thought caucus. and at 9:00 a.m., kyle trygstad with the prime result -- primary results from four states and what it could mean for the elections. trump: it is clear to me that we cannot prevent in ianund me and -- an iran nuclear bomb under the run structure of the current agreement. the iran deal is defective at its core. if we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. ♪ trump offering part of his justification for pulling away from the iran nuclear deal from the world -- deal. mixedhe world community, reactions. member companies like germany, france, and the united kingdom

expressing concern, but say they will move on in maintaining the deal. on capitol hill, part of the reaction with the support of most republicans, sharp criticism from democrats, and president obama even expressing concerns. we will get those reactions, but in our first hour we want to get yours as well on the united states pulling out of the iran nuclear deal. if you support the president on this or not, you can tell us why. the numbers to call us this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. to tweak your comment, you can do so on our @cspanwj, andt you can also post on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. here are some reactions from the world newspapers this morning.

the united kingdom, the headline from the times of london this morning. trump ditches "rotten" nuclear deal with iran. france is also one of those member countries participating. allies decried trump of the decision to pull out of the iran nuclear deal and, if you also go to the paresh, thepaper pullsey frame it, trump out of "disastrous" nuclear deal .o impose "powerful" sanctions president trump at the white house yesterday offering his defense of why the united states is pulling out of that deal. you can see the full defense on butwebsite at c-span.org, here is part of the president of the presentation of yesterday. [video clip] president trump: at the heart of the iran deal was a fiction that a murderous regime deserved only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

today, we have definitive proof was ahis iranian promise lie. last week, israel published intelligence documents, long concealed by iran, conclusively showing the iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons. was act is, this horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made. didid not bring calm, it not bring peace, and it never will. in the years since the deal was reached, iran's military budget has grown by almost 40%. its economy is doing very badly. after the sanctions have lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear capable , support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the middle east and beyond. the agreement was so poorly

negotiated that even if iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time. provisions areet totally acceptable. if i allow this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the middle east. everyone would want their weapons ready by the time iran had there's. in the wallraphic street journal, it talks about the nuclear deal as it currently stood affected iran's nuclear program and how it might slow efforts to resume and when it comes to uranium enrichment. which iran is able to purify uranium, 95% of that is needed for nuclear weapons, and 20% enriched to this level prior to the deal, the current 3.67% is the maximum level allowed under the deal.

when it comes to stockpiles within the country, the graphic from the wall street journal says iran was required to reduce its stores of enriched uranium, about 10,000 kilograms. iran had this much before the deal took effect. 300 is the maximum allowable under the deal. centrifuges, it says many of the machines, which are a fight uranium, were installed before the deal. according to the wall street journal, from information and several sources, about 19,000. now a maximum of 6000, 6100 and four --6006 100 and these are the elements of the deal that were in place until the united states via president trump decided to get out of that deal. we will get your thoughts on it for the first hour this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

daniel and washington, d.c., republican. good morning. go ahead. caller: yes. of the unitedlicy states is always destabilizing country. -- countries. look at the wars we are in right now. trump, whatsh -- president trump is doing is even greater instability. nobody in the whole world agrees with him. we need to worry about enriching uranium here. we're going to spend about $700 billion on our defense budget and readability all 1000 nuclear weapons. host: as far as the deal itself, why is this just -- it was a moderating influence that all the countries in the world agreed to.

iran is afraid of the united states, and it is all due to our government in the 1950's. let's worry about ourselves. in newet's go to cornell jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. this is another deal broken. we have no credibility in the world. jong-un, he would be a fool to make a deal with the trump administration. donald trump campaigned on this issue. it is another step on trying to dismantle anything that former president obama has done. benjamin netanyahu campaigned vigorously to pull out of the with saudi arabia. also, they were the ones that

were beating the drums that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. that is cornell -- host: that was cornell in new jersey. he mentioned president barack obama. barack and michelle obama put out a long statement about the president of the decision to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. it reads in part since the jcp oa was invented, iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons , removed -- plutonium centrifuges, place them under international moderating, and the raw materials necessary for a bomb were depleted. this does not rely on trust, it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspection that the regime ever negotiated. iran's nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. and monitors have access to iran's entire nuclear supply train.

them if they cheat. that is to part of the statement from the president yesterday. the wall street journal follows up a little bit more on the monitoring aspect of the deal as it stood. agreemente current limited the capability to enrich uranium. it might be easier to monitor these activities. intelligence -- intelligence officials, including then central intelligence agency director mike pompeo, after concluded that iran has complied. but the ministry should has complained that limits on iran's ability to enrich uranium are set to ease in eight years under the accord. complainedlso has that the deal resulted in cash payments by the u.s. to iran, used the money, proceeds of a court settlement, to fund militant groups. caller: from the very beginning,

this deal was not to pacify iran to make it a peaceful country. iran, with or without a nuclear weapon, has ambition. it is going to dominate. hezbollah, so, this is not about iran being a nuclear country or not. even without that, it has already accomplished its mission. now, are we going to go to war with iran? that is a question we should be asking. what worries me is that regardless of what happens now, yemen is on fire, and they are going to export more to the middle east. they are destabilizing the whole region, and the whole problem is this is not the problem of trump. we have not even stabilized that

part of the world. everybody has to be blamed. not the united states alone, i am telling you. host: judy, north carolina, independent. caller: yes. if this was such a wonderful plan, then why are the democrats hollering about it now? as aid they not ratify it treaty because it is so wonderful when obama put it out there? has no business putting his nose in it. he is not in any place to blow his mouth off. this is ridiculous. host: as far as the decision by the united states, do you support it? if so, why? caller: i do support it, because iran has done nothing but lie. if you would have seen what netanyahu put out there -- why can't people understand that they are nothing but liars and they lie going into this? into north

carolina. on twitter, what does president trump think he gained by destroying a deal that was working? another post, there will be no war. iran will accept whatever the president decides to do. in maryland, independent line, bob. caller: good morning. caller -- we live in the united states by the constitution. under the constitution, any callednts are treaties. if obama wanted to live by executive actions, he would die by it. if you ran it through the congress and had it approved as a treaty, the media would not be crying like a baby this morning. the democrats would not be crying. what obama did would have never passed the congress. the media and the democrats,

they want to be law-abiding citizens -- that is the law. host: so is this worth renegotiating as a treat her? -- 3-d? caller: hell no. there's people are the enemy. it is not worth negotiating another treaty. they are the enemy. host: tim, democrat line. [inaudible], and they support terrorism everywhere. i do not see it at all. it is outrageous. they need the money here in a lot of places. they should have put that money on other things. the new york times yesterday took a look at aspect of the president's announcement and analyzed it for context. saying this deal gave

the disastrous regime many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash. the analysis goes on to say this is misleading. as her trump has made a version of this claim at least one dozen times since taking office, and dozens of times while running for president. the nuclear deal released about 100 billion dollars, not 100 $50 billion as he frequently claims, and frequently for -- in previously frozen iranian assets. in other words, the money already belonged to iran. much of the amount is also tied up in debt negotiations, and estimates for the actual amount available ranging from $35 billion to $65 billion. you can read that for yourself in the new york times if you wish to. let's go to cj, minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to let everybody

know out there that this country is only 242 years of age. we are still a baby, and where trying to tell another country that is over 1000 years of age what to do. it has no direction. it is on everything that they do. host: so we should have stayed in the deal? caller: well, i do not know who we should have stayed in the deal. i do not know all the ramifications behind it, but i do know one thing. the congress needs to step up to the plate and put the brakes on this president like they did the last president. they should know. host: let's hear from carol, west virginia, independent line. caller: hi, good morning, pedro. wondering, do some intellectual thought here, i am wondering if trump [inaudible]

these other countries that are involved, the u.k., britain, france, they are going to stay in this deal. trump'sdering if thinking ok, these are our allies, but we can pull out of this deal. we will go ahead and allow then,ons everywhere, and they might try to talk iran into coming back to the table with the united states. deal able to truly make a that is going to stop all of could quicklyiran get back their program and get it back on track and quickly get materials, and that means they have been cheating by having their materials on their aieaary bases, where the and jc poa has not been able to inspect. so i'll just sit back and watch this.

he has people around him, trump does, that know what is going on . hopefully they can get something going here. host: chris in alabama on twitter says that the president is planning to keep iran from developing nuclear weapons. number one, unilaterally withdraw from the deal that ea inspections, and question mark. we are getting our thoughts this morning on that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans independents, (202) 748-8002. on the hill, the senate minority leader chuck schumer adding his thoughts, saying there were no reports that iran had violated the deal and giving his version

of the event that took place yesterday. [video clip] there were no reports that iran has violated the agreement. for me, the greatest worries from iran are not right now the nuclear side, but rather what they are doing in syria, what belowre doing to arm has with rockets, what they are doing with icbms. to me, the right thing to do what have been to try to come up with our allies with an agreement on those issues and let the nuclear part of this continue as is, because it is not being violated in any way. by dividing our allies -- i have heard the president say he would impose secondary sanctions on allies, you are making it harder to go after has block, you are making it -- hezbollah, you are making it harder to go after iranian activities that are dangerous, and probably making it harder to come to a north korea deal. as a one of the sanctions

result of the sanctions that will take place affects american companies. this from the wall street journal, some companies that face the risk of those sanctions , others reporting that in the united states, boeing and the companies that supply parts for its planes, such as general electric, are directly affected by the decision to cancel authorization of a multibillion dollar sale of airplanes to iran. "following today's announcement, we will discuss with the u.s. government on the next steps." airbus, a european provider, will also be affected. and among oil giants that have five or more business with the ell.g, total and sh the line, maxine is next. caller: good morning, pedro. what i have been saying today is

that iran is not to be trusted. we now have to bring a stop to this whole nuclear thing. stop giving our money out there to help them. this is a lie except will, and prayer to bring back into our united states. host: ohio, republican line. go ahead. caller: i am concerned about the folks that think the credibility of the united states is on the line here. .hat is a strawman argument the credibility of the united states was reached when a rope president entered into a rogue agreement. he should have been taken out of office. as the fact that the steel took place, now that we are out of it, what should happen to next -- happen next, particularly when it comes to about iran's

program? caller: if we want to enter into this kind of deal and do it legally with ratifications by the senate, i have no problem with that. if it was done legally -- you know, the people that are yelling as disagreeing to what president trump is doing, they would be equally outraged if president trump did the same thing. the worldyou ok with community going forward without the united states in this matter? caller: we don't control the world. the world can do what they want to do. i'm talking about the legality of what happens politically within the united states, the office of the president and the roles of each branch of government under our constitution. host: mike in ohio. then rice served under obama administration from a national security adviser from 2013-2017. a piece in the new york times talking about this decision yesterday, saying iran could stay in the deal for now if remaining signatories can

provide significant trade and investment benefits, but the outcome is likely unsustainable, imposing united states painful sanctions against foreign entities doing business with iran. alternatively, iran could resume its nuclear activities unfettered, either gradually or rapidly, and even withdrawing from the treaty on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, making it a far more dangerous actor. the president spiked the iran deal out of spite and hubris with no viable alternative. he asserts that, with increased pressure on iran, he can negotiate a better deal, but only someone who knows nothing about iran assumes it would pay more under duress to get the same thing it was promised three years earlier. george in washington state, republican line. caller: hi. host: hi, go ahead. caller: i was just watching you

guys this morning, and i think trump is on the right track. you know, every time they say oh, don't do that, it turns out goodthat was actually a thing. especially getting out of the paris accord. they all complain that he is going rogue or whatever, you know? i think he is on the right track. host: why do you think he is on the right track with just decision? caller: on iran? he is doing this before going to talk to north korea, so that way he can say when i say something, i mean it. -- he will know that mean business when he talks to kim jong-un. number two, i think the people of iran, he is going to tighten the screws and the people will get so fed up with their government that they will maybe and uprise a little bit take over the country and be more of a democratic country

again, like they used to be 40 plus years ago. mind,so sanctions in your that is the best approach, and you think they will have long-lasting effects? caller: it is possible. you are never going to know until it happens. in different directions, but all we have to do is wait and see. maybe trump has a better instinct than most people think, i think. host: democrat line from alabama, we will hear from lewis. good morning. caller: good morning. all the things you have been and the views from schumer, that iran did not validate any deals. the people that did not violate have 400 inspectors over in iran, and they can't find anything wrong.

