rates and what it would mean for consumers. call and, we take your you can join the conversation on facebook and" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." president trump heads to pennsylvania today outside williamsport for a campaign rally which we will have live on c-span 2 at 7:00. congress looking at a full plate before heading out next week on the memorial day break. disaster aid, judicial nominations, infrastructure, defense building -- the fence spending, and more. this follows a threat by president trump yesterday suggesting possible military action against iran. that is our topic.

would you support or oppose military action against iran? if you support, call this number. 202-748-8000. if you oppose, it is 202-748-8001. if not by phone, we welcome your comments by social media. @cspanwj is our twitter handle and new can post a comment on facebook.com/cspan. this morning has lots of back-and-forth headlines regarding the u.s. and iran and verbalest round of volleying happened yesterday when the president sent this tweet. if iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of iran. never threaten the united states again. that tweet followed some action in iraq and the wall street journal as one of the publications reporting on this. a rocket landed near the u.s. embassy. heightenedady

tensions, after washington warned of threats from iran and its allies. this rocket landed near a museum causing minor damage to a building used by security guards . the official at interior who declined to be identified said the rocket landed about a kilometer from the u.s. embassy inside baghdad's green zone where many diplomatic missions and other offices are located. no group claimed responsibility, but some published reports suggest it was either iran or iran proxy that may have fired this missile and led to the tweet by the president. here is one headline that came out of an interview the president did with fox news. trump says i will not let iran have nuclear weapons. here is a two minute piece from that interview and we will be back with your calls. [video clip] >> iran has been a problem for so many years.

take a look at all the conflict they have caused and the deal president obama made was a horror show. in five years from now, they will have an open path to making nuclear weapons. we don't need another country with that. they made this terrible deal, paid $150 billion, paid $1.8 billion in cash, out of your pocket, cash, green. paid all his money, made a terrible deal, we don't have inspection rights, we weren't even allowed to inspect some of the most -- most important sites. the deal was terrible. when i first came to office, one of the first meetings i had was at the pentagon with generals

and they were showing me the middle east and they had 14 or 15 sites where there was nothing but war, problems. every single one of those sites was instigated by iran. it was iran military, people paid by iran, you have no idea. i said, this is terrible. they were so strong. i ended the iran nuclear deal you, i had nol idea it was going to be as strong as it was. the country is devastated. >> the thing i think a lot of people worried about as they heard what you said and liked when you said no more stupid wars and here are these stories about troops. >> i just don't want them to have nuclear weapons and they cannot be threatening us. host: president trump talking with steve hilton at fox last evening. a quick paragraph in the washington post story on the

rocket incident. a contributed to a growing sense in iraq that iraq may become a staging area for an unpredictable conflict. a prospect iraq leaders have warned will destabilize baghdad as it works to recover from a 4 year war to oust the islamic state. do you support or oppose u.s. military action against iran? steve, you are up first. you oppose, tell us why. caller: where do you start? one unwanted war in iraq that devastated this country financially and startise to just try and another one. this guy is so un-presidential. just his language and to sit there and say all the things he is saying with all the rhetoric and backed out of the deal they had -- the head of the nuclear program at bay, which was a

diplomatic success with other countries in europe and everybody else still in it and for him to say the things he is , he just has no business being in office and it is just one more proof -- set of proof he has no business being president. host: what do you make of these reports of provocations yesterday? we know about the explosion with the saudi ship, the vessel a couple weeks ago. what do you make of those stories and how it impacts your way of thinking? caller: i don't know. thes hard -- we don't know intelligence, but it is hard to trust anything coming out of this administration and when you don't have the trust of the people, it is hard to trust anything they come up with anymore. i don't know. host: raymond is on the line,

raymond supports u.s. military action calling from lexington, tell us why? caller: good morning, sir. if this was a different president, i would say absolutely not, i don't want to get into another war, but people misunderstood this president. this guy means what he says. there is not going to be a lot of troops involved, i believe he will go in and decapitate the government and that will be the end of it. he will go in with an overwhelming force, it will not be a tit-for-tat battle. he is a real american who believes in peace through strength. host: kathleen is on the line from chicago. you oppose military action. give us your thoughts. caller: yes. first of all, give me a second. this same man said when it was almost time for president obama

i guess the second time to be reelected. what does obama want to do, go in and start a war so he can get reelected. this man is looking at a reelection, he knows he is in trouble. i wish you all sometimes when republicans came on tv and say president obama gave iran billions of dollars, that was iran's money that obama released back to them. money.not our taxpayers this man does not know what he is talking about. what about all the deals he tried to make? what about north korea? how is that looking? he is such a flawed leader. he says he doesn't want iran to have nuclear -- they are not bothering us. this man went in and overturned a plan that was working.

if you don't want iran to have nukes, what about russia, your buddy? about saudi arabia? what about israel? and what about the united states? what makes the united states think they are supposed to have nukes and nobody else? this man is supposed to be the president of the united states, not of the world. the thing that is so sad is this man is going to go in and get a lot of innocent, innocent people killed for nothing. five times, he is supposed to go -- think about this, it is not going to be him. orald trump junior, eric, any of these politicians kids. he cannot give you a real reason why he wants to start a war.

caller: thank you -- host: thank you for calling. here is the voice through the iranian foreign minister. he tweeted over the weekend, with the b deem -- team doing one thing and donald trump doing the other -- something else, it is apparent the u.s. does not know what to think. he actually left that heading into the weekend and through the weekend, we have heard all of this new information, the threat from president trump, the rocket that landed near the u.s. embassy. rocket lands near the embassy in baghdad as tensions ask -- escalate. here is harry on the line from georgia, he opposes military action against iran. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am glad the previous caller totioned that was money paid iran was not paid, it was returned to them. on missile -- that we sold to iran in the late 1970's and i actually lost a job because we never did get paid to finish the god. call the other day when we were all talking about sending these troops and aircraft carriers. telling my friends this, watch out for the false flag, that is what comes next. they have to prove where this missile came from before they

start shooting. that is typically the trick used to start a war. blame youryourself, enemy. decided he is has in big trouble just like the woman said. he is kind of getting cornered by congress here and he has decided to get out of impeachment. tweets, carol writes i thought from the get-go the iran nuclear deal was a terrible deal of obama. president trump is correct. jan writes no more war. is steve schiff, democrat from california who chairs the intelligence committee in the

house. he was on one of the sunday shows about iran. [video clip] >> the intelligence does show an increased threat and it would be catastrophic for iran to use violence against any of our troops and our allies. it is not just about the intelligence. what has taken place now was all too predictable. of the steps the administration has taken to renege on the iran agreement to force europe to iran -- reneged on their agreement and force iran to go back to the passive enrichment, belligerention -- rhetoric from the administration from pompeo to bolton, all of these policy decisions lead us to a state where confrontation is far more likely and that cannot be ignored. when you take a series of steps that ratchet up tensions, you should not be surprised when intelligence tells you tensions

have been ratcheted up and it is now more of a risk of confrontation. this is why our allies are departing from us, why our allies are isolating us and not iran. i don't see how these policies have made this country anymore safe, they have not. i think we missed to the bigger picture when we focus on is the intelligence accurate or inaccurate. the problem is this ratcheting up was all too predictable, all too calculated by people by bolton and pompeo and led us to the precipice of potential call -- potential catastrophe. host: correction, that was adam schiff. we have heard on the line from orchard park, upstate new york, opposing military action. go ahead. caller: yes, i am one of those people really fed up with military actions, regime change, as we have seen with iraq,

syria, libya, and what is frightening, what is extremely frightening is republicans and democrats with virtually no exception back of the regime change and the military action say with one exception, there is one presidential candidate that is against military actions and a regime change and that is the congresswoman from hawaii. other than that, the conservative, the democrats, and the mainstream media -- let me add one more thing, i will try to be brief. c-span itself is complicit in this. the record would show during the ,raqi buildup for the invasion speaker after speaker after recommended-span

that we invade iraq. the same with every other operation, libya, syria, and so forth. i know some people say they permit the questions, people took call in. the proof of the pudding where c-span stands is the speakers militaryand it is one hawk after the other in terms of the speakers and why should it be any different with c-span when you consider that all the mainstream television networks back regime change and military actions without being critical and who sits on the board of c-span but the heads of all the cable channels, cable stations that support and fund c-span. mentioning till see

gabbard -- kelsey gabbard. they warn trump on iran and say democratic hopefuls -- presidential hopefuls took the administration to task saying the white house is leading the u.s. toward another conflict in the u.s. -- in the middle east. drew directrs parallels between the ongoing call to arms from the white house against tehran in the run-up to the iraq war. if trump wants to go to war in ironic, that will make the war in iraq look like a cakewalk. comparisonssanders' between the iraq war and a possible conflict with iran. the white house is setting the stage for a war with iran and it would prove to be far more costly, devastating and dangerous than anything we saw in the iraq war.

we have ed on the line from new jersey. good morning to you. with herb., i agree again.cons are back , they are involved in being the advisors to trump and these are the three billionaires . adel son, marcus, and singer. i suggest the viewers google -- they will find out where we are going in this particular war against iran. that is all i have. host: moving onto jeff from kansas. good morning, what are your thoughts? trump --y thoughts are

and herb was wrong about -- write about this. how he is deciding to spend this money and not think about the people, the taxpayers and all this. he wants to -- you know how he makes the settlement up with china, you know? it is kind of just like put the united states at the risk it is going to be at soon. the more taxpayers spend their poney for this kind of bullcra[ is, you know, let's go spend a couple dollars on the iran war that does not even need to be a thing. host: that is jeff on the line

opposing military action. roy from sun city, california. you are up, good morning. caller: good morning. i opposed it. we have seen this all before. they come in, they cut taxes and soon after that, they are involved in military action. yeara 22-year-old -- 22 veteran. the republicans and the rep -- democrats have to come in and clean up the mess. when they have to do that, as in the case of obama, they cannot spend any money. i remember rumsfeld saying we go to army -- war with the army we have.

host: douglas is on the line, a supporter of military action against iran. caller: the deal the obama administration made with iran was a sucker deal. they were never going to follow the terms of that deal. they just dropped a missile into the green zone in iraq. what are we supposed to do? sit back and let it happen? i know the israelis are not going to.

