reform. you did work with senator .arbara boxer we mention and the president meeting with financial regulators, looking out things stand. he spoke to the group at the white house. [video clip] that nowe seen banks have much greater capital. as much as $700 billion worth of additional capital. additional cushions in our financial system. we have put in place requirements so that if you have a financial institution that is on the brink of collapse, we can engage in an orderly unwinding of that institution without having taxpayers forced to come in and bail it out. we have made sure that the monitoring and reporting by these institution is more stringent than it used to be.

derivativesg in the sector. a huge amount of oversight and regulation. and now, you have clearinghouses that account for the matt asked for the vast majority of trades, so we know if and when somebody is doing something they should not be doing. if they are over leveraging in ways that can pose larger dangers to the financial system. we created a consumer financial protection bureau that has been very effective in cracking down on some of the predatory practices that financial institutions were engaging in an that, in part, led to the crisis in 2007 and 2008. dispel the notion that exists, both on the left and on the right, that somehow, after the crisis, nothing happened. you look at the

speech i gave at cooper union in 2008, addressing this issue, we are, by the end of the seer, likely to have achieved all the goals we set out in terms of firming up the financial system. making it more secure and making sure that some of the excesses, recklessness, and dangers that took place cannot occur in the future. host: interesting. addressing critics on the right and left, particularly with the tone of the bernie sanders campaign, very much and anti-wall street campaign. guest: the president said there is criticism on the left and the right that after the crisis, nothing happened. there is no question that something happened. the question is did enough happen? people, thoughtful observers, have the position

that not enough happened. that we have done some things but that fundamentally, the risky business models that led to the financial crisis, while and have been trimmed back there are better controls at the edges, those risky business models are still in place. and we are more skeptical on whether the problem of too big to fail has really been solved. on whether we may not again be in a position where taxpayers were at risk and there would be a threat to the broader economy if one of these giant megabanks -- jpmorgan or bank of america -- went down. host: one of the credits -- is jeffon the right henson. one statement he has made is graduallyfrank is

turning america's largest financial institutions into functional utilities and taking the power to allocate capital -- the lifeblood of the u.s. economy -- away from the free market and deliver it to political actors in washington." i disagree with the characterization there. is notf all, it necessarily so bad if some of the functions of the banking system are put in a situation where they are in a more utility-like model. , for example,stem are crucial backdrops for our economy. itthey are disrupted, like electricity is, the consequences can be catastrophic. if we had a less risky and more even flow of profits and revenue -- may be lower overall profits but more stable and less risky

profits -- i do not think that would be a bad thing. but the notion that dodd-frank -- most of the changes dodd-frank put in were intensification's of regulation that was already there and has been traditional for a century or more in american banking regulation. the notion that this somehow puts the american financial sector into some kind of socialist government control is absurd. are enormously powerful. making tens of millions of dollars in profits each year. there is still a lot go-go action and wall street. host: we welcome your calls for marcus stanley. the topic is wall street sincetion reforms dodd-frank. and what you're hearing on the campaign trail from people like bernie sanders. or democrats.0 f independence2 for

and all others. or republicans.f or send us a tweet. let's go2net tosha. natasha.go to caller: good morning. can you tell me if there is any a glass eagle, or something to that effect, may ever be passed so we can have better regulation on the big banks? also, i have another question in regards to wall street. , aen, when i watch c-span is perhaps wall street transactions. it is a penny or a quarter of a penny. that something was taken from

those transactions and put into a separate fund that would not insulate us against some sort of had a number of years ago. kind of like a rainy day fund. tenant for granholm's governorship, we had something like that -- guest: a couple of good questions like that. a wall street tax is under bernie sanders. guest: both of the things she raced are something that americans for financial reform has endorsed and things that bernie sanders has endorsed. this is a major distinction between the clinton campaign and agenda.ie sanders that bernie sanders has endorsed an updated and modified glass-steagall. the 21st century glass-steagall

act, introduced by elizabeth warren and john mccain, which would actually say that banks could no longer engage in many of the practices that led to the financial crisis. that is a different approach than dodd-frank, which said that banks could continue to engage in those practices but had to have better risk controls on them. the 21st century glass-steagall those practices outside of the banking safety net. that is something bernie sanders has endorsed but hillary clinton has not. in terms of the financial transaction tax, that is something bernie sanders has endorsed. hillary clinton has not endorsed a full-scale financial transaction tax. the growth in the number of transactions and trades in wall street is such that a very small tax could raise very large amounts of revenue.