[inaudible] we have a history of violating treaties. host: wait a minute. to this treaty, why do you support us staying in? caller: because they negotiated this treaty for years and years to get this treaty right. and everything can be perfect. someone has to give and take. host: one of our callers said it was a deal, not a treaty, because it was not ratified by congress, just to clarify. we had congress and everybody on this deal to talk about it. negotiating on this deal for years and years. trump has never been in political office. he doesn't know anything about the middle east, and i really don't believe that this was a good deal and it will backfire

on us, because trump might not be in there for four years. you doait, you just said not believe it is a good deal. the current deal or the decision by the president? caller: the president made a bad decision, and he is talking about going over to north korea? if i was north korea and saw what they just did, there is no way in the world i am going. alabama.is and there is a story this morning in the washington post taking a look at the potential talks between, direct talks between the united states and north korea. it says the north korean leader kim jong-il and to talk to president trump about synchronous measures to deal .ith the standoff chinese state media reported on tuesday that after kim made his second visit to china in as many months, coupled with kim's

desire to eventually achieve denuclearization and lasting peace on the peninsula, ringing alarm bells in washington as it reinforced suspicions that the north korean leader will ask trump to take simultaneous steps to reduce tensions. the president said on tuesday in washington that secretary of has beene pompeo finalizing a date and time between a meeting -- for a meeting between trump and kim. the president offered that bit of information during the address from the white house. you can see it for yourself or so in, 10 minutes length. if you go to our website at c-span.org, everything the president said yesterday and all the related material when it comes to the iran nuclear deal, including the announcement by president obama and his administration. that is all available at c-span.org. republican line from missouri. curtis is next. my name is curtis

and there are a lot of things you need to educate yourself about iran. they have a whole history. their religion -- if you have an affair outside of marriage, they hang you. if you are gay, they kill you. they could do an emp strike with one nuclear weapon above the united states and knock out the entire power grid and all of the vehicles and stuff worldwide. everybody would be -- host: and those things relate to this deal and the decision by the president how? well, the president knows a lot more things than we do. wit.s more germany that we had in with world war ii -- they filled up and we did not know about it. usingre also ballistic missiles and still trying to develop ballistic missiles. the only thing they have to have is one nuke exploded above the

united states, and millions of of thewill die because power grid going down and her car won't start because the computer is fried. host: democrat line, linda is next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say no, the iran deal was not perfect, but you improve on it. my question is, does anybody remember the money they gave iran was their money? it was not the united states' money. they have been paying interest on it for years. why is nobody talking about it? it was iran's money. read something about that from the times analysis from the speech yesterday. to your point -- to your point that the deal is not perfect, what could be improved on it? caller: there is more to be

done. yes, they still can do things, of course. they can stop other bombs from coming. so let's negotiate. don't get out of it. one of the reactions yesterday from the president's decision on this was the iranian president, reacting to the decision by the united states. here is part of his reaction. [video clip] that thet, i do regret people of the united dates, a great nation, suffering from rulers that have tarnished the prestige and trampled upon their pleased, and also i am that a bothersome creature has been eliminated from jc poa. marry in's go to massachusetts. go ahead. caller: yes. from all that i have been listening to, the comments from

everybody on all the newscasts and everybody is against getting rid of this deal. thinking likeis it is going to make enemies of our former allies, even germany is saying they can't trade with iran anymore. pushing them around. and making it easier for the radicals in iran and making the people in iran who made this deal with obama look like fools now theting us, and radicals can say you did not know what you were doing when you made a deal, and the whole thing is so stupid that is going on now, it is absolutely unbelievable. i think the republicans are the worst cowards i ever saw. it will not stand up to this president. far as the decision

yesterday, what is the worst thing about it in your opinion? it is just making more enemies, making us seem undependable, and why it was that north korean insane man, if makes a deal with him, that guy will kick it aside any time he wishes for any reason he wishes. they do not keep their word anyway. host: some of the opinion section in the usa today this thisng does take a look at decision directly by the president yesterday in the opinion pages of usa today. to the extent, they have any sort of plan b, the president has new hard-line counselors, and they seem to believe that re-imposing sanctions will isolate iran, forcing it to negotiate improvements in the nuclear deal and extend sunset clauses on developing and producing new centrifuges, 2025,

but it takes years of rigorous diplomacy by both the bush and obama administration to persuade dozens of countries to participate in brought sanctions programs that finally forced tehran to disable. that negotiation now would be even harder. from the foundation for defense of democracy, as a counter to the usa today opinion piece, as the former number two in the u.s. atomic agency has staunchly pointed out, iranians may have already substantially secret stockpiles of component parts for advanced centrifuges. the obama administration chose to ignore this possibility as it chose to ignore most of the possibility of military concerns that should have been at the heart of a real arms-control agreement. the current president, he has chosen to not ignore the counterproductive sunset clauses, which makes restrictions temporary, and has pages.ored the guard

they are now effectively off-limits to inspectors. you can find that comment and the response in usa today this morning. line, ryan in dallas, texas. caller: how are you doing this morning? [indiscernible] that it was a bad idea. secretary james mattis said he has read the text three times and says he considers it pretty robust. dunford said that iran is -- host: i apologize. connectionecause the you have is not a good one right now. if you can, try to get back in and we will help get you on the air. the connection was really degrading at that point. joe in new jersey, independent line. go ahead. >> yes. i support president trump. for backing out of that deal.

be thing we all should celebrating is that president violence.s to end the let it go. and it now. mattis,tches, bold -- bolton, netanyahu, and our military strength, that is the only thing iran respects. and if story. story.of host: the countries in the original agreement, theresa may today actually said in the united kingdom, the prime minister they're talking about the united dates -- united states decision in parliament. [video clip] >> i have been clear with the president of the united states about the believe of the united kingdom, the nuclear deal with

iran should stay. but it is also the view that is shared by chancellor merkel of germany and president the cron of france. and it was made clear in the joint statement that i issue last night with chancellor merkel and with president macron. there are other issues in relation to behavior in iran that need to be dealt with -- ballistic missiles, the question of what will happen to the sunset clause at the end of the nuclear deal, and the activity of iran in the region. those are issues that need to be addressed and we are working with our european and other allies to do just that. maryland,as in democrats line, talking about the united states withdrawing from the iran nuclear deal. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points. feeling they were in negotiations for the deal, the focus was iran was left a year or two, maybe more away from developing nuclear weapons.

in the middle east. the focus was to stop iran from getting that weapon. that was the focus. that was the point. without one american soldier having to lose their life, they, in effect, did that. not one american soldier lost their lives because of that. many american soldiers lost their lives over weapons of mass distraction that they found out were not even there? how much money did we put into that area, where those soldiers and that war, which was completely ridiculous, took place. host: so the decision yesterday, with all of that said, how does that relate to yesterday's decision? >> he literally reverse everything that they did, and it is basically -- donald trump so petty, his whole focus is trying to undo everything that president obama did. that is all this is really

about. and the fact that he would put national security on that level, just for something so petty that he could undo everything that president obama did is just -- it shows just how unfit for the office this man really is. host: tom in baltimore, maryland. john kerry via twitter giving thoughts on the decision yesterday, saying today's announcements weakens our security and divides us from our allies, puts israel further at risk, and reduces our global leverage to reduce misbehavior while damaging the credibility of future ministry should to make national agreement. no rhetoric is required. the facts speak for themselves, that these verification measures, this risks throwing away the world from the brink that we drag it to a few years ago.

jeff in north carolina, republican line. caller: yes. it was ant to say that big mistake for obama to try and negotiate with our enemies. negotiation to a with an enemy. merit,this deal has any we will take it in front of the congress. and from america, he was paying theresending money over behind america's back. for obama to agree that he does america to golow into the military bases and obama agreed to that? that is not a real inspection. andemocrats could be honest intellectually honest, they wouldn't vote for this.

everything -- he deserved. host: jeff in north carolina. there are tweets of support about the decision from members of capitol hill. senate majority leader mitch wasnnell saying that jcpoa a flawed agreement that was not in america's national security interests, and i share his commitment that iran was never acquire or develop a nuclear weapon. also from paul ryan, from the beginning, the obama era iran deal was deeply flawed. he goes on, making a long statement from there. ohio republican senator joni ernst -- i have stated time and again that the new poll written iran nuclear deal did not go far enough in its efforts to permanently dismantle iran's nuclear program. i'm encouraged by the decision to withdraw today, also adding a statement. there are other comments as well. phonic, saying the iran

deal with a deeply flawed agreement that provided the world longest state sponsor of terror -- while failing to address iran's ballistic missile program. ted poe, adding that president trump's decision to end precipitation in this disaster is deal is in the best interest of american national security. minutes or so, your thoughts on the united states deciding to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. , democrats.00 (202) 748-8001, republicans. s, (202) 748-8002. our next caller from ohio, good morning. caller: top of the morning to you, pedro. my whole thing on this is we have basically come out and told the rest of the world, the other six nations that got into this agreement, that they are stupid. this basically puts us one more step closer to a war in the

middle east. moving my time lineup just another notch. democrat line, we will hear from beverly. north carolina. caller: good morning. i think the guy ahead of me said everything i wanted to say. it is not broke, don't fix it. what ledith me? host: you to believe that it wasn't broken? caller: nothing happened, did it? they kept their part of the bargain. i don't believe anything the israeli guy said. they kept their part of the bargain. we had no war. we will have a war. obama did motto is it, i am going to break it. we are all sitting on pins and needles because, as someone said irane, the militants in

will take over. we have our boys all over the world, we have no army, so here we are. host: ok, republican line from connecticut. joe is next. caller: thank you for having me. that the iranian deal with a bad deal from the beginning. nuke allows iran to have a in about seven years from now. we would be facing this problem seven years from now. when president trump negotiate with north korea, north korea would say i want the same deal as iran has, and what would stop that? what would stop that in seven years them facing a problem that we could not anything about when seven years from now, to say you can't build a nuclear weapon? what about the

argument that some republicans would make, saying that even if that happens, it would slow the process of them developing nuclear weapons. tomorrow?ow it to are we that shortsighted, that we think the three germ -- the future of the planet is seven years old and that is that? it should and? they could have nuclear weapons in seven years, 10 years. how do you deal with it seven years from now? we do with it now because of a bad deal to begin with that obama had to negotiate. host: is it were three negotiating as a treaty? caller: [indiscernible] excuse me? host: is it were three negotiating as a treaty -- is it treaty?negotiating as a caller: sure. but it is a bad deal simply because the deal says you can have a nuclear weapon, just wait 10 years. that is the worst part of it. host: that is joe in

connecticut. thateard from republicans supported our decision by the president yesterday, democrats lining up against it. the senate ranking foreign affairs member saying the president had the opportunity to work with our allies and will follow on agreements to address serious concerns with the deal, including iran's nuclear certain after restrictions expire. but now president trump owns the consequences of today's decision. this is the house minority leader nancy pelosi. democrats have no illusions about the iranian regime. we remain committed to stopping the advancement of iran's ballistic missile program and other various activities in the region. this is the house armed services committee, the ranking member saying his statement on the withdrawal from the nuclear deal , and if you go to eliot engel adding this, president trump alone bears the responsibility

for the consequences of the dangerous decision to pull the plug on the iran deal. another thought, walking away from the jcpoa weakens our allies, credibility, and our ability to foster similar diplomatic agreements in the future. and it undermines the central goal of the agreement -- to aevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapon. loveland, colorado, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i believe with what john kerry said about this whole deal. , with thee one thing caller about them getting a bomb in seven or 10 years, i actually have read the agreement from page one two 133. it has a lot of sanctions in the middle, but they are not getting a bomb or 10 or 15 years. from there, what the american people do not know or have not been paying attention to are the politics within iran.