i think the iranians are going to have to take that into consideration before they .ontinue to do we have to continue, but we have to do what we need to do to protect ourselves on the rest of the world. host: anyone who supports a war with iran does not understand what iran is. it is history, people. it would be a catastrophe to go to war with iran. viewer says those who support military action should get enlisted to fight the war they want. i would prefer not to go to war,

but we cannot allow iran to gain access to nuclear weapons. on the floor of the senate, several senators came up to talk about iran policy. some were questioning what the white house policy was since they were hearing different things at different parts of the week. , a member ofas tom the senate homeland security committee and talked about how the u.s. pull out of the iran nuclear deal contributed to current tensions with iran. [video clip] >> iran's president announced iran will begin to end compliance with some portions of the jcpoa, including by asckpiling enriched uranium i said at that time, president trump's decision increased the odds of armed conflict with iran while doing nothing to constrain

their other malicious activities in the region. again, make no mistake, not everybody in iran wants to be our friend. most of the young people want to be our friend and a lot of the folks that have been elected would like to have a friendly, better relationship with this country, but there are some that do not and i would fully acknowledge that. thanks to president trump's appointment of john bolton to be our national security advisor, we are seeing that prediction come true. host: democrat on the floor last week. we will hear from more senators as this next half hour comes along. eddie from georgia, you are on the line opposing military action against iran.

tell us why. caller: right. poornk about the classmates. i am a vietnam veteran and trump had no courage to fight the war then and i wonder how he has so much courage now when he can send our troops in harm's way. this guy is a phony, he is a coward, and now he has so much was chicken when it was time to fight his own war. host: david is calling from monticello in georgia, supporter of u.s. military action. go ahead, david. caller: i call on the support line only because i support what president trump is doing in iran . he does not want a war, but he knows rhetoric will cause them to make their talking points and he gathers support from the rest

communityernational to denounce iran and he will have all the support. the president doesn't want no war. he knows how to get the rings -- things through talking points and tweets. i look at both sides of everything, it is important to see all of them and when you look at the left news media, they want to destroy this president somehow. they take everything as breaking news and all that stuff. they wanted this just to defeat the president. the president doesn't want no war, but he knows what to say and he knows. last night i think it was, or maybe this morning, it is the end of iran, he knows that. they are backed into a corner -- they are not

i support what president trump is doing with the realization he does not want any war. host: thanks for calling. we will do this for half an hour more. we are asking you if you support or oppose u.s. military action against iran. lots of news over the next several days. to some calling it a de-escalation, popping things -- some things popping back up again yesterday toward the end of the day, but there was some action in iraq. the president left this tweet yesterday at 4:25. if iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of iran , never threaten the united states again. those words came after some action which many are linking to iran and here is the headlines baghdads rocket hits green zone in the wall street journal, this rocket landed near

the embassy in the center of the iraqi capital amid heightened tensions between the u.s. and iran. it landed near a museum displaying older planes. the article goes on to suggest iran -- this episode may be linked back to iran. a larry in georgia, you oppose military action. good morning. oppose the military action and not only do i oppose military action, i want to say this about sanctions. a lot of people don't understand iran had sanctions against them. for 50 years, that money, that millions and billions of dollars given back to iran, that was iran's money, not from the united states, not taxes or anything. the deal president obama made with iran was one of the best

ever made. what he did was he put iran in our back pocket as the united states to stay close to them no matter whether you felt like they were doing the right thing or not. we were able to go over from time to time and watch what they were doing. what president trump has done, he has signed that agreement away and put us in a very dangerous stage. what i would like everybody to know is the money that was given to iran was not our money. sanctions, when you go and have sanctions on a person, iran had business in the united states with billions and billions of dollars and when you release that sanction, all that money goes back to the country that you have sanctioned. it is not taxable from us, it is their money and when he sent that money back, that money was

to help or whatever they did with that money. it was ok because we could still see something going on over there. what donald trump has done is made a bad deal by pushing them away. now you are talking about war. these people have enough weapons to destroy our brothers and sisters that will be caught up. host: that was larry from albany, georgia. here is the headline in washington times, saudi's don't want war, but will defend themselves. saudi arabia will not hesitate to defend itself against iran. this is from a top diplomat yesterday. the minister of state the week after four oil tankers were targeted in an alleged act of sabotage off the coast of the united arab emirates and days after iran allied you many -- yemeni rebels claimed --

if the other side chooses war, the kingdom will fight this with force and determination and defend itself and its citizens and interests. jason, you are on the line from montgomery, alabama. opposing military action. why don't you tell us why? caller: i oppose it because i kind of echo a number of the other callers in that this is very brave president of ours had the opportunity to go to vietnam. he complained of foot issues so he would not have to go. to those of us that have family members that served, my dad is one of those people. he went two times. i have very little respect for this president coming up

blustery and saying what he is going to do and what other countries should not do when he was such a coward and if he and his children and the people he cares about, which all have the name trump were going to go fight this war, maybe i might feel differently. we have to be honest about the fact this is all rhetoric, all just talk. lead tolk that will negative consequences for other people, the 99% of us who do not have the money to dodge having to go over there. people that enter the military looking to make a better life for themselves all of a sudden now are thrust into war because of some idiotic guy who sits in the oval office and i just don't think -- based on the fact that none of our allies agree with it, iran is doing everything

they said they were going to do, the only thing is now this tosident is saying we have stand against them because they will get nuclear weapons when the fact of the matter is they agreed with something, all of our allies agree they are doing whatever they said they were going to do. he is the only outlier, i don't see this in good faith. unfortunately, it is par for the course for this gentleman. that is all i have to say. host: here is the opinion page of usa today on this monday. as tensions rise, what is the end game for trump? the commander in chief is preparing the outbreak of violence, but not fulfilling his role in preparing the public as they talk about iran. trump promised to avoid foreign entanglements and told the pentagon his wish is no war with iran. then why did he hire john bolton and what is the plan?

soundbites shouted at reporters cannot convey the risk iran poses and what the u.s. is prepared to do about it. . president trump owes it to the american people to speak before the saber rattling becomes an opposing reality -- becomes reality. the iranian regime was moderating and willing to dispense with -- eager to stabilize the middle east in cooperation with the west. this led to an attractive end game strategic collaboration between washington and tehran. this vision was a mirage. events in syria gave us a preview of the true consequences of his strategy.

out of a misguided belief recognition of syria would transform tehran into an agent --stability, he had no today. read more at usa ellen is on the line. welcome. the thing withe iran. host: tell us why. caller: pompeo went over and met with them. they agree with barack obama on this plan. they are saying they want to stick to the iran deal. they have not done anything against that deal. they did not cover ballistic missiles, this was just a nuclear ban deal. he is going the wrong way.

robert in clearwater in florida, you support military action. us?rt, are you with yes, sir. go ahead, please. caller: i support the president. he has advisors to tell him what to do and what not to do. being a military person myself and my father was at pearl harbor and received the medal of honor. you have to defend your country. he is not an idiot. he has people telling him what is happening. if it does happen, i think we should move quick. these people have weapons, too. i think we could finish them off if we had to. you cannot stand there and let people take advantage of america and that is what you are doing. he has advisors telling him what

to do. host: that was robert from florida. the senator from alaska, a republican, a member of the senate armed services committee. this is from the floor last week. [video clip] the support what administration is doing with ourrd to reinforcing military capabilities in the region and this is the reason, it sends a message to iran that if you are going to try what you 2005,rough -- in 2004, and 2006, kyl and wound thousands of our military members, we are going to have the capability to make you pay. like seeing anyone come through the dover air force base either. troops were our killed and wounded by these largest state

sponsor of terrorism in the world and the notion that there is some innocent country we are "turning our" or back on" is not accurate. host: senator dan sullivan, the republican from alaska on the floor last week. greg, mechanicsburg, you support military action against iran. it tell us why. caller: i support military action if it is necessary. we have to assume since none of us that are calling in, especially those who oppose, have no idea. they just hate donald trump. most of them, a lot of them self identify as black and the others probably are. they hate it because barack obama is not president. the rest of the world don't speak english, nor have our same value judgments.

that is the problem with the d.c. elites interpretation of everything. they are the same as us, they just speak a different language. no, no, they have different values. donald trump knows north korea, watchingd iran are .verything we do they are listening to democrats against donald trump and they perceive a weakness and that he won't do something now.

host: let me go back to what you said at the beginning of your call, you said you support military action if it is necessary. ifwhat point do you think not now? caller: i trust the president on this. he is -- has thrown this out and he knows the consequences, good or bad. he dealt with people all over the world for 40 years. if he says now is the time to do it, i say do it. if you are going to go in, go in, end it. host: another supporter of iran, ed fromn in manassas, welcome to the program. caller: if you want war, vote

democrat in 2020. 90% of u.s. combat deaths have been under u.s. president. s. you don't coddle dictators. weea was a democrat war and had a war in vietnam because of a democrat president. worldbarack obama, the imploded and we lost karen maia of -- we lostpe crimea. host: that was ed. a little bit of other news today . front page of the washington post has a couple of headlines. losing au.s. and china stabilizer in their relationship. escalating trade disputes could impact national security. under that they talk about politics.

a joe biden, who made his official campaign kickoff speech featured here biden's lead in the race -- to the front page of the wall street journal, millenials are near middle-age in the crisis. american millenials are approaching middle-age in worse financial shape than every generation before them. they write in the journal hobbled by the financial crisis and recession that struck as they begin working life, americans born between 1981 and lesshave less wealth, property, lower marriage rates, and fewer children. story in the wall

street journal. the senate and house back in session today. one week of activity when they go to the memorial day break. hasnations, the house consumer related bills and military related bills and ask cs is reminding us nancy and --osi the three leaders said they would reconvene in three weeks, that is this week on how to pay for massive infrastructure. we will be tracking that meeting and get you any comments that come out of it. john is calling from north carolina, opposing military action against iran. host: how are you doing -- caller: how are you doing sir? combat against iran would be the worst thing we

could ever do. be stupid. especially if you are going to bring in russians. it some thought ought to be given about any attempts to do something such as this. calling.nks for here is marco rubio also on the floor last week. he came down with one specific purpose that some point in the week. he wanted to talk to people making comparisons between the potential for military option in iran and previous action by the u.s. against iraq. [video clip] >> this is nothing like that. that was an offensive operation, an invasion of another country. this is not posturing for military attack. this is military posturing for purpose of defensive operations.

it is very straightforward. if iran attacks, there will be a war. if iran attacks, there will not be a war. somehow we most -- are going to provoke an attack. elements of the american government are going to go out and get something to do iran to -- get iran to hit us. i don't know how you prove that. or i find that to be unsubstantiated and dangerous and let me tell you why this is problematic. what encourages iran to believe they can get away with this is they believe they are going to be able to say that is not us, that is some rogue group that did it. the more they think they can get away with that, the likely they are to do it. host: senator marco rubio on the floor last week. ken pollock writes this about

iran, should the usb looking to pick a fight with iran? a war with iran makes no sense and i say this as someone who would like to see the u.s. making a much more determined effort to push back on iranian aggression and expansionism in the middle east. the best way to do this is helping allies across the region, we were legitimately frightened by the games iran has made in iraq, syria, and yemen. york, what from new is the name of your town? state?s that come up caller: it is way up state where the elephants go to die. up by the canadian border. opposeell us why you military action. caller: i oppose it because it would just be another mess. we are already trying to clean up the mess in iraq and

afghanistan. i don't think we would be in this point if it had not been for the reckless administration of obama. host: what was reckless about it? -- 150 billion dollar give back to the iranians and i it'll -- it will just be used to foment terror. what have they given us? i find if that had not happened, we probably will not -- would not be talking like this. i like trump in general, i think he has been an effective leader. i am opposed to war and it is a

nasty situation. it is really one of those things there is no answer for. good out of it. if iran attacks somebody, they will pay the price, i understand that. by the way, i want to say this. i love brian lamb, i wish he was back. i really like c-span, thanks a lot. host: thanks for calling and mr. lamb is very much around in the office. i see him just about every day and a supporter of u.s. military .ction, tell us your thoughts iran is also a puppet for china.