there was a bill that americans for financial reform endorsed on capitol hill, that put a tax of of wallnts per $100 street trades, and that tax $350 have raised over .illion over the next 10 years for a tax of miniscule size. arnie sanders has endorsed somewhat larger tax. and hillary clinton has not endorsed that kind of full-scale tax. that and one headline says lan to tameers' p wall street riles clinton camp. in worcester, massachusetts. on our independent line. go ahead. massachusetts, in worcester.

bob, go ahead. are you there? let's try nick in gettysburg, pennsylvania. caller: i was wondering what are the effects of dodd-frank on local banks? have they overall been good and if so, how do we promote that? and if bad, how do we hamper the negative effects? the pushback to dodd-frank on capital bill has been this argument that it is harmful to community banks. we would disagree with that. but the story for community banks since the financial crisis and going back even before that has been that the many banks have been under pressure from changes in the banking system. there has been more concentration in the top couple of tanks. we have 7000 banks in the country, but there has been more

concentration of activity in the top five to maybe top 15 or 20 banks. the number of community banks has been dropping in the country. the fallout from the financial crisis led to several hundred community banks going out of business. governmentot the commitment to bail out those community banks. communitycrisis, banks have revived in terms of profits. we got a report from the fdic that over 90% of community banks are now profitable, compared to 78% in 2010, the year dodd-frank was passed. a number of things dodd-frank does that i think help community banks, in terms dodd-frank of putting stricter regulations on

the large banks, the main competitors of community banks, and also the consumer financial protection bureau extends consumer financial projections the competitors of community banks. at the same time, there are continuing pressures. some of the regulation, there is a role for more technical assistance, especially with a very small community bank. it may not have the resources to devote someone full-time to regulatory compliance. in greaterrole technical assistance from the government to community banks. think dodd-frank does exempt community banks from a wide variety of regulations passed under dodd-frank. and the consumer financial protection's bureau has exempted things under $1 billion or $2 billion from a number of these protections. there is a role for these exemptions when they are used judiciously.

problem we have to keep an eye on. but i do not believe dodd-frank is what is driving pressures in the community banks sector. host: a comment on twitter -- this one from jim says i am over things being denied insurance sales and especially screwing people under the guise of investment planning. the question is what are the chances of negative interest rates in the u.s.? and more broadly, the impact of that on the consumer? guest: we have seen this move towards negative interest rates around the world. in the not seen that u.s. yet. we have seen it in japan and ofope teetering on the brink several european countries doing that. i do not believe the u.s. federal reserve will move into negative interest rates.

the u.s. economy is stronger than a lot of these other economies. recently, the fed clearly wanted to raise interest rates. i do not think they will raise interest rates but i do not think they will push it lower. when people talk negative interest rates, they mean negative interest rates as it relates to some of these large risk transactions done between the bank and the federal reserve's. or banks buying federal debt. we saw occasional negative interest rates the last couple debtars on very short term . the markets produce that. that was not something consumers saw or really effective them. i think you move into negative interest rates on a large scale in the u.s. go below zero,to you could have greater fees on your bank accounts, but we are not at that yet.

cky in minnesota on our democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you, mr. stanley, for being here. fiancee andago, my i lost our home. i saw a fact in the movie that i saw on the crisis that 6 million people lost their homes in the united states. i was in an area where i drove around and saw the devastation. and i were devastated. we lost a lot of money. i spent around for years, trying to save that home. calling the attorney general, calling financial advisors. we went to court. we were included in a little -- in a small lawsuit. got a group of people, they $1300 from the thousands of

dollars we lost. part of our problem was that we know enough about how you go through a mortgage. signing the papers, -- it seems so unfair that no one else in the banks and wall street had to suffer like all of those people who lost our homes. ,hen it has been proven listening to you and other people, that it was the greediness of the bank. is is a really there is no hope for all those people who lost all that money? host: thank you for calling. first, i am very sorry to hear what happened to you. it is a story that could be told , as you said, by millions of ordinary americans who suffered the fallout from this crisis. number you mentioned, 6 million people who lost their