their leader was lucky to get elected. ofer the spring uprising 2000 -- i forget the year -- but over 70% of the people in iran are young, under 30, and these are the people that are trying to revolt against. these are the people that got him in there, a moderate, who is them.g back against this is what we wanted in there. he is the guy who did this deal. the persians are a highly educated people. valentine's day illegally. if we let them go their course, they will push them out of the re, and people like rouhani and .he moderates will take over that would change the entire face of iran. host: let's go to anthony in washington, d.c., democrat line. caller: ok.

my thinking on this is that this decision by president was yes,ically motivated, and it was a response to a promise that he made during the election. wasreason for that promise to appease israel. decision wast the also a -- it was symbolic of everything that is going on in this country. politically, we get so much support for all of these groups -- give so much support to all of these groups that want to isolate themselves from the world. cpac, the lobbying groups, and it is disappointing how we sell everything for absolutely nothing. host: chad from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: yeah, i agree with the

republicans. take is no sense to [inaudible] when you have the warheads out there already, you know? so trump did right by getting back on the table and negotiating. within a few months, the iranians will start feeling pressure again. we can negotiate and get those long-range missiles off as well. host: i do think that will come in a pressure from sanctions? that hurts the country bad. that is why they agreed to it in the first place. host: npr's story this morning takes a look at gina haspel. currentresident trump's nominee. a confirmation hearing today to see about her becoming the head

of the cia. toughr says anticipating questions about her role in the post-9/11 interrogation program, testify that she will not reestablish those practices. reports that haskell was assigned to a prison where the cia had waterboarded prisoners have overshadowed her resume and endangered her confirmation. her comments to the senate intelligence committee wednesday will be her first since the president nominated her. she has not discussed her role at the prison. in excerpts from her prepared testimony, she says she knows people want to hear her address .he agency's programs she says "i can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation that under my leadership, cia will not restart such a detention and interrogation program."

that confirmation hearing is at 9:30. if you want to see it, you can watch it on c-span or on c-span.org, or listen on our c-span radio app. -- will be before the senate appropriations committee, starting at 2:30 this afternoon on c-span3, and streaming live on c-span.org. i am sure that is on -- that questions about the president pulling out of the iran nuclear deal will be asked of those men. you can get all the details on our website. florida, independent line, elijah. hello. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. i want to check out everyone -- myant everyone to check out company, to check out some of the stuff going on. i have heard a lot of people talking about the iran deal. obviously, a lot of people do not have the knowledge about what is going on. i am understanding they are not in the politics.

as for me, i do a lot of studying and research on this, and i do agree with some of the colors before me -- callers before me saying rouhani was not necessarily an issue, that 75% of the iranian people are younger, and that the arab spring did cause a lot of change. good in actually following through with the iranian deal, which obama did usher in, is kind of what is going on. people are wondering ok, is it something that we are actually doing? is it something that is being answered? are we doing this right or is this a joke? are we just allowing them to have more time and more money to build up their nuclear deal and nuclear weapons? host: and how would you answer that? caller: well, here is the thing. i would need to know, [indiscernible] are going to go

back to doing it without limitations. does that mean they ever got rid of anything they ever had in the first place? andow obama made this deal it was not a treaty done from congress. we will obviously have to do deals with our friends and enemies but there -- out there in the world, because sometimes through treaties things are not done. a deal works quicker to get results. in florida.s elijah in other news this morning, a fourth state holding primaries. some analysis, we will take a look at this later on in the program. eccles shearer in the washington post said that president trump and the republican party avoided their worst-case fears tuesday asht, in senate primaries voters nominated a slate of senate candidates who party strategists see as a good bet to vulnerable democratic incumbents this fall. today's outcome also made clear of the goprrent mood

remains angry, defiant, and not the least bit satisfied over the changes that have come to washington over the past 16 months. of republican senate primaries in west virginia, ohio prevailed in multimillion dollar contests to prove themselves the most willing to take on the washington elite. battles did not hinge on policy, since all of the candidates basically agreed with the course of president trump. we will have more on the primaries later on in the program. the national journal taking a look at individual states and the results of those primaries. that will be later on in the program. just a few more minutes of this topic on the iran nuclear deal. from sandusky, ohio, democrat line. hello. wanted to, i just tell you about the iran deal. that was a bad move that president trump got out of the iran deal. his secretary of defense, james

mattis, said the iran deal was working. that's all i have got to say. host: aside from what president trump's advisers have said, why do you think it is a bad deal? trump'swell, president advisors saying it is a good working. iran deal is i would go with the advisors that no more about it. -- know more about it. host: the los angeles times has a story on domestic affairs, the headlines saying a russian mobile paid half a million dollars to president trump's personal attorney michael coh eh. the shell company used to pay off for an actress stormy about $500,000d last year from a business links to russian billionaires --

linked to a russian billionaire who is close to vladimir putin. the payment from columbus nova llc came to light in a seven page report by daniels' att orney. the document disclosed a wide array of previously secret payments that were received last year from companies with an interest in trump administration business. it was called a pay to play scenario that might have involved bank fraud. and correia00,000, aerospace industries ltd paid $150,000. , missouri. grove hello. pedro. good morning, i think the first thing we need to do here, and i definitely don't agree with getting out of the iranian deal, is we need to look at who is doing this. he is a guy that has told over 3000 lies since he has been the president.

, he saysexual predator americanirst, and buy when all of his products are manufactured in china. how does that relate to the pullout of the deal yesterday directly? caller: i am trying to get to the point that donald trump can't be trusted, and now we are against all of our allies. he is going to put sanctions who on iran, and our allies believe this is the right thing to do will have to either go or, you know, about down down to nonsense. i think this is definitely a bad thing for our country. we are going to pay a price. i would say that if this comes youngflict and any of our

people are killed, donald trump should be tried for murder for each and every one of them. host: one more call from howard, maryland, independent line. brown, you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. and thank you for talking about this iran deal. if i want to be sure, i would say it is just another boneheaded move. we have a dangerous buffoon in the white house who is so eager netanyahue boots of that he is willing to jump out of the iran deal based on the mastered.netanyahu host: going back to the original deal, why was it a bad decision specifically? specifically, ask the

experts. to me as a person who is itching all of this unfold, is just criminals working together to make the world less safe, jumping out of something that we have been working so hard at. host: if you think it was working, why do you think that? caller: it was working because we, as some of your callers mentioned, pulled ourselves in by diplomacy. something that used to go on and wars, conflicts, murdering innocent people in iraq. [indiscernible] they are killing everybody there. howard, missouri, last call on this topic. coming up, we will feature two members of congress joining us to talk about a wide variety of issues. the subject of the iran nuclear

deal and other topics will be with our first guest, south carolina republican representative tom rice, talking about this and other matters in diplomatic and domestic politics as and domestic politics. later on, california democrat jared huffman on the formation of a new congressional congress that wants to see more emphasis on science and moral values in the formation of public policy. conversations when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> sunday morning on 1968 america in turmoil we look at the cold or as the backdrop for the events of 1968, including

the vietnam war, the presidential campaign and the space race. joining us to talk about that turbulent time are elizabeth fox , historian and documentary filmmaker and mark kramer, the program director for the project on cold war studies at harvard. "1960 eight: america in turmoil" on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv on c-span three. "q&a," a santa barbara english professor on his book inseparable about the life and times of conjoined twins. >> you can imagine these are two married couples. when they set up two separate

households about one mile from -- they stick to this very rigid schedule. they will live in one house for ande days with one's wife during the three days he is the master of the house. he can do whatever he wants to current the other will give up his free will. that is called alternate mastery. three days later they moved to the others house and then he will be the master of the house and his brother will give up free will. >> didn't work? -- did it work? >> apparently. they had 21 children. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is

representative tom rice, republican from south carolina. serves as a committee member on the ways and means committee. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: want to start with your thinking on the presidents decision on the iran nuclear deal. guest: i do not think all should be surprised. i do support it. i think it was a bad deal when we went into it. there are a lot of problems with it. fort of all, it does allow increased levels of nuclear enrichment to the point that they would be on the verge of a nuclear weapon 10 years from now or less. and then the inspection regimes are not sufficient. i think it was done, the administration was desperate for foreign policy wins. secretary was desperate for a foreign policy win, and they

managed to push it through. it does make it more difficult pull out.reements to they could have done it as a treaty and they did not. to say people are blindsided by we have these discussions at the time the agreement was done that if they wanted it to be binding, they needed to do it as a treaty, but they cannot get support for it. everybody went into this with their eyes wide open. the ways and on means committee, your background is in finance. talk about the sanctions portion of what we are about to do. what does that do for a country like iran and does that change the potential for them renegotiating part of the treaty? sanctionsorry the will not be as effective because we will not be able to build the same coalition. since been in europe

before the agreement was signed. i have been in the middle east before the agreement was signed in sense. say theell you that to international community thought this was a diplomatic coup depends on a you are talking to. the folks in the middle east i was talking to were very is appointed by this agreement and worried. our friends the middle east that supported us felt like we cut them off at the knees. they felt like we had made them subject to a nuclear iran. folks in europe seemed more positive about the agreement because of the trading potential. i do worry we're not going to be able to build the same sanctions regime we had before and it may not be as effective. host: do the sanctions hurt the people more than the political establishment in iran and is that part of the reason you're concerned? guest: that is not my primary concern.

i do not want to hurt the citizens of iran any more than we can possibly get away with. i do not know how you parse that to where you can target sanctions only at the regime. host: is their domestic spinoff from this decision? boeing said they might be affected because -- oil production because of iran's participation in that. guest: certainly it will affect american companies prevented from doing business in iran. host: that is ok to you? guest: yep look at the other side. a nuclear iran, is that ok? iran is a de-stabling factor in the middle east and the world. the idea of them having a nuclear weapon is frightening to me. our guest, tom rice, republican from south carolina who serves on the ways and means committee.

talking about iran but we will talk about other topics as well. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8001 four republicans and four independents, (202) 748-8002. if youwere to ask -- were asked about the tax cuts last year and what benefits they have, other specifics you can point to? recordrecord wrote -- low pilings for unemployment claims. record high business confidence. 40% increase in capital expenditures. i think it has been an astounding success. think it is restoring america as the land of opportunity. i think it is much easier for people coming out of school to get a job. i'm extremely proud of the result.