oil is going to go to china and it is rising just like japan did in the 30's. to cut to do something the head off and let the chips fall. thank you very much. host: thanks for calling. rallyent trump will do a this evening, 7:00 eastern time , sort of innia center. we will have it live on c-span numeral through -- 2. -- c-span 2. the committee headed by congresswoman maxine waters, democrat from california.

we will hear about the tax returns and u.s. china relations. that is wednesday at 9:00 in the morning. we have james from harrisburg, pennsylvania. a proponent of military action against iran. go right ahead. caller: sometimes when you listen to this discussion, you almost have to wonder what the .eople have been listening to if you look at the easter attacks in sri lanka, they were sponsored by isis. fundeds a saudi suni group. qaeda, thosed al are saudi spots or groups. -- we keepy attack

blaming iran. they areok at yemen -- a local you many group who happen to have taken control because they have problems with -- when you look at who keeps firing missiles into saudi arabia, -- of yemenok, the army decided and delivered all the military hardware the country had. and now they start screaming when a missile hits, but these missiles are being provided by iran. it is not the truth. if you look at a map of yemen, when they controlled yemen and you look at what area was controlled by a qip, the people

stuff, -- that other the saudi's started bombing and now if you look at a map controlled by those who want to attack america, their land has greatly increased. you would see them in the battlefield in yemen fighting with saudi's, you did not see iranians or the revolutionary guard. sometimes i think we are ill-informed and when they speak iran the fight in syria, said specifically, we are going in because we cannot have these terrorists set up camp in a country that close to us. host: we will stay in pennsylvania for diane. i don't necessarily

support military action, i support our president. i want to contrast this administration and its activities compared to the last administration that had our military personnel on tv, handcuffed on their knees on one of our vessels. this action was taken by iran rewarded by the iran deal. i did not agree with that action and i prefer confrontation when we are attacked like that. the idea that our military personnel, the picture of our own ship under nextary custody, i am military, i cannot process that in my mind. i am an avid supporter of the president and whatever action he

takes. host: time for a few more calls. a couple more words from william burns and jake sullivan, the negotiators who led the secret bilateral talks with iranians that paved the way for the .uclear deals here is what mr. burns and mr. sullivan had to say recently. maximalist demands are not carved in stone and pursue a more risk -- more realistic agenda. extend the timeliness and recognize further sanctions relief will be necessary. it means probing for understanding and encouraging dialogue on the war in afghanistan and yemen where iran will be a player in any eventual settlement. -- mittburns and

romney, republican from utah was on the cnn program yesterday talking about iran. [video clip] >> i don't believe for a minute either the president or john bolton or anyone else in a has anysenior position interest going to the middle east and going to war. there is no interest doing that barring some kind of attack from iran. going to war with iran, not going to happen. the president made it very clear he thinks the greatest foreign the modern agein was the decision by president bush to go into iraq. the idea he would follow the same path by going after iran, that is not going to happen. host: mitt romney on cnn yesterday.

release part of the middle east piece plan in june. -- peace plan in june. they announced on sunday, but will hold back crucial details about a settlement. bahrain will hold a two day economic conference at june to drum up investment from governments, businesses, and investment figures and nations outside the region including asia. in announcing the decision, the administration did not describe plans for self-governance or a future state. the initiative developed by jared kushner is expected to call for a multibillion-dollar package of loans, grants, and investment for palestinians and neighboring states affected by the conflict, but stopped short of endorsing a fully separate sovereign state. back to your calls.

edward, keyport new jersey, thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i definitely oppose. i would have to say there have been a lot of these things since iran. somebody attacked somebody and we are in a war. people realize the species and live in isment we harming. we need -- everybody seems to want to be protecting with this false flag nonsense. i would like to bring up the point that somebody bring up a clip of saddam hussein that had -- who had all types of rhetoric about this amazing war with iran, that it was a war of approved.we ll rdless of that, even in

aos, there is something like 100,000 unexploded ordinance. the environmental impact these things have, if you want to be scared to death, be scared to death there will not be a livable environment in the future. let's get out of iraq, what are we doing there? robertinal thought from in baltimore. he also opposes military action. it looks like you get the last word. go ahead, please. caller: thank you so much for allowing me to speak. can you hear me clearly? host: we can. caller: i absolutely oppose any military action in iran. when we sit down and use our common sense as americans, we have to realize first of all, iran does not even have the .apacity to make a nuclear bomb they have been pretty much using enriched uranium.

it has been verified for energy purposes. they don't have one single nuclear bomb. if you propose that to ludicrous to is think of iran being a threat to us or any other country. similarly, just like in syria, for example, when they said bashar al-assad bombed his own people, he knew under international scrutiny what would happen to him if he would do something. he did not knew that. into starving states and be provocateurs. we do not have any reason at all to fear iran whatsoever. the biggest threat we have right now is actually on our west coast with regards to the

unreported catastrophe in the pacific ocean regarding the ruku -- fukishima village has not been resolved. people do not realize that the nuclear leakage in the pacific ocean, we cannot close it, fill it up. that is why countless whales are washing up on the west coast and people are starting to spike as regards to cancer and drinking water in california. that is what we should be focused on, not somebody men -- some bogeyman in the closet. and if you notice the countries that have been demonized in our media -- syria, iran, north korea, even cuba -- all of these countries have one thing in common. none of those countries wanted to have a central bank in their country to prop up our currency, and that is why we demonize these countries.

we impose all types of embargoes, because we are trying to break them. thank you for allow me to speak. host: thank you and everyone else who called this morning. it will not be the final phone segment, i am sure come about policy towards iran. we will take a timeout. we have a couple hours left in this monday edition of the "washington journal." we will get a preview of the week ahead with roll call's katherine tully-mcmanus and the hill's jordan fabian. and we will take a look at a new proposal to cap credit card interest rates at 15%. matt schulz, an industry analyst, will join us for that conversation. we will be right back. ♪

>> once, tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. network 1979, a small with an unusual name rolled out a big idea -- let viewers decide what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered congress -- unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. coverage ofsan washington is funded as a public service by your cable provider.

c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. ♪ ♪ >> the house will be in order. has been years, c-span providing america with unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. crated by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. ♪ newest book, "the presidents." noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, providing insight into the lives of the 44 american presidentss, through stories gathered from interviews with noted

historians. explore the challenges they faced and the legacies they have left hind. order your copy today. c-span's "the presidents" is now available as hardcover or e-book at c-span.org/thepresidents. starting memorial day, may 27, all week in primetime, c-span has coverage of commencement ceremonies taking place at colleges and universities across the country. include actingrs defense secretary patrick kennison -- shanahan, stacey abrams, president donald trump, and supreme court justice sonya sotomayor, starting at 80 rpm eastern on c-span. watch online anytime at c-span.org. and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: at the table now to talk about a busy week here in washington prior to the memorial break for congress is katherine tully-mcmanus, a staff writer for roll call. we are also joined by jordan fabian, white house correspondent for "the hill." let's start with iran, because we know there is an all members briefing for the house and senate on iran tomorrow. who is actually doing this briefing? where will it be and how will it work? guest: it will happen in the secure area in the capitol. we are expecting top administration officials from the pentagon and white house to fill in senators and members of congress on what exactly the initiation's plans are in iran. we sent an aircraft carrier group over there, patriot missile batteries, and that has a lot of people on capitol hill worried we are repairing for

some kind of armed conflict. there president, in a tweet last week, said i am ok with iran not knowing what is going on, but many members of congress are not ok with not knowing what is going on. host: katherine tully-mcmanus of roll call, we know there has been some frustration on not hearing anything from the administration and then maybe hearing differing opinions on what the policy is. can you explain what members of congress are thinking and what exactly they will be looking for? guest: they will be looking for answers. we know this briefing is, in their view on the long-awaited. there is news out of the white house and the state department about moving people out of iraq because of threats from iran. d, theke jordan sai carrier groups moving in. we have military forces moving towards this area. and lawmakers are eager to hear

what the actual plans are from the white house and what their intentions are, whether it be and what or defensive those threats are in iraq from iran. that raised many questions on the last week and they did not get many answers. host: what is the administration policy that? we started the discussion with a presidential tweet from yesterday where he said, if iran wants to fight, it will be the official end of iran -- never threatened the united states again. that language is different than some of the president's language in previous days. how would you describe the policy now? guest: it is modeled. some people think the president may be embracing this madman theory that dates back to the nixon administration, where he plays both sides of the issue to confuse the opponent. that being said, there are people in the administration with frame views on how to confront iran. his national security advisor, john bolton, has long been an

outspoken advocate of confrontation with iran, a possible military conflict to constrain their ambitions in the region, and also go after their nuclear facilities. many of the president's supporters have reminded him that he campaigned on ending u.s. foreign entanglements in the middle east. they are warning that, if he goes ahead and follows john bolton's lead, he may be angering core supporters. host: let me welcome in the viewers to phone in -- our guests are jordan fabian of "the hill" and katherine tully-mcmanus, staff writer from "roll call." we have three numbers -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. as we mentioned, it is a busy week. let's go to katherine tully-mcmanus. we know the u.s. senate will

return to disaster aid funding this week. can you explain where congress is on this issue and what they are hearing from the white house right now? guest: the big question is will they be able to get this done before the memorial day recess, where they will not be working on the hill altogether on this issue. on capitolorters hill who happen pressing on this issue for the last few weeks. right now, there are still outstanding issues. it is not clear they will strike a deal. that is everyone's goal. that is what all lawmakers are saying, the house, republicans and democrats, they would like to get this tied up. host: how much money are we talking about and how widespread is this? guest: this bill is focused primarily on natural disaster 2018. that happened in

they are trying not to reach too far back historically, although communities from previous disaster events have been raising the issue that maybe they did not get as much funding as they needed. that is puerto rico has definitely been saying they are underfunded, there are -- but there are also issues in dispersing aid. there are hold ups. it may not be an issue how much money has been appropriated by how much money has hit the ground to do rebuilding efforts. host: this discussion has been going on for weeks, if not months. what is the white house view on a final disaster aid package and what it should look like, how much money should be involved? guest: they would like to get something passed, but what the holdup has been is the amount of money going towards disaster relief in puerto rico. the white house believes that puerto rico has mismanaged those funds. the government in puerto rico and democrats and some republicans on capitol hill have

rejected that argument. the question is, whatever they come forward with in congress, is the white house going to accept whatever amount of money they appropriate for puerto rico? that is a big question. host: let's go to albert, first call, sebastian, florida, republican caller. caller: how are you doing? good morning. that it is inevitable that we are going to war with iran, because they have no concern for anybody. we have been going through this for over 20 years. host: a question for either of our guests? i would like to see what they think. host: so we heard several senators on the floor last week talking about iran, trying to go back and forth and clarify what they think should be happening, what the white house is saying.