homes -- i think the number of foreclosures was closer to 10 million. 8 million people lost their jobs. ordinary americans suffered greatly. the years just after the crisis, in 2009 and 2010, there was a bipartisan failure in washington, d.c. to exert anything like the effort to protect ordinary people like you from the fallout of this crisis as compared to the efforts -- the enormous efforts made to protect wall street and the banks and individuals on wall street from the fall out of this crisis. if you read tim geithner's book -- it was not in his book, but there has been discussion about how he had to phone the runway for the banks and protect write downaving to the mortgages they had and

potentially reduce the numbers of foreclosures. the fear was that if they reduced those foreclosures, they wrote down the valley of these mortgages to something more realistic, that it would endanger the stability of the bank. the bipartisan failure put the priority thanher ordinary americans. that accounts for a lot of the anger we see on the campaign trail. an academic study found that the top 10 executives from lieman bonuses $1.5 billion in in the 7 years prior to the crisis. they cap that money even though their banks went down. that is quite a contrast to your

story. the cfpb's mortgage regulations are aimed at putting in protections on mortgages to prevent, in the future, what happened to you and try to make people more aware of what they are signing when they get involved in a mortgage. but i think we do need a national and governmental commitment to prioritize protecting ordinary people from the consequences of financial instability as compared to protecting the big banks. and the cfpb one of a couple of agencies created by the 2010 dodd-frank law, which includes the financial stability oversight council and the office of finance research. back to calls. dawn in michigan, independent caller. -- don in michigan, independent caller. caller: i think you agree with me that we need to cut down the

number of people in congress. another thing is that the wall street, the banks, and the government caused the mess. and the two wars we have going on is still not funded. it is about time we wake up. that is why everyone is pissed off. prisonone is in jail or that ran it. that running a company you -- host: you just had your primary in michigan. we are talking wall street and wall street reform. who is the candidate that spoke to you? who did you vote for in the primary? we are a going toward socialism. i do not want to go that route. hillary, she already broke the law. but the lawmakers are above the law. but i like trump because of what he says. i have a lot of people here i

know. i do not trust money. you cannot put faith in nobody. host: let's go next to rochester in here from bud on our democrat line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to a number of local call in programs to our public station. why and large, the biggest problem they want the candidates , the biggestge problem they want to discuss is that small businesses cannot get loans. one man said he and timely mortgaged his house. sold his vacation home. -- said he entirely mortgaged his house. old his vacation home. and still has trouble moving ahead with capital expansion of his business. i think be too big to fail was 180 degrees out of phase.

it just one of the big banks had failed, it would have represented an issue for the others to straighten out. broken downall be so they are competing on a wider level. i say this as a democrat. this is crazy. fail agree that too big to was the wrong way to go. as i said, we -- there is a lot of skepticism about whether too big to fail really has been solved. tohave taken these steps create this resolution process, in which a bank can be liquidated without taxpayer assistance and could genuinely fail. but there are legitimate questions. around $2t banks are

trillion in size. that is much larger than any institution that has ever been resolved through conventional bankruptcy processes. is it really true that these things could still fail without taxpayer assistance and support? that they arerue on any competitive level with other, smaller banks? aboute a lot of doubts that. even behind among the regulators, there are doubts over whether too big to fail has been solved. we have to take stronger steps to do that. in terms of small business lending, there are a couple of different factors. part of it is the demand issue. economy damage to the was such that small businesses did not have the revenue flow to support borrowing.