the fact that the average american family of four will get between $1500 and $2000 less taxes i think is a remarkable achievement and i am proud of it. host: one of the people commenting on the senate side, this was marco rubio. he said there is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy they will take their money and reinvested in the american workers. they gave out a few bonuses. there is no evidence whatsoever that the money has been massively poured back to the american worker. do you agree with that? investing $50s billion more in the united states. billion bringing $80 back into the united states. 40% increase in capital expenditures. if our businesses are spending 40% on capital expenditures,

which have been lagging for years and years, obviously that is going to create economic activity. that is going to create opportunities for american workers. host: how long before those full effects are seen? guest: i would imagine it will play out over the next -- it is already playing out. dearth of unemployment claims in the beginning of the rides in wages. it will play out over the next five years. host: because you are a finance guy, the idea of 3% growth because of these tax cuts, do you think that is possible and sustainable? are average growth since world war ii is over 3%. it is only in the last 10 years we have had this lag in the economy. i think a lot is because the drag created by the dodd frank which substantially reduced one of the advantages of the american economy.

that is access to capital. we have easier access to capital and most of the world but dodd-frank put a drag on that. regulations under obama. the number of regulations put into effect under the obama administration endorsed any administrations and snacks and -- since nixon. the dodd-frank regulations were over half of that. we have to highlight our competitive advantages. we have to use the advantages that are given to us and when we reduce the access to capital, certainly it is going to diminish economic activity. for: again, (202) 748-8000 democrats, republicans (202) independents (202)

748-8002. lawrence is on the phone. guest: hello to the district. caller: asking about the iran nuclear deal with john kerry. if it is found that he messed up anything with this iran deal, will he be arrested? well his assets be frozen? will i ever see a mug shot of john kerry holding up a card and john kerry behind bars being brought to trial for treason? guest: i am unaware of criminal activity that secretary kerry participated in. i do not know the answer to that. i think they were too anxious were diplomatic win, they

willing to take a deal that was not good for all parties and i think we're seeing the result of that right now. i am not aware of what, if anything he did that was criminal. democrats lied again, new orleans. caller: i am calling in regards to the iranian nuclear deal. -- your guests said he was against the proposal from the beginning. the only reason the republicans were against it is because it was something that the obama administration did. for eight years, you did nothing to advance the people or the country because you obstructed everything that the president did. republicans going to get a backbone and admit that the president that we currently

have is crazy? he is going to get us into war. ready is standing on the to start a conflict with iran and start a conflict again in the middle east. intent tot was not my obstruct the administration on policies where we had areas of agreement. unfortunately, this iran deal i believe from the beginning was a bad deal. it ultimately gave iran ecstatically what we were trying to prevent, that was access to nuclear weapons. iran is a sponsor of terrorism. they are de-stabling influence in middle east and around the world. i travel in the months immediately after the iran agreement, i met to jerusalem and met with netanyahu.

i met with the king of saudi arabia. i met with the prime minister of turkey. i went to cairo and met with el-sisi. tried to be have our friends and they were harmed by the terms of this deal. they felt like this was a de-stabling influence in the middle east and they were concerned about the additional resources and the additional weapons that this would give iran access to. i felt from the beginning that it was a bad idea. i think most republicans and even democrats thought it was a bad idea. worldf the leaders of the and certainly those in the area were horrified by the terms of this deal. we should not be surprised because president trump has been talking about this deal since he was campaigning. he has said repeatedly that he felt like it was a terrible deal.

if the president suggests renegotiating something, is this worth renegotiating as a treaty? guest: absolutely. where we have common ground with iran and real limits on their ability to attain nuclear i thought trump handled his announcement very well. host: let's get our republican line. maryland. david, hello. caller: my question is also about the nuclear deal. idea,k the deal is a bad but don't we have some responsibility to have continuity between administrations? my concern is that other regimes like north korea would look at going back on the deal and say we might have a good agreement with this administration but then the next administration changes everything. i am worried it might hurt our

ability to negotiate in the future. guest: i would prefer continuity as well. the administration, when they , theed this deal constitution provides a mechanism for entering into treaties. what that requires is two thirds approval of the senate. the administration being so anxious at the time for a foreign policy when was -- for a foreign policy win was willing to enter into this agreement as an executive action without doing it as a treaty because they knew they cannot get support for it. there was not enough common ground. at the time it was done, leaders in congress said if you cannot , they said ifaty you do not do this as a treaty, than the next administration can undo it. that is exactly what has happened here. the constitution provides for

two thirds approval by the senate because they wanted to be something very well thought out and based on common ground. they wanted to be a high bar if one administration is going to bind to the country to the future. the obama administration did it as an executive action. i think it is unfortunate. i think once this agreement is signed it makes it more difficult to get out of. i think donald trump is making the right decision. it was a bad deal. we need to do a better job of negotiating. we will find common ground and we will accomplish what the original deal failed to do. host: reuters put out a chart of legislators traveling the country before the november election and talking about the tax package, talking about as they continue to campaign they talk about the tax passage less and less. is that a concern?

do you think the tax cut should be talked about more by republicans? guest: i think the tax cuts are speaking for themselves. when people see a 40% increase an increaserowth, in growth of gdp, when jobs are so much easier to find, i know they are back home. unemployment in south carolina is at near record lows. african-american unemployment is a record lows. 3.9% unemployment nationwide. we have not seen that in 20 years. 50 year lows in unemployment claims. i think people see and feel the results of the tax reform package. i think it is speaking loudly for itself. we passed it in december. however we going to talk about it? i want to move on to the next win?

prospected about the of getting nafta across the line. i've been to mexico city to participate in negotiations. host: what is your role in the negotiations? guest: we do with our counterparts in mexico. i'm not the negotiator. congress -- 535 people cannot negotiate a deal. we have to have point people. the president has appointed wilbur ross and our trade negotiator is a seasoned, brilliant trade lawyer. as bolstering them and backing them up and calming fears. i have spoken to mexican and canadian legislators, bureaucrats and negotiators and business people and americans as well.

i have not talked to one person who does not think nafta needs to be extended and to also recognizes it needs to be modernized. i think it hurts the american worker and the american middle class and i think it needs to be strengthened so we do the opposite. we strengthen the american worker and the american middle class. we had not updated our tax code in 30 years, we had not updated nafta in 25 years. it is time for these things to be done. when you ask the trade ambassador what his goals are, he will tell you -- to reduce the trade deficit, to eliminate incentives to offshore, to increase wages and jobs for the american middle class. the american middle class is smaller and does not have a way -- had a raise since 1990. it is not quinn said and when you say that is not -- it is not quinn said and's -- it is not coincidence that these things

have not been updated. we are going to change that. host: if these are the goals, what do you think will happen in a renegotiated nafta? what is the potential? guest: i think the potential is very high. we have the largest consumer market in the world and canada and mexico want access. i think everybody i've spoken to once a continued nafta. i am optimistic about closing that deal sooner rather than later. host: this is representative tom rice. mississippi, democrats line, kathleen. hello. comments.have i think the united states should have stayed in the iran deal. we would've been safer. we would have kept our word. more people would have believed us.

if angela merkel, even if france, everybody, nobody believes the united states. , iwe would've stayed in tpp think we would not have been down almost last. the third comment about the tax reform. cut, cut, cut. -- i: i think we wants think once we enter into an agreement like this, it does make it difficult to get out of it. i do not think anybody should be surprised by president trump's action. he has made this one of the planks of his platform since he was running for office two years ago. i do think it was a bad deal. i thought it was a bad deal when it was done. if we wanted this to be binding

on future governments and administrations we should have done it as a treaty. the constitution lays out the framework for how you do a treaty and the obama administration chose not to do that. they knew that the agreement was not good enough to get consent in the senate and so they did it as executive action. everybody, including the iranian government new that was happening and they knew there was a potential for the next administration to change it. i've spoken to leaders in the middle east personally. , the ones i've spoken to, thought this was a terrible deal. it was a terrible deal for the world and the middle east. you go to europe, people are trading with iran, germany and france say they like the deal and want to stay in it. they do that for obvious reasons. personally, i think it is a bad deal. president trump is making the right decision. host: from south carolina,

republican line, mary. i lived at the beach and it is a beautiful place. guest: it sure is. i've a place at wiggins which is not far. i love that area. caller: it is beautiful here. i want to say i am so glad donald got rid of all the regulations that were hampering the country. washingtonmebody in said at the fish and wildlife place was going to make a rule you cannot go on the beach at nighttime because of the sea turtles. i think it was somebody who a never done anything who said i better do something. they were going to have to arrest me if they did that because i go out there -- i've not done it in a couple years -- and i go out at 4:00 in the morning when the tide was low and it is dark and it is being

all by yourself. i would walk up the tide about .wo miles i would walk up looking for sam dollars. i was 65 years old. i was not hurting anybody. i was not hurting the sea turtles. if they were going toward the water, i was in the water. host: thank you very much. mary, i love that beach. i am jealous that you are there right now. i am not sure about regulations on walking across the beach, but i will tell you that my friends on the left are more prone to a government and more regulation and more taxes and the republicans are more prone to smaller government and less regulation and less taxes. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have already announced their plans if the democrats take the house.

they will introduce a bill to do away with the tax cuts. though it be the same tax cuts that have taken our gdp growth from less than 2% over 3% and have created millions more jobs. about theur analysis propensity for regulation is absolutely correct. "the hill" has a story about the president desire to rescind certain funds that have already been approved in the budget. what do you think about that proposal? rescissions are something that have been used for decades by every administration until president bush -- w. he did not use them and obama did not use them, but everyone else did. i think reagan did hundreds of them. carter did over 100. clinton did over 100. i do not think it is anything new. i think most of these

rescissions are pretty minor and therefore funds that have been sitting aside gathering dust and are able to be used legally. we ought to take that money off the table and applied to the budget. host: let's go to new york. kingston, new york. independent line. andy, thanks for waiting. on the my comment is iran deal. i feel it was a bad decision to pull out because it is going to increase global oil and gas prices. citizens whoo set work hard every day to get to work. it is the fact that oil prices increase and, if it goes up to four dollars a gallon, the economy will slow into recession. i believe we should have stayed in that deal to keep the energy prices down for the average citizen. thank you. guest: i think there are arguments both ways.

i think the president made the right decision. i think iran with nuclear weapons is more destabilizing than a temporary wrinkle we have right now of undoing the iran agreement. withe long run, and iran nuclear weapons is going to raise oil prices far more than undoing this agreement. host: glen bernie, maryland. democrats line. james, hello. would like you to identify three areas of policy where you agreed with the obama administration. where youne area disagree with the trump administration. can you confirm of donald trump lies?