how do you think the week will play out on this topic, once everything happens? what happens after that? guest: i think information is what the lawmakers are craving right now, about the administration's plans, and they will end up formulating their views on that later in the week. a lot of them right now are just saying we want more information, we want answers -- what are these military crafts heading towards the region? why have people been evacuated out of iraq? i do not think they have the information to develop an opinion on any white house plans, because they are not there on what that is. host: a little bit on the dynamics earlier today, a "usa today" piece that suggested if the president does not want her to action against iran, why did he hire john bolton? what is going on at the white house? guest: the president hired john

bolton fully knowing his position on these middle east conflicts. while he disagrees with them, i think he likes the strength that he projects. again, if you look at this through the prism of the madman theory, he likes that john bolton can get out there and press this hardline for his administration. what the president does not like is when an aide is perceived to be guiding him in a certain direction. over the last week, you have seen president push back against the notion that he may want a conflict with iran, because he does not like the media coverage saying that john bolton is pushing him in this direction, whether it is true or not. that is a source of a lot of this mixed information. i think a lot of lawmakers will be eager to hear a clear sense of what is going on. with and, really quickly, venezuela, north korea, they wanted briefings and did not

necessarily get briefings. why is this situation different? guest: the situation may be different because of the unity of what we saw in capitol hill of wanting answers to this cross party lines, crossed the house and senate. in the past, we have seen briefings where republicans and whereats were split up, publicans got a briefing and then, later in the day, maybe democrats or vice versa. that, i think, has previously allowed them to raise issues that may be more partisan. but having a unified briefing shows a vessel demand for questions to be answered. host: let's get to tony, chapel hill, tennessee, independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. glad to get back on again. i've been trying for a while. i am a vietnam veteran.

i want to remind some people out there of a couple of things. one of them is the pentagon papers. anybody heard of that? anybody heard of wmd's? anybody heard of the information that snowden and assange let out? and one more thing i have to say about opposing this -- i watched a lot of young americans die in vietnam for no reason at all. during that time, i came home and found out about the lies. just because it comes out of washington, d.c. does not make it the truth. host: let's go on to david in l.a. good morning. caller: i think it is interesting that i should follow this fellow, because i am in total agreement with him. but i would like to pose another to the reason why we get

ourselves entangled in these strange, bizarre, of no benefit overseaserican people, war adventures. i would summit to your audience that it has to do with the power of lobbies. the saudi lobby and the israeli lobby. and their influence over our lawmakers. entities, like the press and whatnot come as to how they drum up stuff for that first idiot who called in and said it is inevitable that we go over to iran. them kind of people are susceptible to this type of jingoism, press manipulation, propaganda that leads us into

--se kinds of what is the benefit of this to the macon people? host: thank you for calling. once these briefings are done, do you expect any kind of legislative action from congress, even if it is a sense of revolution -- a sense of resolution regarding iran in our policy? guest: we do not accept that this week. we may see that going forward. the house and senate ready much either schedules set for the week. be, think that there could especially, a sense of and there is nothing binding and does not hold the president or congress to any specific policy. i would expect legislation like that. host: let's turn to immigration. the headline of your piece on "the hill." trump rolls out pro-american immigration plan. remind us of what the president put out there late last week. guest: the president announced his plan to overhaul the legal

immigration system, transitioning it away from the family based system we have now system,e "merit-based" based on work skills and education. flat on capitol hill, even among republicans. we did not see many high-profile people like mitch mcconnell embracing this, namely because it did not address the elephant in the room, which is the undocumented population in the united states. also, that merit-based immigration plan itself is controversial, especially among some democrats, who are not eager to move away from the family-based immigration system we currently have. a lot of people criticize that it is half-baked, that it was put together by the president's son-in-law senior advisor, jared kushner, as a way to unite republicans and beginning positions with democrats. but in that past few days, we have not seen momentum towards

those talks. host: what was the immediate reaction? guest: pretty quiet on capitol hill. there were a lot of questions on if the president were to rule out this immigration overhaul, historically, when presidents do something like that, they try to line up support on capitol hill, so when they drop a big plan like this, they have supporters lined up to talk to the cameras, , toalk to reporters like us give high praise for something like this. that was not in the works last week. there were not senators or how senators with white house talking points. there are a lot of questions about how it would be implemented, and there is a lot of concern about the deferred action for childhood arrivals program set up under the obama administration, dreamers, and what would happen to them. they were not addressed at all in this plan. that has been a point of some bipartisan unity on capitol

hill. there are republicans on the hill who are supportive of protecting those daca recipients, and that was a point where they could move forward, potentially, and to have it go unaddressed was a big issue. host: here is a piece in the ," trump's plan has its merits. the trap for liberals is we will overreact to what is essentially a moderate proposal. this would let trump slap his name on the merit-based argument, one most americans would find reasonable. mr. trump would then own the center of the debate and would be able to cast anyone to his left to the two extremes a liberals would have to expand why they do not like highly skilled immigrants and would end up looking confused and conservatives would get to play the role of border enforcers and many migrants would be caught in the middle p finally, not right action in the middle would give for more the ability

reactionary or extreme measures down the line. what do you make of a potential strategy? guest: what that piece get that is many people are viewing this plan as a campaign vehicle rather than a serious just later proposal. but it will allow the president to head into the election season saying this is the plan, this is my plan, what are the democrat'' plan, they do not have any plans -- that is what we have heard him say in the rose garden. right,nt of the piece is that i think this will challenge democrats to come out with some sort of proposal they think and move through congress heading into election season. that will be a question for congress and the 2020 candidates. host: do you see a saturday coming this year? guest: i am not sure we will see an immigration plan. moving through congress this year, there will be attempts. one issue raised last week about

the trump plan is what actually is qualifying as highly skilled or skilled. some lawmakers raised the issue that there are u.s. agricultural products that you cannot just take someone off the street to have them either harvest or produce. there are skills involved in that type of work, for some agricultural products. and are you not going to call a farmworker highly skilled in the way you may call an engineer headed to silicon valley? host: let's go to john in johnstown, pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: good morning. john bolton is a dangerous man. he and rumsfeld and cheney were the ones who got us in the war in iraq. this guy is a war hawk and should be in prison as a war criminal. watch out for the war profiteers, too. they are anxious to have another war here.

i would just like to stress my opinions, and that is where it is. host: alright, onto matthew in concord, new hampshire. caller: i have a question for mr. fabian. i would like to know where turkey, israel, syria, jordan, i would like to know where they are located in the world? host: why do you ask? caller: i will get to the point when he answers. guest: all of this countries are near or in the middle east. caller: so when he started the war, announced the patriots are going to the middle east. the patriots have been in the middle east for years. when a patriot battery, when their personnel is returned to the u.s., the battery comes with them. force takes a new, updated battery. so the patriots in the middle east is not some new revelation. trust me. the reason i know this -- my

brother was a patriot launch commander, who no longer lives. have a nice day. thank you for america. host: do you want to respond to that at all? guest: i will not question his brother's experience or the details of of the battery operation, but we do know that there were new units sent over there, along with other military capabilities, which these moves in what caused this concern capitol hill in the first place, in addition to the warnings that iran is posing a threat to megan citizens and a mac and interest in the region. this is what is happening, and i do not think the administration would be sending its top officials to capitol hill to brief all lawmakers if this were not something very serious. host: let's hear from marlon in kansas city, a democrat. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. pretty much, immigration and

building the wall, he promised that mexico was going to pay for it, but then he held all of these government employees' paychecks hostage until he got what he wanted, and he still did not get it. and his supporters still support him. then, as far as the war, that is just a distraction to throw people off. because he knows he is in trouble, and he does not win in 2020, he is going to jail. host: thank you. not sure if he was calling you a trump supporter, but was anything you wanted to respond to? guest: he makes an interesting point about immigration, which is we have heard so many promises and proposals from the president, and it will be interesting to see how this new plan plays. it did seem intended to soften

his image on that issue, saying that i want to accept immigrants into the united states. a lot of his supporters do not want to hear that message. a lot of his supporters want lower levels of immigration and a strict crackdown on illegal immigration. we heard people on the right really skeptical of this plan, in addition to democrats on the hill. by he -- while he is trying to position himself in the middle, he may be on the right. host: we know tomorrow was supposed to be that don again -- -- mcgann was supposed to don mcgahn was supposed to testify. what is the status of this? guest: i have not heard willmation that don mcgahn testify in front of the committee. he has been subpoenaed by the

committee to testify. what is interesting is the justice department, the trump administration justice department is tasked with upholding that type of subpoena, and i do not expect the attorney general or the rest of the justice department to enforce a subpoena of the white house personnel. it will be very interesting to see how the committee handles it, whether they hold what they have had recently, empty chair hearings, or if they shut it down and try for another day. host: this follows action in house judiciary, where they passed a content resolution against attorney general bill barr. why hasn't that come to the house for yet? guest: i think there is a mixed view of contempt for the attorney general right now. i think democrats do have their eyes on 2020. they know they need to move

forward in a way that protects them and, hopefully, build support for them, is what their hope is. i think leadership and members, especially important districts, where there may not be a safe blue seat, are especially wary of these moves. it is similar to the talk of impeachment. for members not in safe seats and are threatened for the 2020 election by republicans, they may not want to take that step. host: i will read a tweet from the president that he just sent a short while ago, then get your reaction. he wrote -- why are the democrats not looking into all the crimes committed by crooked hillary and the phony rush investigation? they would get back there credibility. jerry, nadler, schiff would have a holy future open to them.