it is also true that smaller banks are more likely to lend to small businesses then bigger banks. bigger banks tend to have a more automated model in lending. they cannot have the relationship, high touch lending that is often needed for small business lending. community banks are more oriented to that. if we take emphasis away from the bigger banks and move it down to having smaller banks that are lending-focused -- and i think glass-steagall would help do that by making it so that banks would have to be lending-focused because they were not allowed to do wall street activities -- that that would be helpful on the small business lending front. this is something bernie sanders has said, that the next time we have financial disruption, the that wouldrograms protect small business lending. the fed gave a lot of loans to a dozen big wall street banks to support the money market, but did not get, except for one

program, did not directly support small business funding. that should change. fail, a too big to tweet says that big banks are still too big to fail. however, if comrade gets in, he will destroy wall street in his effort to tame it. what financial tool has the capability of bringing down our financial institutions? and another tweet, the person asks is it student loans? a lot of student loans are government-guaranteed. the private student loan market took a severe hit during the financial crisis, in terms of size. when you look at student loans, -- there is a taxpayer

threat. it could be more difficult to bring down the financial system. one thing that happened post-financial crisis is that , mortgage and private backed securities, the toxic assets that were structured by wall street turned out to be fraudulent in many cases. a lot of deception and fraud involved in their structuring. that was an enormous market that kind of advantage because people lost face in it -- lost faith in it. that was a market large enough to bring down the global economy. there are still a lot of complex financial products out there. we see things like clo's, subprime auto loans, another sector people think is problematic now. it is any one of those big enough to bring down the global economy?

maybe not. they are not the size of the private nbs market. we saw oil markets cause a lot of financial disruption, and we believe many deletion is going up -- we believe the nuclear issue is going on in there. host: joe for massachusetts on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. stanley, as other callers have mentioned, i understand that banks are still too big to fail. but what i would like to focus on is the guarantee on the collateral on debt obligations and the financial impact that will have. ultimately, we become too dependent on wall street, which is why the smaller businesses cannot succeed. cdo market, one of the most notoriously complex of these securitized products --

the subprime cdo market before billionis was up to a 5 dollar market that lost 65% of its value, which is unbelievable . this is a multibillion dollar market which was rated investment grade by rating agencies. the rating agencies got away with murder during the financial crisis and did not pay much of a penalty from that -- it lost two thirds of its value. it is an unbelievable value -- unbelievable story. clo's are not as big of a market but they are still significant. i am not sure what you mean about a guarantee on them. there is no government guarantee . there may be some bank guarantees that are supposed to

be better capitalize now. i do think the complex, securitized products are where a lot of risk lurks. not have atill do grasp, either in the revelatory system, on those risks. we also have not adequately formed the rating agencies, who are supposed to be our first line of defense in determining the risk of these products and catastrophically failed during the financial crisis. one area where dodd-frank and the regulators have not been strong enough. move to larry on a republican line in minneapolis. talkr: i would like to about the process going on the last eight months -- predatory shortselling on wall street. this --e been doing

super shortselling as it is also called -- where wall street investors sell stock they do not own, driving down that stock, then buying it back at a lower price and keeping the difference. at some point, if we are going to put our life savings in wall street's hands, shortselling has to be outlawed, if the market will actually be a safe place for people's life savings. why is no one talking about these problem -- about this problem? shortselling is something we have not taken a position on as an organization. it is a practice that has gone on on wall street for a long time. really, since the early 20th century. been the ability to

borrow stock and potentially profit from the price of the stock going down. were some actions against shortselling taken during the financial crisis on a temporary basis. short selling is supposed to be restricted, but there are a lot of loopholes and ways around that paved there was a concern that shortselling was increasing instability of banks during the financial crisis. there was also a feeling it was necessary to the markets. we have not really taken a position on that. did you see or read "the big short" and how accurate was that in portraying the offense that led to the financial crisis? i have not seen the movie, which is, increasingly problematic.

"the big short" i thought was a terrific movie and book. it is a little different than the shortselling he was talking about. what they did was got credit default swaps, which was a way bond you did on a not own. that played a huge role in the crisis. they are not shortselling of stocks, but they played a huge behind-the-scenes role in the crisis and work o-matic. jim in california on the republican line. caller: good morning. it is popular to blame wall street for the financial crisis that occurred after the birth of we seesing struggle, as from bernie sanders. but there was a lot of lame to go around.