-- stood up in congress and shouted liar at president obama. donald trump has lied to thousand times. guest: there is a lot of noise out there. i think trump has done things i disagree with, particularly some of the things he has tweeted about. i agree with his policies. my apollo -- my policy is about making america competitive again. he calls it making america great again. hadfirst thing i thought we to do from the time i ran for congress is task -- is tax reform. regulatory reform, trade reform. we need to shift to merit-based .mmigration he has talked about that. i do not think we would it done this year but i would like to. giving a great deal to the daca

folks, he wouldn't open up -- he would open it up more than i would. on infrastructure, i agree with them. all of these things are things i've been pushing. host: would you extend that to steel and aluminum tariffs? guest: i believe in free trade but it has to be fair. he has excluded are trading partners who are trading fairly. the problem is, just like with the iran deal where the obama administration and others, but or willing toat, kowtow to these people to get a deal to keep the peace for a moment while a allow the underlying problem to get worse, just like in north korea, shooting missiles over japan. to them and pay them off every four years. somebody is standing up and finally doing something about

that. i am proud of him for doing that. -- i hear nobody argue that china has not taken advantage of us in trade. they steal our intellectual property. they dumped goods on american soil. everybody agrees with that. it has absolutely cost millions of american jobs. everybody talks about it but nobody has done anything about it. this president has brought it the forefront and we may accomplish something that will improve the trade situation and bring american jobs back to america. representative tom price of south carolina joining us for this discussion. thanks for your time. guest: what an honor to be with you. would love to come back anytime. tot: coming up, we are going hear from california democrat jared huffman is behind the formation of a new congressional caucus that wants to see emphasis on science, reason, and moral values. trygstad will

discuss the result of the primaries and four states yesterday. what it could mean for the november election. those discussions coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> monday on "landmark cases" the university of california v bakke. bakke was rejected for administration to the derisive california davis medical school and claims he was passed over by more qualified applicants. the case upheld the

constitutionality of affirmative action. caseuests to discuss this are the acting u.s. solicitor general from the obama administration from 2010 to 2011 and the professor at georgetown law. live monday night at cease -- on c-span. join the conversation. r #is landmark cases. -- our hashtag is landmark cases. >> c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. youy we continue to bring

unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. journal continues. us isjoining representative jared huffman, a democrat from california and the cochair of the congressional free thought caucus. guest: thanks for having me. host: is this a new caucus? guest: it is a brand-new caucus. we have a caucus for every subject you can think of. what we have done is never been done before. it is a caucus to focus on protecting the rights of people who choose not to be religious, atheist, agnostic, whatever and maintaining the secular character of our government, maintaining the separation of church and state. host: what convinced you this

type of caucus was needed? guest: i have seen religion brought into the public square in ways i think is inappropriate . i think it does compromise the separation of church and state. the muslim ban is a good example. sometimes it is used affirmatively to impose some people's religion on others, which is not ok under our constitutional government. sometimes it is used as an excuse for inaction. every time there is a mass shooting, there are members of congress and our president who simply seem to believe that if we offer thoughts and prayers and that is it. it is almost as if religion is an excuse for doing nothing. this caucus is a place where we can talk about reason and logic-based public policy. host: you will see terms such as atheist or agnostic thrown into the discussion. does that mean that caucuses for you specifically? guest: if one of those labels

applies to you you're welcome, but this is not meant to denigrate religion. this is not meant only for people who are nonreligious. there will be religious members of our caucus who happen to feel strongly about secular government and defending the rights of the nonreligious. host: how did you come to this way of thinking? guest: i job to bring up religion because i think there is too much religion and politics. i have been nonreligious for many years. i have not really talked about it much. as a member of congress you get asked about this a lot. toecided last year i'm going stop ducking the question and explain that i do not personally have a god believe. i am a humanist. i believe we have a moral responsibility to each other as human beings but i do not believe that derives from any .articular religious dogma that is going to be controversial with some people so i always try to explain i

respect everyone's individual choice on these questions. i'm not going to impose my religious view on everyone. when i am asked about it, i'm going to be honest. 2018 thereis that in needs to be at least enough room for one nonreligious member of the united states congress. so far it has gone well. host: our guest will be with us for about half an hour. if you want asking questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. what was the response from members on capitol hill on the formation? my own announcement was not met with the backlash everyone told me to prepare for. that was surprising. people applauded for the most part. i've been pleasantly surprised that a number of my colleagues said they wanted to work together because they thought it

was important we defend the secular character of our government and reason and science-based public policy. thetarted kicking around idea of forming a caucus and that is how we got to the free thought caucus. significantly more than that are expressing support and interest. host: i supposed to form the caucus you would have to get sanction from the house speaker or the minority leader as well? what was the response there? guest: is a ministerial process. you fill out paperwork and our caucuses live now. host: he said you talk to folks leading up to the formation of the caucus. who did you talk to? guest: the american humanist association, the secular coalition of america, folks who are fighting these battles to defend the secular character of our government. also talk to other colleagues and the feedback we got was at

this caucus could add value? host: did you talk to the minority leader? guest: i talk to leader pelosi before i made my public announcement that i am a humanist. she was very supportive. she is a devout catholic. i am sure she would prefer that i was, too. i talked to the chaplain of the house, pat conroy. his situation is very much on our minds and is relative to this -- relevant to this caucus. host: what you think about how that played out? was a i thought that perfect example of some people trying to impose a religious test on others. the firing of bother pat conroy was a backlash against his particular religious views and his catholicism. i think there is a great argument that we should not have a house chaplain in a secular government. the fact that we do has been defended in court. my view is that if you're going

to have one, i have a good one who reaches out to everyone. father pat has done that, including to me. he is a good guide. our firstill go to call, louise, san antonio, democrats line, you are on with representative jared huffman. caller: good morning. i am so glad to see you doing this. i was raised in a very religious family with a baptist minister as a father and a grandfather. it has gone to the point where i am so upset about how much control israel has over our politics. in the it is because baptist churches, and i'm sure other churches, you hear constantly about how we have to protect israel because of what is written in the bible.

i tell you it is leading us down a bad path. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: thank you for your comment. i have heard colleagues express their very fierce pro-israel position in biblical and religious terms. i am pro-israel. i think there are other valid secular policy grounds on which to be pro-israel, including the history of of how weak had a state of -- the history of how we came to have a state of israel. i think when religion gets drawn into it, and some people do literally hold these views. they want to see conflict in the middle east because there are biblical prophecies of the end of days and the battle of armageddon and jesus coming back in jerusalem. i do not think the state of israel once friends who want to biblical bring about

prophecy that is violent and christian. i think this is a good example of people bringing religion and the public policy in a fairly controversial way. host: michigan is next, democrats line, kathy. ander: good morning, pedro congressman hoffman. i had an experience just recently substitute teaching. a gentleman came into the classroom and children were allowed to leave the school. and then attend to some sort. i do not know how they traveled or where they met at. .t took me by surprise some of them are quite little and they signed permission slips . i called the aclu and apparently it is legal, which surprised me. guest: i would need to know a little more about that.

thanks for the question. if people are choosing to take a break during the school day and engage in prayer or religious practice, i do not have a problem with that. if they are being forced to do that, that is a completely different then. that is where we get into the debate about prayer in school. it is it voluntary and open to all faiths or is it something some fates are trying to impose on others -- some fates are joined to impose on others? host: i would get your response from the presidents tweet who says that mike pompeo is headed back with three men from north korea, the hostages, and also a meeting date set with kim .ong-un the secretary and his guests will be landing at andrews air force base at 2:00 in the morning. guest: anytime americans are being brought home after that kind of experience, that is a good thing. congratulations to secretary

pompeo for securing their freedom. andill think the president the secretary have their work cut out for them in north korea and that job got a lot harder yesterday when the president tore up the american participation in the jcpoa. that was a dangerous and reckless mood that will make it harder to denuclearize the korean peninsula. host: and easy that play out as far as the long range of facts? effects?ng-range guest: that means the united states is more isolated in the world, which is not a good thing when it comes to these types of agreements. you need the international community to be there with you. useou're going to sanctions, yet cap other countries participating. this president seems to think he world in the eye all the time and somehow have their corporation when he needs it. it does not work that way. host: pew research center did a

makeup of the congress based on their religious beliefs. unaffiliated, 0.2%. guest: that is how people identify. in the real world, a lot of those folks, this is the case in any church service. a lot of those folks are there because they love the community, they love the support they get from being part of a congregation, the music, the moment of reflection but they do not have the same dock more -- the same dogma or specific religious belief. i suspect if you did a poll within any given church you would find a number of nonbelievers that find value in coming together with their neighbors. host: when it comes to approaching a public policy issue from the means of science and reason, where would you start? guest: we can start with the environment and climate change

because it is one example where you have an official in the administration, scott pruitt, who has rejected the consensus of science on climate change and other environmental issues, but has sought to justify that using the bible. this is one of the reasons that motivated me to start this caucus and be more visible on this issue even though it can be uncomfortable. when scott pruitt is dismissing scientific advisors and pushing this corrupt agenda for big polluters, and citing biblical text as if this is what god wants us to do, we have a problem. host: let's go to the democrats line, from texas, brenda is next for our guest. i am so glad you have a caucus that represents the rest of us in this country. i am very wary of mike pence's and the religious right's

influence over trump and his judicial picks. his picks for official positions. influence of discrimination and discriminatory policies that are erupting because of it. somebody needs to watchdog them. i would like to know your opinion about the judicial picks in particular. guest: great question, because that is one area where we seem to have religious tests creeping into these judicial appointments and confirmation. it should not be that way. i respect evangelicals and i respect the passion with which they hold their views. i strongly disagree with them on women's reproductive choice and it seems that they are pursuing an explicit agenda to push that position onspired , onraception, on choice certain types of research and other issues into our independent judiciary where you

really do want decisions based on law and reason and fact in science. host: should churches and religious institutions get a tax break? guest: as long as they are strictly practicing religion. even this has been fudged recently. in the final days of the republican tax bill last year, we still had a provision in their, ike -- a provision in there, i cannot member which senator put it in there, but basically making it legal for churches to endorse candidates. that is not ok. any organization that wants to do that should not have tax-free status. we should not be subsidizing it. membersicant number of of congress believe that is ok and i believe our president would have signed that. thankfully, it came out of the bill. host: on our independent line, anne-marie, you're on with our guest. -- you my comment

mentioned the bible with relation to scott pruitt's believes. there is also an extreme section of the evangelicals that are called dominion is and they want to bring on armageddon and revelation from the bible. mike pence is apparently one of those dominionists. it is scary. -- he ishat jim baker promoting ends of the world and why does everyone hate trump? if the rs has to be listening, jim baker still has a $5.5 million lean on him. -- how isstill on tv he still on tv? the dominionists, do you know anything about that?

it is a scary mindset. question.nks for that it is a scary mindset. i do not know about that views youifically but i will tell occasionally i do here congressional colleagues talking in those terms. pollyannaishkes a approach to donald trump the danger he is creating for the country because they think the bible prophesies is the end of days and armageddon and that is the quick as way to get to the kingdom of heaven, that is scary . it belongs nowhere in the public square. if people want all those extreme religious views, that is their choice. ands important to push back keep our public policy in a place that is based on reason and fact and our obligation to future generations, not some twisted religious desire to eliminate future generations. host: mike from las vegas, democrats line.

he has hung up. bonnie in wyoming, republican line. your next. -- you are no. caller: i do not believe in a lot of this science. you look at the shots that seniors were supposed to get for shingles and they are killing people. democrats want the older people dead, but that is ridiculous. you do not believe in science 100%. i do not believe global warming is a thing we even have to worry about. god will take care of it. whether you like it or not, i believe in god. you can have your views anyway you want because i have mine. totally respect your belief in god and your religious views.

these are good examples that you're bringing up of how strong religious views, if they are translated into public policy can hurt other people. you may be confident that god is going to deliver us from climate change or global warming. i hope you are right. all of the facts i am aware of says you are wrong about that. on what basis should we make public policy? i think we should listen to the facts and follow them. the same with regard to our public health, whether it is vaccinations or medicine or research. totally respect your individual choices about what medications you want to take and your beliefs about the vaccines. we also have all the science telling us we have to guard against disease outbreaks and protect our public health through certain medicines. i am on the side of science, i'm afraid. danny fromis twitter.