perhaps they could even run for president. this from the president himself. what is your take? guest: this presents an interesting conundrum for democrats. this goes to weather robert mueller ends up testifying. how -- this goes to whether robert mueller ends up testifying. questions as to why the special counsel did not look into the president's political froments, which would come republicans on any committees he testifies to. we have not heard from robert mueller whether he would actually testify, and that may be a question that is going through his mind. at least some democrats think it might. pat from new jersey, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this is patrick from new jersey. host: we are glad to have you. go ahead. caller: yes, my comment on this

issue involving the president deploying 120,000 troops to the persian gulf, involving iranian tension in the middle east -- host: what's your question? caller: my point is the fact that i understand iran has been in violation in the past under the u.n. -- in other words, whatever issues involving them building nuclear weapons or any that the u.n.s has been previously shut out. isther or not the president that should be impeached is another issue, but i think what we should do is basically deploy what weps there and do have to do now. because if we do not stop this

regime, probably in another five to seven years, they could actually have a nuclear bomb being built. from anyd to stop iran tensions or further provocations that will occur in the rest of the world and the middle east. host: what would congress think about that point he just made, if you do not do this now, here comes a nuclear bomb? guest: i think it is on their mind. part of why they want this briefing that will happen tuesday is to get a better sense of whether the administration's plan is offensive or defensive. i think that matters a lot to members of congress, especially offensive -- many of them would argue that they have the exclusive right to declare war and things like that. so i think also, with the removal of the u.s. from the iran nuclear deal, there's also

questions about how iran is moving forward with nuclear capabilities. troop question is a great one, because while you see the president withdrawing u.s. troops presence in afghanistan and iraq and pulling out of syria, it would be out of character, almost, for this demonstration to send 120,000 troops to that region to confront iran. that is around the same number that went to iraq during 2003 during the war, to give you a sense of how big a troop presence that would be. while this may be something don bolton and other hawks in the administration want, just looking at what the president has done, it would not follow the pattern he has followed thus far in the middle east and it comes to u.s. troop presence. host: we are doing a roundtable on events here in washington. another busy week expected before the memorial day break. katherine tully-mcmanus is a

staff writer at "roll call." also taking questions is the white house correspondent for "the hill," jordan fabian p the president has another rally tonight at 7:00 p.m., this from pennsylvania. we will have it live on c-span. going the president there? guest: the president has been keen on protecting the rust belt states he won in 2016, to have that core stronghold again in 2020. pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, and also ohio. he has been traveling to those estates the first part of this year, trying to get his base activated. and these rallies double as a data collection arm for the campaign. when someone goes to a rally, they give their name and email address, and it allows a campaign to reach out to those people to see if they want to

volunteer or do other things to help the trump reelection campaign. he is trying to get an early start on protecting those key states. i anticipate we will see similar stops like this in the first part of this year. host: do you want to the rally at all? guest: absolutely. i also see it as a counterbalance. people in the trump campaign talk about joe biden as one of the biggest rights to the president. and joe biden did his official-not official campaign launch in pittsburgh, and just this weekend, he had an warmest -- and an warmest -- had an enormous event in philadelphia. so he is collecting data, and i think the trump campaign would very much like to get their foot in the door in pennsylvania to take care of all the things jordan was talking about. ntoursville is in the

northeastern part of the state, an area where a lot of people came out for the president. he will need to maintain those likens if he faces someone joe biden, who would carry the big cities like philadelphia and pittsburgh. to the floor as well. we mentioned disaster aid essentially in the senate this week. we know the senate has been working on many, many nominations. they will start with more nominations. how much success is mitch mcconnell having with these nominees? guest: plenty, especially since changing the rules for nominees so they needed a lower threshold of the majority. hitting record numbers, i believe, for trump's nominees being cleared by the senate. and i think republicans are very pleased about that. i think something we are keeping

an eye on is, as more and more democrats are on the campaign trail, which nominees they prioritize to come back and try to put up a fight on. host: what our priorities for the house on the floor? guest: there are two main issues. financialeasure from services chairman maxine waters, which would roll back some of the changes made to the consumer financial protection bureau under the trump administration under mick mulvaney, when he was leading the agency and now the new agency head, including -- mulvaney moved to make fewer reports and investigations public, and she would open that up to the public. another is a savings measure that is trying to make contact -- retirement savings easier for americans by allowing small

and offer to team up a group 401(k) plan in a way a large company is able to do but a small business or a mom and pop may not be able to afford the fees and things. if they are able to team up in a region or city, they could offer those benefits to their employees. host: was to have items of lists of things to talk about this week in congress, but we want to get to another phone call. by the way, the house and senate are back in today with a four-day workweek, being out friday and memorial day. rob has been patient, from new jersey. caller: thank you. , longtime caller. i have a question for mr. fabian -- as well as your other guest, of course. i am curious how this whole thing -- we were talking about

iran before -- is affecting the election. i know biden is trying to make a play for the rust belt, but whether they will ultimately go for biden -- i know they may be flirting with it, but a bus is not a bid, and some of these folks will probably flirt with biden but ultimately go with trump. my second question is whether all of the investigations going hiff,eople like nadler, sc schumer, these guys are experienced new york lawyers, they know how to investigate, and they know how to give a true and has kicked to the president, metaphorically speaking, and whether that can ultimately affect the election. the biden versus trump thing, this is the interesting question. 2016, and a lot of people are wondering for biden is if you can activate the obama

coalition and get a lot of the people who went into trump's column back into the democrats' column. that is a key question. as far as the investigations go, the president feels like he is on solid ground, fighting democrats, committee heads, and he feels pretty comfortable in that spot. guest: i am rarely out on the campaign trail, but our campaign reporters on roll call talk about how the investigations are not necessarily on the minds of voters. see aats would like to hammer come down on the trump administration, but voters are also looking at prescription , andprices, college debt housing prices, things like that , things that hit them at home in a way that these seem sealed to them. host: let's go to robert. to remindwould like

your audience that iran has not attacked another country in something like 300 years. they are just trying to survive. it seems like we are the aggressor. just like with russia. russia has eight bases around the world. we have 850. nobody's a threat to us. iran will not commit suicide here the only people to use a nuclear weapon is the usa. host: are at, onto russ in new york. alright. onto russ in new york. is do: my first question you think the democrats are using the abortion topic to describe -- distract from fiscal issues? joe inet's move on to colorado, republican caller. what would you like to say? caller: i would like to say why

are we still scared, as a public, and why not use the 22 warriors a day's a message of at to go to war and stick up -- stick up for veterans. bush, rumsfeld should go to jail for the last war. as a history channel publicized, kissinger sent us to war, back in the day, with japan. i want you to to publicize to the people who owns this place, because it is not us. the constitution and the bill of rights is a farce. and who sent us to war? because we never wanted to go to war. i want you to challenge that. if we, as a republic and a public, none of us want war. and if we really want to own nuclear, let's shut down nuclear.

if yellowstone shakes, we have two nuclear reactors on this island, and if yellowstone blows, we will all be in trouble. if anybody's talking nukes, let's put the people who created nuclear in jail, across the world, and do good for all of us. nuclear should not exist. my dad was a nuclear scientist. and i would like to publicize now that they buried all the material, because they were not responsible enough, and it is leeching in the water in denver, making everybody sick. if we are going to do good for us as a people and own nuclear, let's put everybody responsible for nuclear, anything nuclear, waste included, the sciences, anybody affiliated with the war machine, let's put them in jail. because we want nothing but peace, and we should never come as adults, send little kids to war ever again. that is unintelligent.

we are showing to the people and public and everybody in the world that we are not intelligent. let's prove to the world we are about peace -- if we are going to be the world's cops, let's prove to the world, everybody, the children -- let's not be hypocrites. host: all right. passionate comments from joe. any reaction? guest: clearly this iran issue is what many -- is lighting up the phone lines this morning. it should be a wake-up call to the administration that this is something that would be very serious for them to take. they have had military strikes and cruise missile launchers into syria -- putting troops on the ground or having some kind of armed conflict with iran would certainly be a very intense issue heading into 2020. event isther major

steven mnuchin, treasury secretary, on the hill this coming wednesday on a hearing we , wednesdayn c-span 3 at 9:00 a.m., and he will go before the house financial services committee. this is maxine waters' committ ee. what does she and the committee want to get out of this? guest: you will see, like you have seen in other oversight hearings in the house, or oversight of the trump administration, you will see some fireworks. you will see some intense questioning of nguyen -- of mnuchin. thee democrats understand power they hold with oversight, and they will be trying to dig into mnuchin and how the administration is reacting with what financial powers. guest: and i am sure tax returns will come up. last week, the treasury gave

official word to congress that they will not hand over trump's tax returns. the big question now is how they may force their hands. imagine if the tax return question comes up, we may see those fireworks again. guest: the ways and means chairman, richard neal of massachusetts, he subpoenaed those tax returns. the deadline was 5:00 p.m. friday -- that deadline was not met. i do not think the administration has any intention of handing over tax returns. and richard neal said last week that he could file in court as soon as this week. no guarantees that he will. most recently, he said he is consulting with counsel on how to move forward, but he will try to take this to the courts and try to get those tax returns out through the judicial system. host: i think we can bet will come up as well.

katherine tully-mcmanus, where is congress now in terms of its support, or maybe lack thereof, of the president's current policy, particle early on the democratic side? guest: on the tariffs? the support on the democratic side is limited. and whatever support there was is waning. i know there were some rest out democrats who were in support of the tariffs because of the impact that chinese steel, for example, have had on those regions. tim ryan was one of those, now running for president, one of the 23 democrats -- he had said let's see where this goes, because my region of ohio is hurting. i think you are seeing a lot of democrats quiet down on that end of the spectrum and get much the this is a

dangerous game, the trade war with china is absolutely heating up. what is unclear is when it will directly affect taxpayers. and taxpayers are also known as voters. day items,on every when we will start seeing these tariffs in stores around the country. host: what is the current conversation like in the white house along the -- around the tariff issue? guest: the president thinks he is on solid ground. he thinks he has the upper hand against chinese president xi jinping on these talks. the next round of talks we may see is that the g20 summit in osaka, japan. the president said he intends to meet with a chinese leader they are, and perhaps they can hammer out a deal, but i was reporting last week that there is some

concern, especially from business groups here in washington who want to see talks sooner. they want to see something to set the groundwork for that meeting in japan, so they may have the chance to strike some kind of deal. but i think universally, everyone i've talked to, within the initiation, outside the administration, people in capitol hill are not in agreement that a full agreement will be done in time for that meeting next month. host: tom, independent caller in pa. caller: good morning. first of all regarding the tariffs, i am semiretired. i go to the big box stores. i buy t-shirts, jeans, and boots. so -- $15 or so, and lastly, i paid $52. $52.st week, i paid

my complaint is that the president is not tough enough on china. the main question as to why i called is why do the pollsters -- and this is for the hill and roll call -- and they continue to oversample in pennsylvania. thishiladelphia suburbs -- saturday, joe biden was in philly. he drew 6000 people. tonight, donald trump will be in montoursville, pennsylvania, rural pennsylvania. how much you want to make a bet that he draws, at minimum, 18,000 people? until we start getting off this lovefest of the philadelphia suburbs and philly, they will continue to overestimate trump -- underestimate trump in pennsylvania, and he will win again. guest: this is a dynamic that was surprising in 2016 and the trump campaign feels confident

they can repeat again, getting those trump voters who were not necessarily on the radar, back out again. whether 2016 was an aberration or the new norm remains to be seen. i do not know if the polls are oversampling or not, but certainly trump and democrats are looking at different slices of the electorate, trying to activate different groups to try to get their supporters out. host: we are down to our last minute or so. one thing we do want to talk about is there is a meeting on wednesday about infrastructure the white house. remind us of what happened last time and what you're are looking forward to this time. aest: the last meeting was hot button one. i think it was -- part of it was aired live, i believe, from the oval office. things got pretty heated.