the government shared a lot of the blame. after the community reinvestment act, a of lending institutions were pressured, under threat of lawsuits, to lower their couldrds, so people who not qualify for a loan could. people like christopher dodd and barney frank, pressured bernie lower their standards so they could buy up the subprime loans. and then the american people -- there were millions of americans, and i knew a few, who thought they could make easy money by flipping houses. reality is that it is not as simple as blaming wall street. wall street is an easy hit. the caller is

right. that there is a lot of blame to go around. blaming theute his community reinvestment act or freddie primarily for the crisis. the community reinvestment act has been around for decades. we do not see these problems in the 1980's and 1990's. if you look at what was the precursor of the crisis, it was the enormous increase in the issuance of private, mortgage backed securities, which were ddiefannie and fre securities. they were structured by wall street banks. there was a lot of fraud and underwriting involved in the structure. a lot of misleading and deceptive practices in terms of therming people, who were purchasers of these securities, as to the actual nature of these mortgages. differentk at what is

in the six to seven years leading up to the crisis as compared to the 1980's and 1990's, what is different is the emergence out of almost nowhere of a multi-trillion dollar private mortgage-backed securities market. it is not about the community reinvestment act. ddie,rms of fannie and fre there were problems, where they followed wall street off the cliff. we have this problem where they split structure with an implicit government guarantee. bagby same time, they were a private profit organization, where executives had bonuses. there was -- that was a big problem in the structure of fannie and freddie that should be our trust. in terms of the american people, atmosphere.s go-go there is no question there are

some who used that atmospheric to get rich pick themselves. but where is the atmosphere coming from and who is leading a trading that? -- and who was leading and creating that? guycannot blame the little for following the big guy off the cliff. the big guy is supposed to be the professional. let's go to john on the independent line in cleveland. caller: can you hear me? guest: we can. caller: thank you what we can do. we have notnron, learned. nothing wrong with commodities. insurance banking and everything. are they allowed to have a balance sheet iago -- balance sheet iago -- balance shee

sheet? 0% by the treasury within 24 hours, why should they take no risk and make the money out to not loan any of the community level. guest: they were great questions. enron inwarning from early 2000's with the economy county scandals. we did not he that warning. practice of off-balance range, there was a whole of off-balance sheet practices where essentially you take risks

and set up a vehicle or different derivative or separate separate -- or separate vehicle that doesn't appear on your balance sheet. you still get profits from it. when the markets are under stress, the surprise that risk reappears on your balance sheet, you haven't provided forest and it takes you down. that happened with enron and we sought happening again eight years later with city point -- citibank and deutsche bank. in terms of synthetic derivatives, traditionally for many decades those would have violated anti-gambling laws. it is a gamble on a product that you didn't own that commodity future modernize asian act relaxed that and prevented these derivatives. dodd frank did not change that

panel we spoke about bernie sanders proposal for financial transaction tax. one of hillary clinton proposals -- heller clinton's proposals puts a risk the on the largest financial institutions, they would graduate every year on the liability of the banks working with over $50 million in assets and other financial institutions, designated by an oversight. do you think that is a valuable approach? guest: that is something that president obama has already proposed. it would basically be, it is not the same thing as a financial transactions task. -- transactions taxpayer what this does is basically tax many forms of the bank borrowing.

this would impose a tax of every dollar of money borrowed. congress has not taken out that risk free -- frisk -- taken out that risk fee. to continue toed propose it i think that would be possible. particularly if the house remains republican. has the revenue potential that a financial transaction tax has. it doesn't tax those enormous numbers of transactions that are taken on a daily basis. it would be positive in terms of its effects on bank borrowing. host: you can follow him on twitter and your website.

guest: ourfinancial security.org. host: later today former first lady nancy reagan will be lay to rest at the president ronald reagan library and museum. we will speak with tom defrank who was involved in all you eight years of the presidency -- of the reagan presidency. who was involved in all eight years of the reagan presidency. ♪ unusual iswhat is so to be of to have a professional personal partnership over 15 is really unusual thing. -- 15 years is really an unusual thing. >> i have stuck very closely to

the ground side of the equation. them a sunday night, political editor and a new york times correspondent, who are married, talk about their careers and their upcoming plans to move to israel. >> it is going to be a great venture. -- great adventure. we have done the overseas thing together before, but we never spent time in jerusalem. i think we are looking forward to learning a lot. it's going to be a real adventure. it's so much a vital part of today's issues. and we spend a lot of time writing about it though we have never been there on the ground. be a sicklyll changing and continuing politico. we are continuing to expand in the united states and internationally.

we are looking at creating and launching new things. we started that, it is an exciting new platform to take us into the ambitious longform. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q1 day. c-span's u.n -- c-span's q and a. treating editor of the national journal has covered eight presidencies. the presidential coverage includes eight years with the ronald reagan administration. get set for we later today. what are your most immediate memories of nancy reagan. guest: i always thought that he

never would have been president without her. i think history is going to conclude he was a pretty good he was laid back. she was sometimes anxious. she was also very protective of him. i am one of those who believe he probably would not have been president without her, without her determination, without her drive, without her pushing him and focusing him. and taking care of him. i will tell you a very quick story, one of my favorite stories. in the summer of 1983, midway through his second term, an old friend came to visit them in the family quarters of the white house. he needed an answer whether reagan was going to run for reelection in 1984. at the time he was 72 years old. years after the

assassination attempt against him. nutshell, first leg, her power, her determination to take care of him. amebody once said they were team. and her job was to protect him from everyone else. she did that better than anyone else on the planet. and: and address ronald nancy reagan made together, the first ever national live address where she talked about her "just say no" campaign. what prompted her to get behind that? ♪

guest: every first lady wants a cause. michelle obama is working on childhood obesity and nutrition. up about been beaten all of her clothes, her spending habits and things like that. she wanted to do something that was more noble and she knew there was an epidemic of drugs and she wanted to do something about that. host: how did your perception as a reporter change? guest: i had been covering the white house a long time and i covered campaign. i only covered the reagan camp for two weeks. stories thatll the she is the power behind the throne, if you don't want to get into the middle of -- you didn't want it between her and nick --

between ronald and nancy reagan. that in the early going were some of the first signs of ,er clout with her husband ronald reagan's first white house chief of staff's appointment was not popular among the californians. is a loyalist among loyalists. nancy reagan concluded he was not right guy for white house chief of staff. jim baker, for a lot of the -- who a lot of the californians didn't like, because he worked against reagan in 1980, they thought he was a pragmatist. in this case and showed me nancy reagan was the pragmatist.

-- it showed me nancy reagan was the pragmatist. host: a veteran washington journalist who covered the white house for newsweek. your reflections and comments are welcome. keith is a democratic caller in chicago. is a sadertainly it day for many on the conservative side. and all first ladies deserve respect. would like to make a comment and ask a question.

so many of us in the middle on , theset just remember people did nothing about a growing aids crisis. reagan never said the words. .nd they didn't take action friends.s lost how do you explain the disconnect between nancy reagan and ronald reagan, and they are two adult children? their biological children? -- and their two adult children? their biological children? it was set upon ron's mother's

death, the best thing i could say about her is she loved her husband. not that she loved her family, not that she loved the country, she loved ronald reagan. host: let's hear from tom defrank. guest: i would never presume to get in the middle of families. i have aically 20-year-old son who was a sophomore in college. families are tricky. family had all sorts of other problems internally. there was a lot of estrangement between one son, michael, who was adopted. sibling who was the offspring of ronald reagan's first marriage, actress jane marriage tost

actress jane wyman. their family situation was tricky. agos told this a long time and i observed it in those eight years, every politician is centric circles of , aides. advisers, agent the central circle was ronald and there wasan, no room, including children. over the years there were stresses and strains in that family situation, like pretty much every -- pretty other family and the planet. host: our coverage from the ronald reagan presidential library and museum in simi valley california. they look at the ventura

firefighters -- a look at the ventura county firefighters. nancy pitt -- nancy reagan's body has been lying in repose since wednesday. james? caller: good morning to your guest and to c-span. i look at the nancy reagan's life and some snippets. african-american, what stands out in my mind, i wonder what folks are saying about michelle obama. she spent a quarter of a million dollars upgrading the chinaware in the white house. ronald reagan kicked off his visitingial campaign

-- of whereworse three civil rights workers were murdered. thank you. yout: i don't agree with about alzheimer's in the white house. did youple ask me, when ever suspect he had alzheimer's? i didn't suspect until a year after he left office when i had an off the record rick -- off the record interview with him. there are friends who say he has always been a little forgetful. , mrs.o your first comment

obama would probably be peter upon that just like nancy reagan was. the notion anti-reagan got a free ride on all of that is not correct. as a matter of fact, one of the reasons she was very serious about just say no and other things, in addition to it being on the merits for her what she was totally getting beat up on wanted to don and something to soften her image. host: the assassination attempt happenedry early -- very early in his presidency. the first lady played a bigger role after the 81 shooting. it's part of our american presidents series, discussing the aftermath of the shooting.

.> we got to the hospital and they looked at me and said, he has been shot. there were police all around and a lot of noise. there was one desk and one share. i kept wanting to see ronnie. they kept saying, he's alright, but you can't see him. i said, if he's all right, why can't i see him?

he was lying there with that thing on his face to help him breathe. >> did the two of you ever talk about the danger you faced? nancy: you never thought about it. you never think about that. you never think he's going to be shot ever. guest: i remember that day very well. nancy reagan was totally dramatized -- totally traumatized by those events. i agree she became more protective. this was not a political event, this was taken care of her husband -- taking care of her

husband. was the saying nancy ultimate body man, saying this as a tribute to her. there was nobody more ferocious in taking care of reagan. this was at the white house correspondents association dinner. president reagan was to my left, mrs. reagan was to my right. the association was trying to get president reagan's attention, and he was as close as you and i are here. reagan zoned out. the president of the association not taking the cue, mrs. leaned in close and pokemon the right forearm -- and poked him on the right forearm. it was a small thing, by the

luck of the drop i was sitting between the two of them on the dais.-- on the it is inside of how protective she was on big things, small things, and certainly the aftermath. host: let's hear from our public in line. -- our republican line. caller: [indiscernible] it was entrapment. host: that is a little off-topic. we will go next to michigan, tim on the independent line.

good morning. to me this is all wasted time. did not do anything to make the government function and we could be spending more time on pertinent problems and issues that we face today. that is my comment. guest: first ladies are potentially the most powerful unelected people in the government. they have a portfolio without specific duties. that case, the one thing every first lady has in common called pillowally talk. they can influence their husbands throughout the day and put ideas in their head.

i covered eight of them. i don't agree with the notion and other reagan first ladies were a waste of time. >> where would you grade her as a role to an advisor and taking on special projects or causes, such as the noted anti-drug campaign. >> that was an important contribution to the system. very fervent for stem cell research. of ran into the face republican orthodoxy. i think she was pretty strong about that. in terms of her influence on her

husband, she was not that much of a policy person. she really wanted to see the united states reach a deal with the soviet union. i think she was in the majority. she was coming at it from a different angle. his advisers thought it would be good for the world. she thought that would be good for the world. it was the last thing standing in the way of ronald reagan getting a nobel peace prize. i don't feel like dabble in policy much. she demanded to see his schedule

and if he traveled to hard there would suddenly be proposed events out of town on that schedule. goes back to my point of being the ultimate body man or body person. she wasn't afraid. beginning atinder 1:30 eastern from the presidential library and museum on c-span radio. first lady michelle obama will be there. first lady rosalynn carter will be there. i understand former first lady will be there at the funeral as well. let's go to tennessee and it is an on the republican line. guest: -- caller: she ordered china because there was not

enough for a state dinner. it was not paid for by the taxpayer. it was a war -- was paid for by the snap foundation. airs equal to one hour on one. howink you need to add up much the obama is flying on two separate airplanes every time they go on a vacation. her china did not cost the taxpayer anything. >> let me just point out and i have heard questions like this , if people50 years knew how much it cost to transport presidents and first ladies, there would be a national scandal. it is all hidden in various department budget.

every president and first lady i have covered in recent years has done the same. i remember as recently as president george h w bush and barbara bush. at some point afterwards it was the clintons during the clinton administration. thes no different than clintons and george w. bush and laura bush before that. i'm not the one who said she spent $1 million on china.

that is no different than their predecessors. >> another reporter giving her and memories. susan page of usa today, nancy reagane the personal touch and usa today.com. this time it is riverside california, ginger. looks like we lost ginger. the final thoughts with funeral this afternoon of the nancy reagan's legacy? gu sshe channeled that toughness into taking care of him. one of the most celebrated instances is she did not get with the former treasury secretary, the former ceo of merrill lynch.