why do we need to support secularism? this is a poison pill hiding christian oppression. guest: i do not believe there is any christian oppression. we hear christians saying they are being discriminated against by laws the recognized civil rights and marriage equality, for example. they do not have to practice marriage equality in their private lives. they can do whatever they want within their churches and families. the rest of us have rights. host: if your point of view is such, is that limiting a christian's point of view in the public square and making arguments from their point of view? guest: i see no evidence that they are limited in making those arguments. they're making them more vocally than ever. i think for those who want to take it to the next step and say you can never get married if you're a same-sex couple, that is bringing your religious view

into the law and into the public square. that is the line of separation i will defend through this caucus and through my service. host: how specifically do you make your point of view of public policy matters known? what is your approach on that front. guest: i think we have to check the religion at the door on any issue. it should not be driving public policy. strong a no matter how view you have as an evangelical or a dominionist or whatever religious view we have discussed, we are a big country. we have jews and muslims and hindus and folks with no religion at all and the point of this country is from many, one. we have to respect that other people may not agree with that and our laws need to not impose one religion on others. int: next up, gail

california on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to talk to you about housing. we have been through the terrible forest fires, the fire got to within a mile and a half of my house. there was smoke in the valley. it was scary. we do not have any housing. house burnt down, he lived in it for 35 years in santa rosa. thank god he did not lose his practice but his house burned to the ground. now he cannot rebuild. they are saying the water is contaminated. i would not be a bit surprised. we need housing. we have all of these people, i hate to say it illegally, and they are in our housing and the fires happened in lake county in

santa rosa and we have been through it all on the last four years. can you please see if you could work on some housing for us? guest: it is a great question. my district includes areas of mendocino and sonoma counties that were hit by the terrible fires. thousands of people lost their homes. is absolutely right. we are struggling to find interim housing. i will tell you and others that i am working closely with rebuild northbay, a group of business leaders and other leaders who are trying to move as quickly as we can to get that housing rebuilt and also find interim solutions for those who have been affected. host: in florida, dennis is next, republican line. caller: i appreciate you having the show today. the gentleman wants to promote

.cience and secularism i will be as quick as i can. i am puzzled as to what he means by that, because without getting into the details of what they teach at the public school. science says human life begins at conception. that is what science teaches. science also says, contrary to what is taught in public schools, that they do not know how one of choirs a homosexual orientation. they have three ways they think it happens. you do not hear that in public school. they do not want to promote science and secularism, they want their point of view promoted. my last point, i wish i had time for more, my last point is going to be that i do not think it is fair for the people who want science and secularism to think

it is fine for all of the people in this nation who are catholic or other christians to have to pay for these secular scientific public schools, i'm saying that sarcastically. they do not want us to get our own money back in the form of a school voucher to choose the school our children will attend. host: have to leave it there because we're running out of time. guest: you do not have to listen to me on this. the courts have weighed in on this. they're the ones that interpret our constitution and our laws and they have said the issue is not some abstract concept of life, it is my ability. that is -- it is viability. that is why you have seen the point of protection for fetal life move up. medical progress has moved that point of viability earlier than it was in the initial days of roe versus wade. some states have extended

protection right up to and past that line. we continue to debate and fight about that. ands about science listening to medical professionals about the point of viability. i support our courts applying and interpreting the law in that context. host: we saw the president and trump administration participates in the national day of prayer. you are looking for a national day of reason. tell us what you would like to see from that. guest: prayer is fine and can be a great thing. our congress has passed this national day of prayer resolution as far as i can remember. in light of everything i've been talking about, we also need a day that celebrates reason and science. some have called this darwin day. each year we introduce this resolution saying it is not going to pass, but as a way of reminding people that needs to inform public policy as much as anything.

sometimes prayer can be a powerful positive thing. sometimes it can be an excuse for inaction, as with the issue of gun violence. host: david, hello. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to leave this comment. seems like you're doing a good job and pushing your religion at school that is contrary to reality. god have mercy on your soul and bless your heart. guest: that is every kind. i appreciate it very much. i hope i'm not pushing my view of religion on anyone. i consider it an individual matter, but i hope our government is not imposing its views on anyone else, including the and those who share my believe. we we'll have to respectfully disagree on that by appreciate your kind words. host: the congressional free thought caucus, jared huffman, democrat of california. thank you for your time.

we will take a look at the results of those primaries that took place in four states across united states and see what it means on the november election. joining me is kyle trygstad from national journal hotline. we will have that conversation when washington journal continues. ♪ on "1968:morning america in turmoil," we look at the cold war and the backdrops of the events of 1968, including the vietnam war, the presidential campaign and the

space race. joining us to talk about the turbulent times are elizabeth cobb, documentary film maker. and mark kramer, program director of the project on cold war studies at harvard university. watch "1968: america in turmoil," live sunday on c-span's washington journal, and on american history tv on c-span3. on "q&a," uc santa barbara in this professor on his book "inseparable," about the life and times of conjoint twins chan and ang. >> you can imagine these are two married couples that cannot be in the same bed, right? and also when they set up on this two separate households about a mile from each other,

and they stick to this very rigid schedule. live inl say stay, chang's house for three days with his wife, and during those three days chang is the master of the house. he can do whatever he wants to. ang will give up his free will. that is called alternate mastery. three days later, they moved to ang's house and ang will be the master of his house. chang will give up his free will. >> did it work? >> apparently. they have 21 children. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. washington journal continues. host: kyle trygstad is the editor of national journal hotline.

one of the things he does is look at primary races as they occur across the united states. the morning to you. leading up to yesterday, you put out a piece looking at three senate primaries. talk about this piece and talk about what you saw happening because of last night. guest: we have three senate primaries in states that president trump won. this is where the senate majority five will happen. democrats need to defend all these seats if they need to take up the two necessary to take the majority. in tok democrats went night feeling good and came out feeling good, the republicans had good things happen. host: which state demonstrated that most? guest: i would say west virginia. don blankenship was a big name. looked like he had a chance to win. he put out his own poll showing him leading by a significant margin. he came in third place. had he won, that could've taken the biggest red target off the

map for republicans. he lost. patrick morrissey won. whoill take on joe manchin is running for his second full term. host: for patrick morrissey, what was it about his message that made him the victor? guest: in every race last night everyone was running to trump. he put out a gnat thank you he was pro-life, pro-gun, pro-trump as an ideology. it seems to be the case in so many of these primaries. host: which is an easy sell in a state like west virginia. guest: he won by 42 points. democrats have a senator up for reelection in that state. it should be a tough state. host: that is joe manchin. what i feeling this morning because of last night? guest: i think he would rather have faced don blankenship. democrats have a lot on patrick morrissey. he has been hit so hard by his opponents.

democrats give you some of those quotes the republicans used against him in their own as. morrissey has talked about draining the swamp. he is a former lobbyist. the democrats have a lot of research on his time as a lobbyist that i'm sure will be thrown at him. host: when it comes to joe manchin, what are his vulnerabilities? guest: he voted for hillary clinton. i think the biggest positive is he is not hillary clinton. people know joe manchin in west virginia, what he has done, what he did as governor was popular. you can get beyond the democratic label. host: is this positioning moderate, hardliner? guest: he is a moderate. he has sided with president trump on some of his cabinet takes and things like that. trump has also come out and criticized him harshly in the last few. republicans should be happy about that. they will need trump's help to hold the senate majority.

host: we will talk about the results of these primaries and what it means for the november elections. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 per democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. s independent, (202) 748-8002. we will move to ohio. the governor's race. tell us what was expected and what happened. host: what was expected happened. the state attorney general currently easily won against lieutenant governor mary taylor. they both ran against john kasich, ran for president in 2016. they both ran towards trump. it was kind of an awkward race. mary taylor is a lieutenant governor for john kasich but she was running against some of his policies. mike dewine easily won. he will take on richard cordray, the former consumer watchdog it was obama appointed here. he is also former attorney general. this will be a rematch for them in the governor's race. guest: as --

host: give us a snapshot of both? guest: even though this is a race run on state issues, mike dewine was running as pro-trump again. they did not matter that it was a -- that it was not a federal race. i think a lot of the race will be decided in some of these federal issues, which is kind of different. a lot ofhard cordray, republicans critical of that bureau. did that come back to haunt him? guest: it could. elizabeth warren endorsed him and help them out in the race. he defeated dennis kucinich. couldk portray -- cordray use some of war and's liberal -- some of warren's liberal cred. this'll be a tough race. mike dewine, former senator.

he has won a few races before. host: richard cordray was running against dennis kucinich, who also served in congress. what was the result of that specific contest? guest: that race was not as close as maybe some people thought it would be. won,nk if kucinich had that may have taken the race off the map for democrats. winning statewide is very different, especially in a state like this that has been trending a little bit red. host: on the senate race in ohio, give us the results of what happened. guest: democratic senator sherry brown was up for reelection. he will be taking on the congressman who only announced in january. they had a different candidate who had announced a year and a half ago to take on brown in a rematch. people that unexpectedly in january. he is the only congress --

candidate who trump actually endorsed. he was in cleveland on saturday to help them out. renee -- host: when it comes to that seat, kind of money over talking about? rrod brown had some of the most outside spending in 2012. close to $50 million was spent on that race in 2012. i think was still inspects of money, especially with trump wanting him and that race. they promised him a lot of help. be in good shape, especially for being in a state that trump one by so many points. not a lot has come so far. host: for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. our guest is kyle trygstad.

have we heard anything from the current governor about who he is endorsing or if he will offer an endorsement? guest: he stayed out of it. i think he said whoever wins will eventually be running towards him in the general election. he has known how to win statewide in the general election. i don't think he will be endorsing. host: one more state that was looked at yesterday was indiana. particularly on the senate side. what happened? guest: kind of the third guy won. two congressmen were running against each other. both went to the same -- all three went to the same school, but they knew each other in school. they have been rivals for many years. it's a fascinating race. they ended up getting about the same percentage. mike braun ended up winning the nomination pretty handily. host: why? look at think we can

one ad for the walked around with cardboard cutouts of the congressman, dressed similar, and he asked people if they can tell them apart. everyone was like no, i don't know which one is which. that was kind of his message. i have a business record. i'm the outsider. i am like trump. if you supported trump, you should support me. host: you talk about the trump influence. what does that suggest you otherwise for november when it comes to the president's influence? guest: i think he will be a major player. i don't know how many republicans and maybe the more the more competitive states one of the visit, but he drives the base. he is very popular among republicans. he has a 40% approval rating nationally, somewhere around there since he was inaugurated. among the base he is super popular.

they want someone who will come to washington and help. host: mike braun, who does he take on? guest: joe donnelly. the senator. he is running for a second term. a lot of people consider him the most vulnerable member -- senator up this year. host: why? guest: he won partly because of his republican opponent ended up saying something, essentially a gaff, very late in the race. boosted donnelly ahead of him at the last minute. i think a lot of republicans consider him an accidental senator. it is a state that obama did win in 2008 but has trended republican. host: what was joe donnelly's defense or argument given for supporting for a second term? guest: he is running as joe, the guide you know. e guy yout ad -- tha know.