i knowschumer kind of -- schumer kind of came at trump, saying we were both new yorkers, let's make a deal. let's be clear, a deal was not made. democrats always get to make the dramatic exit from the white house during these meetings. they will most likely do that again. although i do think that, with the election coming up, there is more of an incentive for democrats and republicans, including the white house, to come together on this issue. the dividing point is how to pay for these infrastructure plans. i think everyone in the room knows that this country needs help with its infrastructure. host: jordan fabian, final thoughts? guest: this meeting is specifically how to pay for it. we have not heard much from the white house about how they plan to pay for this, and there are a lot of his agreements on how to do it. this is a nice idea, the devil

is in the details. our: we say thanks to guests, jordan fabian, white house correspondent for "the hill," and staff writer for katherine," tully-mcmanus. we will be back with your weekly segment about money. we'll talk about credit card debt and a new proposal to cap interest rates on those credit cards at 15%. 15% on all credit cards. we will talk with matt schulz, industry analyst for comparecards.com. he will join us from austin, texas and will take your calls on credit card debt, interest, proposal.otential cap ♪ >> ones, tv was simply three

giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. then, in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. that viewers decide, all on their own, what was important to them. c-span open the doors to washington policy for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the land scape has changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more than relevant today. it is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. ♪ >> the house will be in order.

has been years, c-span providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. newest book, "the presidents." noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, providing insights into the lives of the 44 american presidents, through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. ask for the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they face, and the legacies they have left behind. order your copy today. is nows "the presidents"

available as a hardcover or e-book at c-span.org/ thepresidents. >> "washington journal" continues. is our weekly segment about your money. today , we will talk about credit cards, specifically proposal by the new one of the democratic candidates. we are joined by matt schulz of comparecards.com. explain what comparecards is all about. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. comparecards is a place where people can shop for credit cards of all kinds, but they can also find information on how to smartly acquire those cards and how to use them wisely. that is the key. host: how are you funded and are you financially supported by the

credit card history? guest: comparecards.com gets a bounty whenever somebody successfully applies for a credit card on our site. we have relationships with a lot of the big banks, but we have a separate editorial operation that i am part of, where we have a similar church and state divide you would find in any newsroom. here,to the topic at hand bernie sanders and alexandra reducecortez want to credit card rates to 15%. here's an article by senator sanders. banks have been ripping off americans for too long. this is from cnn.com. can you explain this plan? guest: basically, what they are trying to do is put a cap on the

interest rates that credit cards can charge. right now, the only credit cards that have a rate cap in this country are credit union credit cards. by, right now, that cap, federal law, from the federal credit union act, that set the cap at 15%. but it also built in some exceptions to where the national credit union board can, under certain circumstances, raise if it feelsve 15% like it is necessary for the financial soundness of the credit unions. basically, that rate cap has been at 18% for about 30 years.

basically, they are basing this on the original letter of the law and not necessarily where rates stand at the moment. because the current credit union rate cap is 18%. host: we want to get our viewers opinions. we will have two phone lines and split the lines regionally. if you live in the eastern or central time zones, call, (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones, call (202) 748-8001. we look forward to your calls on this idea. a little perspective here on credit card usage and debt in the united states. from experian, one of the credit agencies, total debt on cutter cards right now, $800 billion -- on credit cards right now $800 billion. the average number of credit

cards for each of us is around three. the average balance is 4200 dollars. and the number of delinquent cardholders in this country is over 30%. we want to get more of your take on these ideas being put out there. but let's hear from senator sanders first on his proposal. [video clip] now, you are looking at a medium credit card interest 21%. that means half of the american people -- you are earning $10 an hour now you don't have enough money to take care of your family, you will be paying 22% to 25% interest rates and on top of that what is not widely go to any you will large department store and they say get our credit card but you get their credit card what you don't know is you will be paying something like 27% interest rates on that. 27%. how much do the banks borrow

money? a borrow money from the fed at 2.5% and charge people 18% 25% interest rates. the poor you are the more desperate you are, the higher the interest rates are. host: that was senator sanders joined by representative ocasio -cortez. he put it in strong figures. borrow.t -- 2.5% to what does the banking industry think of this proposal mr. schulz? guest: the banking industry is not a big fan of it. there's a lot of speculation that if this 15% cap were to come into play you would see an ,xtreme tightening of credit ofost immediately because

the way banks and credit card companies price credit cards, because of the risk of the borrower, it would be difficult for banks to continue to make money off of credit cards by and large with a 15% interest rate. sanders' senator point, he is right that the median is about 21% and typically what you see anyone who has applied for the credit card in the last few years has probably seen that box in big bold type that has a range of interest rates sometimes at the 15% but ate 14% or the top it is 24% or 25% depending on your credit worthiness. the banks do that in order to protect themselves from basically credit losses for

people who don't pay money back and one of the things that could end up happening if a rate cap like this were to come into play is that instead of having that risk-based pricing those ranges that you see, it might end up being where everybody gets charged the same rate regardless of your credit worthiness. host: here's more from the american bankers association. today they write consumers benefit from a highly competitive and vibrant credit market. it would be a mistake for the government to artificially limit choices. the specific proposal will harm consumers by restricting access to credit or those who need it the most and driving them toward less regulated more costly alternatives. that is from the american bankers association. carl is our first call from madison, mississippi for matt schulz. go ahead, carl. aller: the federal reserve,

do they control the banks? host:host: when you ask about what specifically are you asking about in terms of the banks? overall do they control the banks? caller: they print the money and the banks get the money from the federal reserve. 15%, with that be more like if a person with a 10% credit card. host: thanks for calling. can you explain the connection between the federal reserve and the credit card companies in this conversation? with --enerally virtually everybody's credit card in america is called a variable rate credit card so when the fed raises rates as they've done so many times over the last few years everybody's credit card, apr is going to go

up by that quarter-point or however much they raise rates by in pretty short order within the next month or two after the announcement. that is frankly what has been driving a lot of the increase in credit card interest rates in the past three to four years because prior to the fed beginning their campaign of raising rates credit card interest rates were largely stable for several years. they are still certainly high but we did not necessarily see as much movement upward as we've seen in the last few years. host:host: shannon calling from palm city, florida. good morning. caller: good morning thank you for taking my call. i have not had a chance to say this since he was on the program but you guys had -- i have to say what refreshing progressive voice for c-span. i enjoyed the segment. i know you guys are talking

about the financial services committee and the house. i have been following them thatly and it is obvious the bankers don't need the lobbyist still working on behalf of them. if you listen to the hearings you see different conversations between two aisles. democrats looking out for consumers doing their best in the redlining practices and push for diversity among the ceos. the republicans seem more interested in protecting large banks. i'm just curious as a lobbyist for these bankers, are these fines becoming a cost of business? host:host: let me ask you do you want to make a comment or ask a question about this credit card proposal that senator sanders and representative a conseil

ocasioc-ortez -- caller:caller: i think it is wonderful. it was pretty obvious that there needs to be more work done on behalf of the consumers instead of the bankers. the bankers are making record high profits and paying these fees and fines that are just a drop in the bucket for taking advantage of consumers and doing heinous things. have these fines just become a cost of doing business so they don't have to change their practices? host: anything you want to respond to? it is tough to speak to the fines because they are a significant thing. when it comes to dealing with credit cards there is kind of a

similar ideological thing that we see play out in a lot of different areas in washington for aone side is more little more regulation and one is for letting the frame working there are valid arguments and this is one of those areas in the credit card space where we are going to see a lot of talk and a lot of conversation between now and november 2020. host: you wrote at compare cars.com at 10 years after the credit card act eight in 10 americans -- eight in 10 americans still want some thing to be done. remind us what the credit card act did. guest:guest: the credit card act was legislation signed by president obama.

the 10th anniversary is in two days. it changed the landscape of the credit card industry enormously. among the different things it did, it required many more clear disclosures for consumers from credit card industries. it impacted what banks presents could be on college campuses, changed the requirements for how easy it was for folks under 21 to get a credit card. that is a small sample of what was involved. one thing it did not do, the big hole in the whole thing, this idea of the rate cap and knowing that the anniversary was coming up we did a little polling at compare cards and asked people well before this recent proposal came up whether they supported the concept of a rate cap and we

found 88% of those who we asked said that they did. close tobout as unanimous as you're going to get in today's polarized country so i think that tells you something. host:host: let's go to robert in alabama. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i have a comment. this rate cap goes into effect at 15% the first thing the credit card companies are going to have to do to survive is there going to have to tighten credit. raisere going to have to the credit score limits before they will issue a credit card. a fairans anybody with credit score is not going to be able to get a credit card because credit card companies can't take the risk at the lower interest rate and still make a

living. this is being proposed by -- resswoman a consei she did not know how to rent an apartment when she got to washington and a credit score of 430. the sponsor of it is an avowed socialist. that is all i have to say on that. host: we will get a response from our guest. we hadi will say if ocasioed congresswoman -- we names to the pole might've seen different numbers related to the cap but what he beings what is basically

threatened by the banks and credit card companies where if you've seen the avengers movie you know part of it is thanos with the infinity stones snaps his fingers and half the population is gone. we could end up seeing a financial version of that where if the cap comes in and takes effect millions and millions of credit card accounts are basically closed the next day. at least that is the threat. when you get down to it the reality of it is that nobody expects a 15% rate cap to come into reality. obviously not before november 2020. even depending on what would happen in the next election that would be a tough sell and a more realistic cap that might be able

to be pushed through might be something that would be more in the low 20's. something like that which would still be significant especially if you're talking about store credit cards, student credit cards and that sort of thing. that seems a more realistic and game for this conversation. host: you may have just answered my question in part but one of the earlier callers mentioned the house financial services committee. has the committee weighed in on this idea at all. -- has the committee weighed in on this idea at all? guest: i have not heard much beyond the congresswoman and the senator and i think some of that expected to be dead on

arrival there until we see how the 2020 elections play out. host:host: let's go to maryellen who is in sarasota. caller: whencaller: you are using the word consumer you are talking about adults. either an adult knows, has enough common sense to pay their bill or quite honestly they should not have a credit card at all. whether at a 15% rate or a 27% rate. i think the problem is people are behaving as children and not paying their bill so if you do have to drop the rate and you lose half of the credit card population that might be in their best interest rather than -- 15% or is it going to be 27%. people need to learn how to budget their money and pay their

bills and do it on time. it's pretty simple if you're going to be an adult in this country. you're not a child that needs senator sanders or congresswoman cortez to think for you or protect you. i would like to see the consumer protection financial protection bureau be eliminated. how can we have an arm of our government that answers to no one? that agency does not answer to their congress and it does not answer to the executive branch. it is a disgrace and should be eliminated. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: my personal opinion is i'm a supporter of the cfpb. it is not a perfect organization and there's certainly valid arguments as to the structure of itand the accountability of

within the branches of government. of having the concept a watchdog organization to keep an eye on things makes sense in a lot of ways. there is some work to be done to make it work a little better maybe make it a little sidescceptable to both but one good example of why the cfpb, for example if you had a complaint about your credit card before the creation of the cfpb you did not know what governmental entity to come plane to desh to complain to

because different institutions were overseen by different regulators. the cfpb created a single place where people would know to complain if something went wrong. that was a useful tool for consumers. analyst forindustry compare cards.com. that is the website. you mentioned how you folks are funded they sickly every time someone successfully applies for a new card you earn some money. does the website do other things for consumers? does it help them understand what they are getting into when they apply for a credit card or how to manage credit card debt? what are the consumer type information will folks find? guest: we have an editorial team does a great job providing evergreen content.

what you need to know about getting a credit card and using it wisely. we have a glossary of definitions in case somebody gets confused about various terms because there's a lot of jargon that's pretty easy to get confused about with cards. we have calculators that can help you get a feel for how long it's going to take you to pay off your debt and then a lot of what i do is public polling to take people's viewpoints on various issues in the credit card space including the survey that we did which said that about 90% of american cardholders support some sort of rate cap. host: if you go to experience.com they list credit card debt i state. i wanted to get your take. overall credit card debt is up 23% over the last five years.

you can see the statistic. some of the states here. some of the higher figures. california last year $104,000 in credit card debt. florida, $59,000. averages for individuals? can you give us some insight on the numbers? guest: generally speaking the --ional average for a card individual cardholder is about $6,000 give or take. to address what one of the earlier callers mentioned there certainly are people who are in credit card debt because they are making bad choices and i was one of those people. when i was 203i had $10,000 in credit card debt because i just made bad choice after bad choice

. but you also have people who simply need these credit cards to get by because life is really expensive in 2019 and these cards can be a good short-term tool to help them get by. it's certainly not ideal and we wish it was not that way, but that can be the case. we also see in a lot of the polling we do we see it is not just low income folks who carry credit card debt. affluent people, high income people, often have as much if not more credit card debt than any other income group and some their financial margin for error is bigger so they are not that concerned with the interest payments but also some of it is that you have folks leveraging the short term aspect of the credit card to do

something like start a side hustle or open a business. that sort of thing. there is a giant mountain of credit card debt out there but there's certainly not just one reason why it's growing. host:host: let's hear from more callers including edward from manchester, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. us --ery easy for all of with the viewpoints of individuals and groups. what we should be concentrating on are the problems that we all share as individuals nationwide. when we realize that the problems, all of them that we are dealing with especially here at home in america have been plopped on our laps by founding fathers making decisions that would affect our nations future

lives. people's lives land.te the laws of our if we must follow our laws and enforce our laws let the american people vote on what those laws will be starting with we canstitution, so that make our votes count on the issues that hit the floor of our house and effect the direction wars.tion goes in such as if we must fight wars let us vote on what wars we go to.

if people are being invaded in another nation who have relatives that live right here at home and they asked our help let us vote.t on the issues that hit the floor of our house such as banking and interest and laws. when our government is corrupt and self interest people very few people control many people no matter what nation you are from. host: thank you edward. any thing you want to respond to? necessarily.

host: let's move on to patrick in chicago. our guest is the chief industry analyst for compare cards.com. hello, patrick. caller: thank you for having me. is what are they looking at besides interest rates? i've got quite a few credit and the oney time thing i'm clear on when i get a credit card is my credit limit and the range of interest rates i'm going to be charged more or less knowing i had to pay off the statement every month. what are they doing to increase access for credit cards for people because in 2019 shopping online, using a rideshare, you more or less need a credit card. i will take my answer off-line. host: thanks for calling, patrick.

guest: we are actually seeing up becausehten we are starting to see more and more late payments. the lower end of the credit spectrum so we have seen access to credit expand greatly over as thet five years or so great recession faded into history. these things are cyclical. things get tighter than things kind of settled down and they expand than they come back down and what we are seeing now is a little bit of tightening. but athing super severe bit of a preview of what you might see when the inevitable economic downturn comes, whenever that might be.

in terms of what else is out isre in terms of fees, that one of the discussions that will be around this rate cap. if there is a rate cap especially one as severe as a 15% rate cap, banks are going to find a way to make their money. they will find another lever to pull. one of the big remaining buttons they will have to push would be involving fees and over the last few years we have seen where things like a foreign transaction fee is much less common on a credit card than it used to be. we have seen somebody can call and get a late payment fee waived very easily. annual fees get waived and even things like balance transfer cards we saw where there would

be many cards out there for a little while. not so much anymore, that came with no balance transfer fee. there was to be a really tight rate cap what you would see at a minimum is an explosion of those fees again as banks work to recoup the revenue that rate cap would have taken from them. what impact host: might there be on other attractive features of certain credit cards such as cashback, rewards, that kind of thing? what would you expect to happen there? guest: that's the other big thing. -- interest rates generally drive credit cards for folks who need them and for whom they are not a luxury but for many people and most of the

people that the banks want to attract it is all about rewards and a 15% rate cap chances are might mean if not the end of credit card rewards, at a minimum it would mean a curtailing of them because what we saw was when there was a similar issue with debit cards with the dodd frank years ago the durbin amendment basically capped interchange fees on debit cards, meaning how much money merchants pay the credit card cardnies when you use that . those fees are basically used to help pay for things like credit card rewards. once that cap was put on debit cards, debit card rewards

essentially became extinct. they are still around a little bit but you kind of have to work to find them. the fear is that something similar to that would happen with credit card rewards if there was a severe rate cap. that would be a really big deal. sharon host: host: is in san marco's, texas. caller:caller: i have nothing to say except to call and correct something one of your callers said. he accused representative ocasio-cortez of having a 430 credit score et cetera et cetera, that was quickly fact checked. you go to snopes and commentary post that says ocasio-cortez -- it is very long and detailed investigation

of this story and labeled it completely false. i want to make certain that comment that was made by one of your callers is debunked and that people listen to what people are saying rather than making these absurd accusations about people's character. host: any comments on the credit card matter here? caller: i just want the truth to be told. host: let's go to rick in texas. caller: i was just calling. i've always used credit cards to my advantage. i've never paid any interest on them because i get them 18 thens for 0% interest and when it's going off the 0% i always have other ones sent to me so i just get another one. i probably got a half a million credit line on them. i've taught my daughter, i teach them about finance and all that stuff. i was in west virginia as a kid and nobody taught me anything. i did not know how to walk into

a bank. i figured out reading books and then put myself through college. i have not paid interest in 20 years on a credit card. months later i get a new one i pay the other one off and i move on. host: besides your website what are some other places viewers could go to find out about how to manage the situation? how to enter the situation of getting credit card increases in their credit line? manage things and stay out of trouble? guest: the cfpb website has a lot of good information on it. one thing perhaps the first place people should go if they want to work on their credit is annual credit report.com. government mandated no strings attached place where you youro and get all three of

credit reports from the three major credit bureaus for free. if you have not done that recently, that is a big deal because everybody focuses on their credit score but really in truth the credit report is the biggest thing because all your credit score is is a number grade for your credit report. you can't really find out what mistakes you've made. you can't figure out what is working against you unless you see those credit reports and people would be shocked to see how many times there are mistakes. the last thing anybody wants is to have their credit held back by something they did not do so it is worth your time to look at annual credit report and on our site compare cards.com,

you can see your trans union credit report on a regular basis as well. host: one other question getting back to that $800 billion collective figure that's credit card debt in his country as of last may. any concerns in your area or are you hearing a lot of concerns about any kind of credit card bubble? the bursting of that bubble. we see in other areas of finance. what would that look like? guest: that's kind of the billion dollar question. in terms of a bubble i don't think most people see that coming because actually despite having about $1 trillion in credit card debt the percentage of debt to disposable income when it comes to credit cards is actually far lower than it was during the great recession so that is providing some hope to

people that may be we are not on the edge of this cliff and that there is room to run in terms of debt. the truth is that there is only so much credit card debt that people can handle before things start getting ugly and probably what's going to end up happening is that there will be some other economic trigger, whether it's a downturn in the job market or something else like that that ends up causing people to be late on their credit cards and to whatn issue similar we saw in 2008, 2009. while credit card debt was really high before the economic collapse 10 years ago, it was not credit card debt obviously that caused that so we really

don't know how much room there is to run. it's going to be interesting to watch. host: gerrit is waiting in lawrenceville, georgia. caller: good morning. i am 77 years old and i'm old enough to remember if you get something on a credit card to its tomorrows money. we paid off our credit card every month and we have not paid interest in 40 years. that is really what credit is for. a short period of time. we pay it off every month. we've had it up to $8,000 and still paid it off every month and i think that is wrong with -- that is what is wrong with credit. people don't realize it is tomorrow's income. that is what you ought to put on your message things. , used to the cap goes be if it was over 10% but i don't see how the government has got any business fooling with

private business. the banks charge whatever they want and let competition do the job and make sure competition can do the job. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: basically as it relates to user -- senator sanders brought this up. there was a supreme court case several decades ago that made it of that the usury law individual state was what you you -- wass what what the banks could charge. so, effectively, that kind of made it to where there was and

was and we are in this situation. trying to chase rewards or look for sign-up bonuses or something like that for a free trip to paris. it's important to understand that if you carry a balance does notmonth the math work in your favor as it relates to those rewards. your focus needs to be if you have debt, on knocking the debt down and establishing an emergency fund for yourself, getting your financial house in order before you start worrying

about those credit card rewards regardless of how lucrative they might be. host: oscar is in virginia. what would you like to ask our guest? good morning i just have a comment and a question. there was a lady who called earlier this morning about how adults should behave and pay their debts. when you think about how we had a government shutdown that had nothing to do with grown adults. it had to do with obnoxious behavior. that created a credit suisse. 35 days of shutdown. everyone was in debt. everyone needed to go to their credit cards and get money out or cash out some credit to pay bills. that has nothing to do with being frivolous with your credit or buying a steak dinner on a friday. a lot of people have this conception of how we are children.

supplynomy is based on and demand. you take someone's money of course the credit cards are going to be getting all this money, all this debt. we are hung out to dry by government. by the same token government should be involved. government bailed out banks in 2008. loand an $800 billion given to the five big banks because they were too big to fail. we are too big to fail. it's almost a trillion dollars in credit card debt. what if all america said we are not going to pay one more penny of your credit card bills? that would be too big to fail for companies. government should be involved and bernie sanders does have a point. they should put cap on it. my question is i have an

american express card and i am retired. i'm 60. i got a letter from american express because i don't buy lunches and go to work every day and use it they canceled the credit card because of nonuse. 690 andt score is over yet they sent me a letter saying we don't want your business because you have not used your credit card and 12 months. host: thanks for calling. final comments on maybe with the last caller said? .his cap proposal and interest guest: the main thing about this cap proposal it is good politics but the truth is there's very little chance of it coming to light. certainly before the 2020 election. even after that, the reality is

that cap would likely end up needing to be higher in order to be palatable to the banks. whatever the conversation ends up, it's going to be fascinating because there's an awful lot of people with an awful lot of money and one billion plus reasons to make sure this does not happen. it's going to be fascinating. host: we will see where this idea goes. a cheap industry analyst for compare cards.com. joining us live from austin this morning. thanks for your time and insight on this proposal and issue. guest: thank you. host: we have about 20 minutes left in this monday addition of washington journal. house and senate coming back in today the senate will work on nominations. the house is going to work on a series of suspension bills. various issues today. they are in a little later today. the president speaks at a rally in montoursville, pennsylvania.

7:00 eastern time and we plan to have that event live on c-span 2. before we wrap up the program i want to go back to our question we asked you at 7:00 this morning. do you think there should be military action by the u.s. against iran based on everything you've been hearing in the news. if you support military action against iran, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. c-span wj is our twitter handle. you can post a comment at facebook.com/c-span and while we wait for calls to come in ears the president for a couple of minutes yesterday as he talks about iran on the fox network. [video clip] > iran has been a problem for so many years. take a look at all of the conflict they have caused. the deal president obama made was a horror show. basically it says five years from now they will have an open path to making nuclear weapons.

we don't need another country with that. frankly especially them. paid $150 billion paid $1.8 billion in cash. i mean out of your pocket cash. nobody ever heard of a thing like that. promotion one million-dollar -- what is $1 billion like? allowed to inspect some of the most important sites like military bases and certain things. the deal was terrible. when i first came to office one of the first meetings i had was at the pentagon with generals showing me the middle east and they had 14 or 15 sites where there was nothing but war, problems, every one of those iran.was instigated by

iran military, people paid by iran, i said this is terrible. they were so strong. i ended the iran nuclear deal and actually i must tell you i had no idea it was going to be as strong as it was. devastated from the standpoint. > the thing a lot of people are worried about, they heard what you said 2016 and liked it when you said no more stupid --s and then the stories > don't want them to have nuclear weapons. they can't be threatening us. host: the president talking with fox news. the president sent this tweet if iran wants to fight that will be the official and of iran, never threaten the united states again. we understand what he was talking about in particular yesterday was this event. here's the headline in the washington post

tensions escalate with iran a rocket landed inside baghdad's fortified green zone which houses the sprawling u.s. embassy. an apparent warning shot to the u.s. amid escalating tensions with iran they write that the rocket landed less than a mile from the u.s. embassy near iraq's parliament building and caused no serious damage or injury but the timing of the launches increase worries in that it will be drawn into conflict between the united states and iran. suspicion among iraqi officials and western diplomats fell on one of the shiite militias that draw strength from iranian support. that is how things played out yesterday and many are calling this an escalation again following what some of observed as a de-escalation. let's see what you think.

we continue this conversation. rockville, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. enjoying the show. the only thing iran respects his military force. these milquetoast sanctions .ight hurt a little bit here even though president trump said he does not like military force he's going to be forth into it because iran's behavior is totally unacceptable. to employ military force when dealing with a bunch of thugs running things with ram.ar weapons in our

there's no choice in the ram. there's no choice in the matter -- in iran. there's no choice in the manner. they know we are coming. we are going to throw the world into chaos. the iranians will certainly attack all of the oil-producing countries in the gulf. are we ready for $200 a barrel? are you still there? let me get your take on recent events. the alleged rocket attack inside

the green zone in baghdad. recent events of sabotage that were credited toward iran on saudi arabia and elsewhere in the gulf region. what is the response? what should the u.s. do? caller: already tightening the sanctions. we are going to have to increase and tighten sanctions more. to embargo a terrorist nation.

they have been for a long time but they have a special hate for us. it goes back to the 50's, goes back to the 30's. we have poked our nose in places where it does not belong for so many years and now i don't understand how the american people don't realize this is basically karma. what we do comes back to us and it low is be like that. host: thank you for calling. supporting military action in iran. margaret, tell us why. caller: i think president trump knows exactly what he's doing. i've watched and followed him since the beginning and i don't want anything over here in our myntry but i know -- and

husband has been in military. he's retired. i know we have to do something. i appreciate everything he does. my last comment is i wish the country would quit trying to micromanage this president along with the house. thank you for what you do. host: appreciate your participation in the program. on to victoria and oregon. first of all the money given to iran was not out of our taxpayers pockets. it was their money that was held and it was frozen and we did not have any banking ties with them so they had to get the money from other countries. i married to a vietnam veteran with a purple heart. i was a nurse to a pair of soldiers during the vietnam war. basically my husband and i both

agree if we had grandkids at during the reign of this reckless president we would never encourage them to go into the military. a war in iran would be repeating more like someone said, the vietnam era. someone said they are thugs. the saudi's are thugs and terrorists. they were mostly from saudi arabia, 911. how about murdering journalists? these are our pals? young men and women should die for this? no way. host: that was victoria from oregon. usa today has some write ups the opinion page about iran and the current situation and u.s. policy. the editorial view is as tensions rise what is the endgame for trump. they say the commander-in-chief

is preparing the military for the outbreak of violence but he is not fulfilling his role in preparing the public they write that trump has promised to avoid foreign entanglements and has told the pentagon his wish is no war. why did he hire bolton, they write. -- and what the u.s. is compelled to do about it. if there is to be a face-off that includes the prospect of a wider conflict president trump owes it to the american people to speak before the saber rattling becomes a sobering reality. there is an opposing view in usa institute,e hudson michael doran writes when critics write his strategy lacks an end game they are expressing nostalgia for the clarity of obama's vision. the iranian regime obama told us -- it was eager to stabilize in the middle east in cooperation with the west. anse trends led to

attractive endgame strategic accommodation between washington and tehran. this vision, michael durrant writes, was a mirage pointing to events in syria during obama's administration, gave us a preview of the consequences of his strategy. read that at usa today. prospect, connecticut, you are up. -- the way itason was negotiated did not make sense. is no morerichment than 4%. the federal institute for science and international security said in 2013 they were approaching 13%. breakout was 19%. if they really wanted a peaceful program they should have changed me it is kind of

a hard sell if they are trying to pursue a type -- when there are other paths of encouragement -- of enrichment. why can't they pursue that option if they are serious about nuclear power because they could easily get the thorium from a place like australia and chart -- they are really for resetting relations there is alternate avenues for nuclear weapons. strike.be for surgical i would not necessarily be for a regime change. i'm really concerned about cyber capabilities. cyber is more advanced than most people realize. that's all i have to say. int: on to patsy now tennessee. you oppose u.s. military action in iran. tell us why. caller: i think war is crazy and

for this president to want to start a war with iran it does not make sense. they have not done anything. president obama gave them their money back. they are just fine. the united states held their money for over 30 years. this man has never went to war, war,g threats with these making threats with these people. lost a brother and a son and i am tired. let's make peace live on god's terms, not trump's terms. have a blessed day. host:host: adam schiff's head of the intelligence committee and the house of representatives a democrat from california. on cbs morning program face the

nation about iran. here's what he had to say. >> the intelligence does show increased threat and it would be catastrophic for iran to use violence against any of our troops, any of our allies. but it's not just about the intelligence. what is taking place now was all too predictable. the steps the administration has taken to renege on the iran agreement to force europe to renege to try to force iran to withdraw to go back to the path of enrichment, the designation of the irgc as a terrorist group, belligerent rhetoric from pompeo to bolton, all of these policy decisions have led us to a state where confrontation is more likely and that cannot be ignored. when you take a series of steps that ratchet up tensions you should not be surprised when the intelligence tells you tensions have been ratcheted up. it's now more risk of

confrontation. this is why our allies are departing. this is why our allies increasingly are isolating us and not iran. i don't see how these policies have made this country anymore safe. i think we miss the bigger picture when we focus on is the intelligence accurate or inaccurate. the problem is this ratcheting up of tensions was all too predictable all too calculated by people like bolton and pompeo and has led us to the precipice of potential catastrophe. host: chairman adam schiff on the cbs program. mike is hanging on in alabama supporting u.s. military action against iran. why not you tell us why you think the way you do? caller:caller: i'm for military action when needed. one of the problems, it is a bigger problem than just iran. you are looking at russia that has just broken nato and the nato part that just broke off was turkey.

the only way russia can cross the himalayas with a pipeline into iran is through turkey. they are building a pipeline and they are going to own all the arab oil. we have fallen right into a russian plot. we started this mess with iran so that russia could bring this oil out and they will control -- before this is oil before this is over. host:host: you said you support it when needed so is now the time? think we need to put up the hard military front but we need turkey back in this issue on nato's side. host:host: how do you get turkey back as he put it? caller: whatever it takes. they are a neighbor to iran.

host: john is calling from marion, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. a vietnam veteran and i have been following the story. -- talking about the ship they saw. right away i remember the gulf of tonkin and how that all started. sort of coincidental. it goes to show you we don't want history to repeat itself. host: thanks for calling, john. wall street journal has thisa story about congressman justinmash. .- justin amash on saturday mr. amash

said on twitter that after reading special counsel or muller's report he believed the president's effort to impede the probe of russian interference amounted to the obstruction of justice and impeachable conduct. the president responded with a tweet calling mr. amash a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy. other republicans have suggested the lone voice of intraparty dissent would likely remain on an island. this is the wall street journal piece today. time for another caller or two. sarah from st. peter's, missouri. caller: i just wanted to say i am very much opposed. i don't think we need to go ,nywhere and kill more children women, make more refugees, cause more problems. just like in iraq, they have all these weapons.

we went there, there was nothing. iranears they were saying as a nuclear weapon and they are wanting to make one. i'm sure with all the countries falling apart they're trying to keep themselves safe. we need to just stop and save our military for real conflicts. host: thanks sarah and everyone else who called this monday morning, may 20. we are going to take you live to the washington national cathedral where we will show you live coverage of a memorial cher.ce for ellen taus control and international security affairs. they are at the cathedral this morning. eulogies are going to be delivered by former secretary of state hillary clinton, dianne feinstein.