i think him and the democrats running are saying i will always stand up for our state first. there are republicans running against us it was jennifer trump first -- that will run for trump first. host: three out of the four that had primaries, our guest talking about the specifics of the larger picture. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from the republican line. providence, rhode island. jack is up first. caller: hi. good morning. andink overall the people donald trump are overall pleased with the results last night, particularly in west virginia a nd a couple of the other states. also in ohio. i think they are pleased with

mr. dewine, with the governorship. and also with that mr. braun, the wealthy, germanic background businessman. little nativist here. i'm happy mr. braun won because my ancestry is german, too. i'm a retired welding engineer. i'm not rich but i'm upper-middle-class. overall this thing i think is quite good for the republicans. the economy is ok. now this news from north korea is good. everything isl heading in the right direction so far, unless mr. trump commits some malfeasance with his previous dealings. have a good one. guest: i think republicans are very happy with mike braun. you could do worse than having a businessman running in this environment. we saw three congressman lose

last night. to have mike braun defeat two of them, i think they are in a good spot. i talked to republicans before the primary. they said they would be happy with any of them. they thought any of them could be joe donnelly. host: west virginia, democrats line. this is middleton. you are on. caller: good morning. you know, i hear you talking. all you want to talk about his republicans. i'm in west virginia. look at the vote count. look how many democrats voted compared to what the republicans voted. the democrats were ahead of the republicans on the vote count. don't compare like republicans are going to do anything. look at the vote count and how many democrats got out and voted compared to republicans. look at that. guest: there are still more democrats registered in west

virginia then republicans. it is one of the states that has been changing over the last few years. s, in a -- so, and a close primary, only those registered as democrats can vote. joe manchin is one of the last remaining statewide democrats, if not the last. democrats have an issue in west virginia. hillary clinton lost by 42 points. it does not mean mentioned can't win -- manchin can't when. i think they are excited to take on patrick morrissey. the super pac spent $1.8 million on ads attacking evan jenkins. they did not want to take him on. i think democrats are happy with morrissey. they have a good shot. host: john from silver spring, maryland. democrats line. caller: in a similar vein to one of the previous callers, i'm curious about the overall

turnout numbers in all the contests and what that tells us about enthusiasm. thank you. guest: i have not had a chance to look at the updated turnout numbers. not all the precincts have been reporting as of this morning. from what we have seen, democrats are energized. they are ready to go. a lot of it is an anti-trump for. -- fervor. we have seen a pig of a house seat in the senate seat and alabama this year. democrats are energized. -- i think weill will continue to see that. host: from indiana did we see any input from the vice president? guest: yes. he has been going after donnelly. president obama has been going after donnelly. did not endorse them in the race but his brother won a primary yesterday. his brother, greg pence, is highly likely to be coming to congress. host: we will look at the

primaries and related issues. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. aside from these primaries talk about the current status of the house or the senate turning over to democratic power. guest: i think there is a better chance for democrats in the house than the senate. even senate democrats speaking candidly will tell you this is a very hard map. we talked about the temp democrats in states trump won. some by double digits. democrats will need to take of arizona, nevada and probably tennessee to be able to win a senate majority. on the house side there are 70 districts were democrats have raised a ton of money. there are a lot of republican retirements. the overall environment is such that it looks like they have a good chance to pick that up. i don't want to put odds on it,

but i think it is more probable they win the house. host: who was most vulnerable in the house raises? -- races? guest: most of the vulnerable caesar open seats. there are several in california. there are some everywhere. just across the river in virginia's 10th district is a seat that is highly vulnerable. host: arbor comstock. -- barbara comstock. republican line from oklahoma. you are on. i was a democrat for so many years and i changed my view and went republican. and because i got so tired of all this stuff on running republicans and democrats, it is just keeping this stirred up. i have one question i would like to ask.

a while back when president speechas making this and they all said when he said stand up for america, the republicans all did stand up. , i'm speaking to you, there was not one and that included you that sit up for america. i want to know why you won't stand up for america? host: i don't know if you want to address the claim or not. guest: i'm not sure what the question was. host: a couple of tweets out of west virginia. one, steve says registered democrats are really republican in mind set. others said morrissey is a party plan, not a west virginia. -- west virginian. host: the rent for congress in

new jersey in 2000. ,hat will be something manchin longtime elected official, i'm sure he will go after him on that a little bit. they are right about the registered democrats. we see that in the election results. people don't always vote the way they register. in states like west virginia and many in the south were people often don't change the registration necessarily, but vote the way they feel. host: if you were talking about the current state of the house and and it, particularly in the house, what they doing to keep that from happening? guest: from republican leadership? they are setting up a lot of ground game operations across the country. is opening offices around the country to help incumbents and help in open

seats. incumbents need to start raising money, get their campaigns in order, have plans to talk about why they should be coming back to congress. democrats will have plenty of reasons why they shouldn't. host: as far as the president, what is a likelihood of him becoming directly involved in some of these races, particularly given the responses to them negatively or positively? guest: that's a good question. how far out on the trail is he going to get? how competitive for the districts or states going to be he is in? i think the number one thing he can do, and what president obama did in 2014 is raise money. republicans need cash to be able to win. trump is this person that can help with that. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independents, -- and independents, (202) 748-8002 if

you want to ask questions about these primaries were larger issues. sinister thoughts on twitter @cspanwj. he talked about the money in these particular races we highlighted. tower as fundraising, these republicans generally doing compared to democratic counterparts? guest: the incumbents have huge leads. sherrod brown, $12 million in cash on hand. manchin and joe donnelly, $6 million, $5 million. the challengers spent a lot of money on the tough fights. that has to be concern -- a concern for republicans. virginia, youwest have six months to raise money. right now is when a lot of campaign donations start pouring in. one thing they may need to worry about is arizona.

an open secret is a very late primary, in august. turnaround time is very short. you need to turn your message stores the general electorate but also raise money. ohio,this is james and democrats line. caller: good morning. comment, then a question for the guest on there. when you are an electrician -- when you hire an electrician a plumber, why would you call them back to do the other 60%? is to him, hown these elected officials getting reelected? a 40% or 49% approval for job rating. guest: incumbents have a huge advantage.

it is easier to raise money. people know who you are. you are able to talk about things you have already done of the state or the district. it is a big advantage to be an incumbent. you can look at retention rates in congress. very few incumbents lose. host: from south carolina, james. caller: hello. i wanted to say hillary clinton votes, by theon popular vote. more democrats voted in the west thannia primary republicans did. all i have to say is the republicans better get their stuff together. quit their lying and cheating and stealing and get their stuff off the air they been talking about. they better get to work.

the democrats are going to take it back. guest: i think message is a very big concern for republicans. i think a lot of capitol hill republicans are worried about distractions coming from the other end of pennsylvania avenue, from trump. they would love to talk about the tax cut they passed. we don't know exactly with the politics of that will be. we don't know how popular that will prove to be in the fall, but i think they would rather talk about that then what trump has been tweeting about. host: four states had primaries. what was the fourth? guest: north carolina. a big result. the first house incumbent of the cycle lost. it was a rematch, to mark harris, a socially conservative pastor. he attacked him for supporting the on the spending bill that -- omnibus spending bill that trump

ended up signing. he will probably join the house freedom caucus, bush tell you about where he stands on these questions. host: texas, democrats line, paul? bader: my question is how did those advertisements hurt john blankenship -- don blankenship? guest: that's a good question. he went after senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. super pac tied to mcconnell went right back at him. they spent $1.3 million or $1.5 million against him. i think it probably didn't hurt. like ship is a known entity in that state. he already had his detractors. there was some concern from even here in d.c. he could pull it out. it ended up not happening. host: the rest is next, democrats line, jane.

caller: my comment is about the fact that california voters, the illegal seven getting -- illegals having getting voting ids. defeatedry has been in the election. with hillary clinton, there are things coming out about her that will not go into. we want to know whether democrats do not stand up. i'm a chronic pain patient but we need a system that only andicans are able to vote what is your views on how this can happen? yes, americans are the only ones who can vote. president trump set up the election fraud commission that did not do much and was

suspended pretty quickly. host: kyle trygstad, editor for national journal hotline. if you want to find out more from their site on the results and the larger issues, thank you for your time this morning. host: we are going to get open phones until the remainder of the show at 10:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ >> monday on "landmark cases," regents of university of california. a white male was twice rejected in the medical school. he claims he was passed over in favor of less qualified minority applicants and took the university of california system to court. the supreme court decision both struck down the university's

admissions program and upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action under the 14th amendment. our guests to discuss this case are neil -- solicitor general of the obama administration, and randy barnett, professor at georgetown law center, a libertarian and original constitutional legal scholar and commentator. live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. join the conversation. #landmarkcases, the landmark cases companion book, and the landmark cases podcast that c-span.org /landmarkcases. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily.

101970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered commerc -- covers of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. at around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. host: just about to start on capitol hill. it will be the confirmation theing for gina haspel, nominee for the next cia director. if you want to watch this hearing, you can do so starting in just a few minutes from now. .ear is on c-span.org usa today reports about the fact appearsn ms. haspel,

she will be facing tough questions about her role in the agency interrogation program that was outlawed as torture. the hearing will be about a secret black site in thailand where suspected terrorists were subjected waterboarding. that will start in a few minutes. you can see that on c-span3. also c-span.org and the c-span radio app. the president of united states weeding out this latest from mike pompeo's trip to north korea. saying the secretary of state is in the air and on his way back from north korea with the three wonderful job everyone is looking forward to meeting. they seem to be in good health. also a good meeting with kim jong-un, with a date and place set for that summit between the president and kim jong-un. the president adding secretary pompeo and his guests will be landing at andrews air force base at 2:00 in the morning. i will be there to greet them. very exciting.

that is from the president's twitter feed. angus from maryland, democrats line. called to speak about health care. some of the parties that are against health care. we had obama that nobody would try to help him with health care. -- and wepublicans still don't have no health care. we are going to put the same people back in. they can't come up with no decent health care for the people. presidentry for our

that has two sons and a daughter and they can bring their mother to the white house. it is a shame to have a man like that in our white house. host: er richard in arkansas. caller: hello, c-span. i would like to talk about your c-span bus, but just for a moment. i got laid off when i was 60 years old. that was a couple years ago. i had to sell everything i own, liquidate my 401(k) and i live in a trailer. that is my problem. i could have done like better, i suppose. your c-span bus, i noticed it pulling into nebraska. it is nicee front, to see that c-span is not hurting any. those things are $1 million just for the chassis. i'm glad to see you guys are doing pretty good. on another note, it was taxing that volcano in hawaii?

it is spewing out a lot of crap into the atmosphere. host: from alabama, charles is next. republican line. caller: hey. i'm glad to see you on there. you have been on there for years. in my opinion you are so fair. after that comment -- host: hold on the line for just a second. the reason i measure directing is that gina haspel just entered the room. that confirmation hearing, current deputy director of the cia. she is about to have that confirmation hearing about her becoming director of the cia. that is set to start in a few minutes. watch for it on c-span3. charles, i apologize. go ahead. caller: it is about the democrats cackling over winning the senate and alabama. that is a total anomaly. the facts are, and the democrats

kneel down and pay homage to senator shelby because shelby had over 4000 people voting for different names on the ballot. it was estimated that shelby influenced another 5000 plus not to vote in that election. the next election of this guy, smith or jones or whatever his name is, he will be an asterisk. that was an anomaly. we had a back candidate running -- bad candidate running. they need to thank shelby because he pulled in about 10,000 votes or more away from

the republican. host: mary in california, democrats line. caller: hi. i wanted to wonder why we have not heard more about dianne feinstein's opponent. he is a vicious nazi. i want to know more about him situation.is a scary he is running on the republican platform. that is all i have to say. host: the wall street journal reports this morning. "more workers testing positive for illicit drugs." the share of american workers and job applicants testing positive for potentially illicit drugs and 2017 was 4.2%, holding steady to the prior year the data shows.

they analyzed more than 10 million urine tests. it is striking to see continuing use of illicit drugs. the federal drug-free workplace act of 1988 ushered in an era of job-related drug testing, prompting a rapid decrease in positive test since the mid to thousands it is hard -- positive mid-2000's, the positive test for opioids likely sharply in 2017, reflecting continued crackdowns on the illegal or excessive opiate prescriptions. richard, good morning. republican line. caller: yes. the democrats all seem to have wanting theen governor to this for them and do

that for them. what about the famous quotations from john kennedy? "ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country." thank you. host: independent line. walter, butler, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm turning on all the msnbc, sentence --ve to they give two seconds to trump getting the prisoners out of north korea. president obama gave $150 billion to regime that says "death to america" and got nothing for it. they can spend their centrifuges when they go to do it. they have to give them a 30-day notice, and they are not allowed to inspect military bases. where do you think you would put a bomb? i think it's amazing and god

bless donald trump. he is bringing home people. when we heard about him being elected, there is going to be a giant war. when he was sitting down with the president of china, he lobbed a couple of missiles that syria. that gave the world a message we peacewin through through strength. host: employers sharply ramped up their demand for workers in january. the most and record dating back to 17 years. the number of job openings, 645 ,000 in january. the largest one-month increase in 2.5 years. the number of people hired -- the huge demand for workers. the unemployment rate was already at a 70-year low. -- 17-year low. rocky from virginia. caller: thank you. good for c-span coming on.

look, we are giving money to terrorists or people are getting ballistic missiles to terrorists. i don't think that deal was good. you don't want to look these countries that hate us. the romans did it and look where it got them. chamberlain did it and look where it got him. it is the best deal -- the best thing he could have ever done. i don't know why they pale that money to them. all they did are finally get to terrorist groups -- funneling it to terrorist groups. people socialism and standing on the own feet and trying to get things done. host: los angeles on the independent line. we will hear next from michelle. caller: thank you for taking my call. it was regarding senator tom stoptson's -- it doesn't iran from getting nuclear weapons. they don't have nuclear weapons

and if you look at a picture of the map, you have saudi arabia, iran, iraq, turkey, syria. they all had ballistic missiles. being against iran having them when is the second-largest country in that region seems specious. are going to look at who actually are the troublemakers in the middle east, certainly saudi arabia was the place where our terrorists for the 9/11 came. to listen to them that it was a else who or to anyone has produced terrorists seems that to me. host: the president made his defensive body the u.s. was pulling out of the iran nuclear deal yesterday. you can see that at c-span.org. . here is a little bit from the statement yesterday [video] president trump: the

deal around your -- allow iran to reach the brink of a nuclear breakout. the deal lifted crippling economic sanctions on iran in exchange for a very weak limits on the regime's nuclear activity, and no limits at all on its other maligned behavior, including its sinister activities in syria, yemen, and other places all around the world. in other words, at the point when the united states had maximum leverage, this disaster and it gave this regime, is a regime of great terror, many billions of dollars. some of it an actual cash. a great embarrassment to me as a citizen, and to all citizens of the united states. host: making them up saudi

arabia putting out a statement after that speech yesterday saying the kingdom fully supports the measures taken by the president with regard to jcpoa. reservations with regards to the sunset clauses, ballistic missile program and iran supported terrorism in the region. zach on the republican line. you are on. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. iller: i want to say, man, want to know why no one is really talking about this historic moment with trump and japan. host: and he hung up. cindy, fort worth, texas. independent line. caller: i wanted to tell everybody people don't seem to remember the money that was given to iran was their own

money. it already belonged to iran. it is not like the u.s. gave them this big gift. that money was their own money and we gave it back to them. that is what people need to realize. trump did not say anything about that. i guess people, you know, either but thatnow or for god money -- forgot put that money already belonged to iran. it was their money we gave back to them. host: the washington post takes a look at what potentially could happen to federal employees when it comes to their retirement programs. in a letter to paul ryan on friday, the office of personnel ranagement director pushed fo proposals that would cut retirement benefits for 2.6 million federal retirees and survivors. among them, eliminating supplements are federal employees retirement annuitants

being eligible for social security benefits, reducing federal pensions by basing them on five-year averages instead of three years. increasing in time and contributions, and the shrinking our eliminating a retirement cost-of-living adjustments. the administration plans to reduce the cost of living adjustments under the civil service retirement system by 1.5% to 1%. you can read more in the washington post this morning. jason in san diego, democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to call in because they keep saying that the united states gave iran money. we did not give them one cup percent of taxpayer -- copper cent of taxpayer money. you have president trump saying

that and callers saying that. we know donald trump believes was an opponent of the united states and he believes that. he believes all that crap. host: the new york times talking about the federal system. president trump won confirmation of 15 circuit court judges, for those of them have replaced retired republicans rather than adding to the overall party numbers. trump has not radically altered the courts of appeals, but with a dozen nominees pending that could soon change. in several circuits it is slightly higher than the number of republican appointed judges. mr. trump to make a major dent circuit.-- 9th the court has eight vacancies for mr. trump to fill. cincinnati, democrats line,

juanita. i just wanted to voice something the previous caller said. way, the vast majority of the money iran was given back with their own money. it was held, it was frozen in the u.s. banks. --did not give them president obama did not give them anything. secondly, with those kinds of misstatements and lies flying around, it seems like israel and apec have a reason to be afraid of iran. when you have that information floating around -- host: new mexico, james. republican line. caller: how are you doing?

people are calling in about this money that iran got. you don't -- because of the sanctions, that is why that money was held back. you don't reward terrorists who say "death to america." you don't reward them. that is the whole idea about sanctions. what these liberals are saying is it is their money, that the whole idea about sanctions. what people don't understand, especially the liberals of the democrats in the united states -- people saying they are independents, what they don't understand is iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon now. at the end of the so-called agreement they will have one. we need to stop them ahead of time before that happens. periodt 10-your time comes, they will have a nuclear weapon. we have to stop that. the whole idea these people are nice and are going to abide by

this agreement, they are not letting us in to see. they are not letting anyone in there. it is reported we have inspectors going in there. now we don't. we don't know we have. people don't see this happening. for donald trump to go out and say we are not going to deal with these people anymore and we will put more sanctions on them, that is the right thing to do because these people -- not the people of iran -- the government of iran wants to kill lassiter everybody else. this goes back to the 1970's when they took all those marine hostages. host: we heard earlier from the iranian president on his reaction to this announcement. the israeli prime minister also reacting to the decision by president trump. here is part of his statement. [video] >> israel fully supports president trump's decision to reject the disastrous nuclear deal with a terrorist regime in

tehran. opposeds opposed -- has the deal from the start because it set rather than blocking paves have to a bomb, it their path to an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs within a few years time. the removal of sanctions under the deal has already produced disastrous results. the deal did not push war further away. you brought it closer. the deal did not reduce iran's aggression. it dramatically increased it. we see this across the entire middle east. we have seen iran's aggression grow everyday, in iraq, yemen, gaza, and most of all syria where it is try to establish military bases from which to attack israel. the terroristal regime in tehran is developing a ballistic missile capability,

ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads far and wide. ranwe exposed last week, i intensified its efforts to hide its secret nuclear weapons program. if you leave this unchanged, all this combined, it is a recipe for disaster. a disaster for our region, a disaster for the peace of the world. host: kevin in hollywood, florida, republican line. caller: america is definitely on its way to becoming great again. what i don't understand is the majority of people, liberals at that, just don't get our top priority being when you make america safe again. pulling out of this iranian nuclear deal is exactly what we are doing. we know business in dealings with a state that funds terrorism throughout the world. that just praises hate against america. that is nonsense.

giving $1.5 billion, that the sanction. we uphold sanctions one things are not going right. just to say i think america is becoming great again. host: the washington examiner highlighting a new hole -- poll , with questions about nancy pelosi. half of those voters what nancy pelosi to be replaced as house minority leader. 21% believe pelosi should remain in her position. 49% one her out. 36ocratic voters, only percent believe he had a mostly positive influence. out of all voters, 37% say she is mostly back to the democratic party. 49% of voters had an unfavorable view of pelosi while 25% had a favorable view. the poll was conducted from may 3 through may 7. that was conducted by morning consult and released today.

from florida, independent line, we will go to lawrence in florida. caller: yes, good morning. i just wanted to make a comment that i find nobody can trust anybody. that is why we have a problem in all this. none of the countries can trust any of the other countries. none of them. will have the same problems. we have americans killing americans. we don't even have to be concerned about overseas so much. they have their own problems. everybody honor has problems. nobody can trust nobody. that is why we have a problem. dayton,io is next, democrats line. caller: my comment is resident trump is with -- president trump withdrawing from the agreement, what is the alternative plan? we all those sanctions were not working.

it was not preventing iran from getting the nuclear warhead. deal and the governing body who were suspecting the -- inspecting the iran territory, they say iran was complying. was notle saying iran complying have not offered of any evidence to support they say. this is a dangerous game we're playing here in the fact that if in fact the united states pulls out and the rest of the countries remain, iran has no choice but to say the rest of the country's, you will have to get out and we can pursue our nuclear warheads because now iran has to protect themselves, too. i would like to know what is president trump's alternative plan to preventing iran from getting nuclear warheads because sanctions did not work. host: that question might be posed to jim mattis and a they will participate in

a for the senate appropriations committee at 2:30 this afternoon. you can see that on c-span3. it will also be live on our website at c-span.org. if you go to c-span.org, not only can you see the president's statement from yesterday, some international reaction and also other segments not only on this program but other events taking a look at the iran deal, including president obama's announcement of it and what followed after that. all that available for you at c-span.org. iowa, republican line, richard. caller: this is richard from iowa. i would like to say it was iran's own money, but what they were going to do with it was not the right thing. they were going to terrorize the world with it. we should have hung on to it. just kept it. they should have sanctions on them as long as they are trying to make a weapon over there. maybe they will

come around and slow down over there. i think trump is doing the right thing by a lot of the things he is doing. that's all i've got to say today. host: minnesota's next. joan in rochester. caller: i want to talk about our relationship with the israelis. the holocaust was a horrendous part of history. they continue to draw sympathy during world war ii -- and the hermit's deeds they are now doing -- horrendous deeds they are doing to the palestinians. they are not letting them have freedom of movement. appeared because they are trying to survive. i cannot believe holocaust victims would feel these new

actions are justified by their people. i think they would be very embarrassed their country -- horrified their country is doing this to another group of people. host: from mission hills, california, caroline. caller: i was calling to get my opinion about proposition 65. host: for those who don't know, what is that? caller: well, i don't know myself. that is why i'm trying to get more information. it was on the back of some things i bought. i noticed they were all made in china. it goes on childrens hair, a product to clean your face or do things with your face. i got some for some kids at the church. i was looking at it and every one of the products was made in china. proposition 65, it had warnings

that it could cause cancer. host: that is carolyn in california. the house of representatives is about to do their business for the day. we will take you there now. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 9, 2018. i hereby appoint the honorable james comer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 8, 2018, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties.