iranianhave the former hostage john lumber. washington journal is next. host: good morning. in his 7:00 eastern standard time as we move our clocks act, ending daylight savings time. welcome to washington journal. week, -- is reset this in recess this week. the senate is in session. another week of presidential politics, we will continue our coverage from iowa with andrew yang. that is life here on c-span television. we are one year away from the 2020 election. starting point on this sunday morning.

a plan for order -- put forward by elizabeth warren. if you support the idea of medicare for all. if you are opposed, (202) 784-8001. if you are still undecided, (202) 748-8002. you can send us the text or jonas on facebook. read your, we will tweets. we have a lot to talk about in the second half of the program. we will look back 40 years on those americans held hostage in iran. we will begin with the debate over medicare for all and new polls coming out showing joe biden holding onto a lead nationally, a lot of voters still undecided. the trillion dollar bet on

taxes. that is a proposal put forward by elizabeth warren. she insists it will not result thep tax increase for middle class. she said private health forrance workers could work the medicare instead. proposes a host of tax increases, the middle class will not pay an additional burden. the plan was hammered by republicans and repelled -- democratic rivals. unreliable.lled it republicans were blunt in there pretty -- criticism. governor ben sasse said this is

make-believe. we covered this live as democrats gathered to speak to activists in advance of the caucuses. this is senator elizabeth warren. >> it's easy to give up on a big idea. when we give up on big ideas, we give up on the people whose lives would be touched by those ideas. those people are already in the fight. people who are struggling to pay their medical bills are already in a fight. host: that from senator elizabeth warren. we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. we are dividing our phone lines for those who support or oppose the idea. join us is the white house correspondent for the washington

examiner. what do we expect this week with the house in recess and the president in new york today. he has a campaign event tomorrow in kentucky. as you say, he is up in new york. everything he is doing now, he is gearing up for campaign events. there was supposed to be a criminal justice that. -- event. it was complete with his campaign music. everything is about the fight ahead. host: let me share with you what oncy pelosi said yesterday saturday evening. it's a letter in which she outlines the agenda moving ahead.

she double down on the impeachment inquiry. .he said the facts are clear with richard this nixon in 1972 with the break-in of the dnc headquarters. saidobservers have president sins offenses pale in comparison to what president trump has done. can you elaborate on what the white house is responding? one of the things he said about the three previous president to faced impeachment, he said he had done nothing. shifty clear in trying to

that. they are going after the process. say they are not getting a chance to defend themselves. it's very clear in making a case, even if there was some kind of quid pro quo, the president has every right and the responsibility to inestigate corruption ukraine. it's interesting that nancy pelosi is making the comparison to richard nixon. whateversaying happened in that call, whether or not there was withholding of aid, that is the president's right to do that. everything has shifted in the

past week. hearingsow gone to that will be held in public. the democrats are figured how they are going to go about this. the republicans are starting to hunchback and say -- hunchback -- punch back and say the president has every right to withhold aid. allegations. the is talk about richard nixon. ins is going to be right president trump's wheelhouse. he is going to enjoy that comparison. host: we are talking with the white house correspondent for the washington examiner. you talked to president trump in the oval office. he was behind the resolute desk.

the president wants to read the transcript of that phone call and do so as a sort of fireside chat on live television. can you elaborate? like thursday when they were talking about how to hunchback on this. -- punch back on this. house democrats put forward their plan of how they were going to go about it, the rules or impeachment. the president had nothing on his agenda. we discussed the impeachment. that is clearly what he wanted to talk about. he wanted to set up how he is going to defend himself. feels and the way it

came across is he's done nothing wrong. he kept coming back to the transcript. it was a letter or memo put out by the white house describing that call. the phonehe view that call transcript clears him. about wanting to produce a t-shirt saying read the transcript. this is his point. if he could just get on tv and talk to the public and read word for word the letter he put out, whatever you want to call it, the facts of the matter would clear him. this is his strategy. whether he is serious i can't say. this was a suggestion, fireside chat, reading the transcript.

he felt that would clear him. already, we have heard witnesses come forward talking about quid pro quo and what happened. thatnk it's far from clear it would clear him. he, if he wants to say these things to the leader of ukraine, he can. it's another question, i think his feeling is nothing illegal happened. the facts should clear him. host: that is the reporting of the white house correspondent for the washington examiner. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you very much. host: this is the headline or

the new yorker. we want to get your reactions to this plan. whether you support or oppose the idea. you support the plan. why? caller: it is 5:00 in the morning. can you bring up a point, i would rather have two speakers rather than listen to one side. moot point. a we only hear about it during the election. both parties run for the insurance companies, hospital associations, they get major campaign contributions. resultse in truth, fax, -- facts, results. is mandatory.y

companiesnsurance that ration coverage. thank you very much. would you please have on two speakers for conversations rather than just one side. host: we will go to george in tennessee. thatr: the reason i oppose is there is so many people in the big labor unions. they have hospitalization and so on. i don't know if we could be are .ot, they are in fear everybody will have to join. it will be more expensive for people. it would probably be wonderful, i don't think people would go for that.

getting a little bit off subject, i do not leave the people will elect a woman president. this is the way i feel about it. back told give it right the man. that's the way it is. host: why do you say voters will not elect a woman? caller: i don't feel they will. they will struggle with everything. my feeling is it will go right back to mr. trump area -- trump. host: would you vote for a woman? caller: i probably would. i have no quips about that. i feel every nominee, everyone that's running on the democratic side would make a much better president.

feel the people would elect a woman. int: we are going to bill florida. caller: i supported. good morning. i support it 100%. oro not support biden buttigieg. clover chart is corporate as well. elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are america's best that. i have had it for a few years now. i can't complain about it at all. i think it's just great. bernie has been a social activist for years and years and years. he is a lot like fdr. he is a lot like martin luther king. he did march for voter

registration in the 60's. he was terribly active in support of minorities. host: thank you for the call. this is from virginia. we will read you this text. the yorker magazine talks about elizabeth warren's plan. it is available on her website. john cassidy writes the following:

you can read the full article from the new yorker. joining us from arkansas. 56% of registered voters , that's not everybody, they oppose medicare for all. millions of people would lose their insurance. millions of people would lose their jobs.

medicare for all is unconstitutional. the constitution does not allow for the government to force one forax one person to care another person. only goinge chat is to be one person because only one person won the election. this bill from seattle has text message. richard is joining us from illinois. you are undecided. explain why. caller: it's not that i'm undecided, i have a question about it. just u.s.alking about citizens? host: thank you for the question. this is another tweet from a viewer. the iowa democratic

dinner, candidates talking about their plans. care is aiew, health human right, not a privilege. we will pass, whether the insurance companies like it or not, medicare for all. host: that is from bernie sanders on the campaign trail. our phone lines are open. to fresno,xt teleported. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say the other guy who says it's whether time in california needs to check his clock. host: he meant that because of daylight savings time. i worked in the insurance industry for many years.

time is a adoptable each you are admitted to the hospital. it's free. part b is not free. it's a premium. there is a cap on lifetime. for them to do this, they have to totally mess with medicare. the rules will not be the rules anymore. doesere is no premium, how b get paid for? $54 billion, not 20.5. host: i was just reading what the reporting was. others say the estimate is close to $55 trillion. caller: what you going to do? you are going to put a bunch of people out of work.

they are going to have to go work for the government. there are not enough employees. who is going to pay these charges? there is a person behind the computer. it's through the public. it's private employers. do you think workers are paying their medicare claims? is it individual insurance companies? you have to become a government worker. am i correct? host: you oppose it? caller: i completely oppose it. we worked all of our lives for this. i just turned 55. until 65.get nothing you guys keep stretching everything out and pretending these figures are going to work out. they are going to have to take from the poor, from everybody

else to get a pipe dream past. host: thanks for the call. note.s another edward is joining us from michigan. good morning. robert is joining us from maryland. good morning. caller: remember at the last debate when andrew yang said in europe they outlawed the wealth taxed and elizabeth moran rot this up. -- warren brought this up. tax,had the value added that's a national sales tax.

,very time you go to the store it's a 25% tax on your purchase. they have never had that in the united states. that amounts to a national sales tax, which they would never do here. it's a nice idea. europethey do like in where they have this national sales tax or value added tax at --, i don't thinks this think this will ever happen. host: we are taking texts. we ask that you give us your first name and where you are from. this is from lynn in massachusetts. the story is from politico.com. quietalth plan fails to

critics. this is reporting from politico.

let's go next to francis in michigan. good morning. welcome to the program. hear that it would be cheaper than what we pay now. nobody has ever rot that up. i want to know -- brought that up. i would like to know what it costs now. host: thank you. jim is joining us from north dakota. good morning. caller: good morning. greetings from siberia. i didn'tnted to say have health insurance for quite

a few years, starting when i was working in pennsylvania. i was a subcontractor. i was on unemployment for some time. i came to north dakota. i'm doing rather well now. it took me about three years to get in the system. i appreciate the big sky country. it is better to be out here. host: you came from new york? caller: from bucks county, pennsylvania. it is a beautiful place to grow up. it is too overcrowded. the oil, they went to fields. i lived in my car.

i saw a lot of people before trump got in there moving up here from all over the country. it was like grapes of wrath. i have a lot of jobs. i didn't have the health coverage read -- coverage. statea job now with the in agriculture. it is full medical coverage. i have never had it in my life and i am 54. i am grateful for it. it's a privilege. toant to say, when i went local clinics, it's very expensive if you don't have health insurance. meansaying this not to be to people i worked with. i have worked with them at

hotels and in the processing plants. they are very pleasant and nice people to be around. one of them would walk in with eight kids and they had free medical coverage. they have five years free rent. priority. you the damncountry doesn't give a about me. you are on your own if you are poor. we have to plug away at it. when i didn't have health coverage, i took care of myself. i learned how to find cheap blood pressure medicine. i would drive across the red river because they don't have walmart pharmacies. i would buy a supply. i was getting low pressure for a

year for $40. i took care of myself's. -- myself. you are responsible yourself. i tried to eat good. i am happy to know i've got something to back me up. host: thank you for the call. this is from the washington post. the primary race is still up in the air. when asked among those nationally who they support, joe biden is still on top with 28% followed by elizabeth moran with 23% -- warren with 23%. in single digits. you can read the full story in the washington post. it's also online at abc news.com. we have a text on the issue of

medicare for all. we are joined from ohio. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: i oppose it. it. wavy on if you think the government can control your health, look at what they've done to social security. first 10 years of employment, medicare is taken out of your paycheck and continues to be taken out when you get your social security at 66. into25 to 65, i paid medicare. i was not allowed to use it until i was 65. i continue to pay for it. happenbelieve needs to

is not everybody gets it for free. if you want to pay into medicare, pay what i paid for 40 years. it tody has to pay into keep it going. people don't know is we need to look at why we pay insurance companies for health every year pay more and they reimburse less and the companies are making millions and millions of dollars, cutting off benefits like silver sneakers and things like that. they make multimillions every year. to stopour government sleeping with insurance companies and put money into escrow. you can make a monthly payment

and shut them down until they going to pay us and we will give you more back. the: it's the bottom of hour. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. this is carried every sunday morning on serious xm radio. we are also on the bbc parliament channel. people in great britain are preparing for another election. there will be a general election in december the first time since 1923. we will cover that on c-span. we have a text message. there is this.

there is this tweet also from randy in michigan. this from a viewer in kansas. keep sending those text messages and tweets. we will get more of them on the air. more on the impeachment debate in time magazine. rudy giuliani was on the cover story. he was supposed to protect donald trump. he might get him impeached. reflectingachev,

after the berlin wall. more on our campaign coverage with senator harris talking about medicare and her plan for health care in the country. sure there is medicare for all, not medicare for some. to bring down costs. choice.e that you get i have heard from people say that say don't take my opportunity to have a private plan. harris on was senator friday evening in des moines, iowa. jeff is joining us from tennessee. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say about medicare for all, i don't know a lot about it. careready have free health

, it's called the eight -- va. she gets care there. it's really good care. they are thorough, they do everything they can. v.a., we already have free health care. , he said heamacare was going to have a health care plan that would be so great. it would be better than what the democrats have. we haven't even seen it. they have no plan. at least the democrats are putting a plan out there. people may think it's good or bad, at least it's a plan and they are trying to do something about it. obamacare.eal

they want to repeal obamacare, they don't want to replace it. if the democrats win, thanks a lot. a tweet from a viewer. we read that one already. i apologize. let's go to clinton in kansas. caller: you've got scott here. i know you were working really hard. thank you. see something,ht say something. accident on the road, at home, especially on the

roads which are impacting a lot of us. andou just be courteous give respect to someone, let them get ahead. now we're dealing with medicare for all. the reason i support it is i was on in a family that the aid to families with dependent children. medicare did not exist for us. i am now retired. i pay for medicare part b. the end result is when someone gets hurt, when someone can't take care of their family, when someone has to take care of their health, nothing else

matters. let's start with medicare for all. it's possible if we attempt to do something. host: another viewer says what have they done with social security. send us a text. we are joined in st. louis, missouri. caller: three things. all, medicare used to be a dream for people. now, very few people would want to get rid of it. secondly, the only thing that trump and the republicans accomplished when they control

everything was a tax cut for the richest 1%. no preventative health care for the people that work there b utts off. this is for lower middle class people that can afford their own insurance and they had to pay for that tax cut. most of the jobs that used to provide health insurance have been shipped to china or mexico. look where your things are being made. wantuld also add i don't medicare for all for all the people who are not legal citizens. you have to be a legal citizen in order to get it. and true what bernie elizabeth warren say. they own our government. we can't get anything we really want. trump is the biggest crook to

ever be in the most powerful job on the planet. it's very scary. host: we carried his campaign rally live on c-span two. he is in kentucky tomorrow. inre are races for governor kentucky in louisiana. the voting takes place on tuesday. dennis is in california. from the hill.com, more on politics and pulling. secondary candidates are still struggling. that is available online. second-tier democrats face do or die days as they coalesce around a few major candidates. growing rascher to gain momentum or quit.

the announcement that beto o'rourke is dropping out on friday, the latest to leave the race. let's go to kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? here it is. i have worked for 40 years. i paid taxes and things like

that. i finally got retired. i was drawing social security. i had disability two years to get medicare. i don't think everybody in this country, just hand to them. no. -- the obama plan was all right for people. they could make payment arrangements for medical services they use for the hospitals and things like that. you see what i am saying? i am very opposed to just handing out medicare for all. host: thank you for the call.

yesterday in iowa, joe biden was asked by one supporter on the issue of medicare for all, especially senator elizabeth warren's plan. >> it's a very difficult way to get there. if you can get costs down. [inaudible] >> she's a good person. [inaudible] host: that was from the former vice president at a campaign event. we posted on our website www.c-span.org. denny is joining us from massachusetts.

>> i do oppose it. i am going to go -- i am from massachusetts, however. i am going to go through a few things on why i oppose it. her figures do not work. people need to research that for themselves. i tend to research everything. i also wanted to mention that if they need to research countries that have medicare for all. they will see that it doesn't work. some places are not like venezuela. people can't afford to buy houses. the middle class is going to end up paying taxes. gentleman talked about veterans. look at how they did with the

care. my husband is a vietnam that are in. he had to wait seven months to see a doctor. trump has helped the veterans in that area. now they can go see another doctor if they can't get into the v.a. that gives you what medicare for all would be like. the other point i want to make is illegal immigrants. the democrats want open borders. let me ask this. california allows illegal immigrants to have free health care. what happens when elizabeth warren with this free medicare get elected. if we have open borders and people are piling into the

country. how could you possibly pay for everybody? it just doesn't work. host: this is george in tennessee. he has texted 11,000 tweets since he became president. this morning, in a front-page story in the new york times, the twitter presidency. these are some of the details.

that is the front-page story of the new york times, it is also available online. we will go next to pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am undecided. i'm just wondering, no one ever asks this to my knowledge. maybe i am missing this. packaged of health plan does the congress and senate and president have? have we ever looked that? -- at that? our needs andased how to develop a plan on what they've been getting all along? this has nothing to do with health care, who pays for the president's rallies the past

couple of years? those questions i have. thank you. host: this is from california. our text is 8003. the speaker of the house on friday with bloomberg news said she opposed the idea of medicare for all. in 1993 during the health care debate during the clinton administration, she had this to say. a supporter of the bill. i am very pleased with the presentation last night. i'm sure others have told you he made it excellent diagnosis of the problem. we have to get on with how we take care of providing health

care to all americans. isproblem with the proposal one of the principles of universal access, of the single-payer bill is universal access. the president has accepted some of the principles of the legislation. the list goes on and on. for access, it has to be affordable. a familyn is that would have to start paying 20%. that may not make it affordable to the people who need the help. there is already a concession on part of the federal government that a family needs food stamps if they are 185% of the poverty level. if people cannot feed their

families, how can we expect them to pay for it at 150% of poverty? i think the president is on the right track. i think the closer he moves toward single-payer is better. , i will joinlan with my colleagues in working to see that the plan the congress passes contains as many of the provisions of single-payer as possible. throw obstacles that establish their own single-payer. from then is representative nancy pelosi in 1993 during the health care debate during the first year of the clinton administration. she has said recently that she opposes medicare for all. from is joining us

connecticut -- paula is joining us from connecticut. i supported in some program for all. we have always been against major change. i am sure there was great protest against the new deal, social security, medicare when it first came out. people were all upset about obama care and how terrible that was going to be. well until the republicans and others started tearing it down, at least from what i heard. out in theis coming form of public insurance for everybody. there has to be some kind of public option. why itthese reasons for won't work and why we can't afford it.

maybe we can't afford for everyone 100%. you can have a basic public option along with private insurance. private insurance can cover elective procedures. noticed that we can't afford to throw money at the military without asking them for accounting for one penny. we can give tax cuts to zillionaire's. where is that money coming from? it just appears. host: this is from shannon. this is the headline from foxnews.com. anna is joining us from oklahoma.

welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i am doing fine. i just have a couple of things to say. i am 85 years old. i worked 40 years and i paid into medicare. now $25,000 per year. $2000 in income president trump's tax reform. amount that she is proposing that we pay for the medicare for , $20 trillion over 10 years,

what she't include college,oses, free forgiveness of student loans, day care. all of these other programs. how much is that going to cost? host: thank you for that. this is ruth agreeing with you on her facebook page. all of the billionaires would leave before they are drained. poston this washington poll.

more is available online. from is joining us florida. caller: 100%. free medical, free college, free housing, free, that's all democrats are running on is free. the millennials don't want to work. was 16 yearsce i old. are they going to give that money back to me? they want the vote. people need to work up -- wake up. they don't care about you. they don't care about nobody and that power. they want the power of the government. they are going to take freedom

of speech. then they are going to take your guns. health,y take your they've got you. host: bernard is joining us from chicago. filter i wish you could these people that call and lie about the v.a. somebody said there has been had to wait seven months. i've been at the v.a. since 1995, i have never waited longer than 30 minutes. somehow, they could through the system every day of the year when they call, they tech, doctors call you, it's a great system. that's what medicare for all is. if these people could realize what it would be because they v.a., it's -- the

excellent. host: here is another text. last night on saturday not live, there was this as they take aim at senator elizabeth warren. follow-up since i'm annoying. $20said it would cost trillion. others of said it could cost $34 trillion. >> let me stop you right there. exist.oesn't it's a promise from a computer. costsght as well say it 13 billion. >> i'm going to need to see the

math on that. >> i will show you. look at this. do you understand this? i do. i can explain it to you, but you would die. doctorterrified of the and my husband is one. how are we going to get swing voters on board? you know why at lobbyists are against universal health care? they are afraid you are going to like it. that's because it's awesome. people are afraid of change. they only like their current insurance because they already know what it is, not because it's good.

something seems scary before you try it, like sushi. host: kate mckinnon per trade larry clinton in the -- portrayed hillary clinton. we are going to continue our conversation on the debt and the deficit. yuval levin is joining me. later, we will talk to the 40th anniversary of the iran hostage crisis. that gets underway at 8:30 eastern time. you are watching and listening to the washington journal. we are back in a moment. ♪

>> tonight on q&a, former u.s. deputy assistant attorney looks atlizabeth papez u.s. supreme court chief justice john roberts. she has clerked for supreme court justice clarence thomas and is a litigator at gibson dunn. >> we do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. we do not caucus in separate rooms. we do not serve one party or one interest. we serve one nation. >> it is not about partisanship. when you look under the hood of the jurisprudence, it is hard and reporting to do that sometimes. you see people are voting on principles and sometimes the outcome is one way or the other. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. on facebook, 126 million people were exposed to russian manipulation attempts in the 2016 election, 20 william people

on instagram, 10 million on twitter with 6 million followers. we know russia attacked voting systems in all 50 states. we know they targeted misinformation at specific people and we know 27 percent of voting age americans assad russian misinformation in the final weeks leading up to the election. we do not know what effect, if any, any of this had on the election, on the 2018 midterms, what effect it will have in 2020 in the united states and liberal democracies around the world. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome yuval levin, a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. his work is available at aei.org. let's look at numbers for government spending. over $4.5 trillion this fiscal

year, leading to a deficit this billion, next$960 year approaching $1 trillion in one year. that is a shocking number, especially so when the economy is strong and unemployment is low. we have reached a point where deficits are at about the place they were at the height of the great recession in 2008 and 2009. we have done that without those kinds of fiscal pressures for dealing with a great recession. it is a function of letting spending go without getting it under control. the national debt has exceeded $23 trillion. how much money is that? guest: it is hard to get your head around that number. there are different ways of thinking about what counts is the national debt. some people will say we are approaching 20 trillion dollars because they do not count debt

the government owns itself. we are at unprecedented places in terms of deficit and debt. there is no prospect for slowing the growth of that debt at that point. we are looking at deficits that get larger over time. in a moment when we might have some of the physical space to fix that, when the economy is strong, congress and the president do not have interest in doing it. host: the debt per citizen is approaching $70,000. for taxpayers to pay off the debt, it would cost $186,000 per taxpayer. guest: that is right. we are not even talking about paying off the debt. we are talking about how to slow down the growth of the debt. in the last three years, we have not use any of the opportunities we have had to do that and have allowed that to speed up. host: we are not hearing this in the campaign. why? guest: we are not hearing it in washington. we have a republican president now, a republican senate. they are not doing anymore

talking about the deficit than the democrats are. on the campaign trail, democrats are only talking about growing , especiallyams medicare, social security. the conversation that used to happen even when we were not doing a good job of controlling spending, there were always some people on capitol hill talking about it. even that is not really happening. scene -- these same republicans were critical under the obama presidency but now it appears as if it will double again under the trump presidency if he is reelected. guest: we have had a 50% increase in annual teva sits since beginning of the from club -- annual deficits since beginning of the trump administration. the striking thing is you do not have even a portion of republicans in congress criticizing the republican president for doing that. spending grew under president

george w. bush. there were republicans unhappy with that who made that clear. under this president, we have not seen that. the republican party is not focused on that. part of it is the politics of the trump era. republican members especially in the house, who would have been most likely to complain about spending, have been the ones most loyal to president trump, whose voters seem to be most loyal to president trump. the president has not wanted to talk about this question. he is not interested in entitlement reform. you have not had even a portion of republicans in congress talking about this. i think it will be hard for them to get back to it under a democratic president without looking hypocritical. and being hypocritical. carl smith from bloomberg news writes about congressional budget office productions on debt and deficit. some commentators worry by

running large deficits now the u.s. is giving up future ability to boost the economy in a downturn. deficits should be the counter cycle, down in good times, up in bad. this suffers from the same fallacy as the one in favor of raising interest rates so they can be lowered later. it would make a recession more likely. if the u.s. does avoid a recession, it will be in part due to the boost provided by the deficit finance. guest: that is a short-term way to think about the nature of our fiscal situation. if we cut spending now, that might affect economic spending in the near term. we have strong growth now, low unemployment. if we are going to worry about deficit and debt, this is the time to do something about it. it does not have to be drastic. there are ways of reducing growth rates of entitlement programs and increasing federal --enue that could affect

could allow us to have that room to respond to future economic crises. the federal government is at levels of spending it would be at at the height of a series economic crisis. if we face such a crisis, it is hard to see where we get physical space to do anything about it. -- fiscal space to do anything about it. that is it your argument debt is good, deficit spending during an economic downturn? guest: the infrastructure spending in the wake of the great recession was not a best spending, but there are things you do that are countercyclical, look unemployment benefits, like increases in the size of the food stamp program. they are responses to the fact that more americans aren't economic distress. are we going to be able to do that without creating pressures on our treasury in those moments of real need and without creating risks of higher

interest rates and constraining our ability to grow out of the next recession? we have to think in terms of making space for the next crisis. we cannot just think about how to legislate for the next election. this pace of growing deficit and debt is irresponsible at a moment of good economic performance. karen is joining us in north carolina. we are going into another recession. it is globally happening. it is going to be a no real estate crisis, like it was before. house prices have been soaring. people are overpaying for homes. people are getting mortgages that should not be. they are going backwards. they are lowering interest rates

before the recession happens. we are going to already have low interest rates. letters going to get from the banks that they owe more money than houses are worth. call.thank you for the guest: it is hard to know what the next recession looks like or what might be a driver of it. we don't know if there is a housing crisis building. some of the signs are there. it is true that we will have another recession. i do not think we have eliminated the business cycle. we have had a long period of sustained growth not strong growth. it is reasonable to expect we are going to see a recession. because federal spending is at the level you would expected to be at the height of a recession, there is less room to respond to that. we are building out debt in ways that are going to turn out to have been extremely responsible. is 1000 trillion

billion dollars. guest: it has become impossible to visualize what federal spending looks like. 4.5 trillion dollars a year -- there are not a lot of analogies to the way we normally think about money. host: if you counted one dollar per second, $1 trillion would take you back 31.7 thousand years ago. think about that. let's go to john in new jersey. good morning. caller: i am trying to point out to people that we have this magical credit card called the fed. fromovernment can borrow itself, said it don'-- set its own interest rates. guest: it can feel that way.

it can seem like magic. part of the reason is the world economy tends to grade on a curve. the united states is in better shape than most of the developed world. some of europe is in recession already. the chinese are seeing declining growth. united states is the best place to put your money. -- for theble to federal government to borrow money at low rates. that could go on. we cannot count on that forever. this borrowing has to be paid back at some point. we are borrowing from our future selves. that means the size of the federal debt we are talking ability toes the have room to spend where it needs to and wants to.

whoever we are borrowing from at whatever rate, this is reducing to capacity in the future make judgments we would like to have. we are not talking about our grandchildren. we are talking about a situation that will affect people now in the workforce. the united states will have less flexibility, less to work with. debt does matter even though the federal reserve is powerful. we cannot pretend this money is coming from nowhere or that there are not interest payments. addition to your work at aei.org, are you on social media? guest: i am not on twitter. it is a way to stay sane. on aei onnd me twitter. host: we will go to nancy from pennsylvania.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i am interested in the subject. republican who voted for president trump the first time and will be voting for him exact time. -- a second time. the bush administration kept the budget for the iraq and afghanistan wars separate from the general budget. when president obama went into office, the obama administration made the decision to move the expenses that were on the books budget, whichal obviously would have increased the deficit at that time. is my recollection correct? guest: military spending is always going to count against the deficit. it is always part of the larger federal budget. it is true that as a matter of

the working of the appropriations process on capitol hill spending on the iraq war and some operations in afghanistan was treated separately from the larger defense budget, but that was never kept off the books in terms of counting the size of federal spending overall. deficits and debt did increase in the bush years, in large part because of the iraq war and afghanistan. also because there were tax cuts , reduced federal revenues. it did not increase at the level we are seeing now and we did not see deficits and debt at the level we are seeing now until the end of the bush administration. it is true that federal spending did increase in those years. tois not ultimately possible keep different parts of spending off the federal budget, but there are gimmicks and games that we see each year when congress sets the budget levels and appropriates for those. all of that money has to be paid back.

this is michelle from michigan. with everybody back to work, the middle class back to work, jobs are out there, full taxes,ent, we are paying income taxes. , for for social security medicare down the road. we are going full tilt to support those programs. cut that was just president'sng the current term and past by the republicans, pushed through, how -- how much of that revenue that we are not getting any more from the

corporations has affected the deficit or our budget? budgetthe congressional office, which keeps track of these things, says the tax cut enacted in 2017, largely a corporate tax cut and personal income tax cut reduces federal revenue from what it would have been by about $200 billion a year. it will be around that level for the next 10 years. it is a reduction in federal revenue. if you think about the drivers of the deficit, the largest is the social security program. ater that, it is medicare $800 billion a year. then the defense budget. medicaid, the federal portion of medicaid, has been about $350 billion a year. if you're talking about a reduction in revenue at $200 billion a year, that is a significant effect on the deficit. are tracking your

tweets. you can follow us @cspanwj. michael says today's politicians are not up to educating the american people on what the true decisions that need to be made. they have learned how to bribe voters with their own money. guest: there is less discussion of budget issues than there normally is in washington. in the through a period obama years when republicans especially were intent on focusing public attention on deficits and debt. that had an effect. they were able to work with the obama administration to drive down the growth of federal spending and reduce annual deficits. president trump is not one of those republicans that does not talk about deficits and debt. it has driven a lot of republicans on capitol hill who otherwise might have been worried about it to stop talking

about it. we have seen an increase in annual deficits. nowe is less of a debate than their wives. i agree with that viewer. in the 1980's, a book that may be on the internet came out. this fraudulent system -- where to the banking system get the authority to support all these countries and the united states and bankrupt everybody? that is all it is, to bankrupt the global population and control what is going on politically. who is kidding who? it is a fraud, a scam. 1913, the country that protected every other country and financed every other country is now in deeper debt than any other country. it is a scam.

wake up, america. these people are a fraud. we have an economy that is dependent on the finance sector and banking. we saw that in the course of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, when there was a huge bailout of the financial sector. banking is part of our strength as an economy. it is part of why we are the world's leading economy. it also comes with costs. david is joining us from baltimore, independent line. onlyr: they say there are two things in life that are sure and that is death and taxes. say deathfe ground to is more certain than taxes. my personal conclusion after 70

years is the only reason we have money is because god knew he would have to teach us the 10th commandment, thou shalt not covet. isyou think about it, money only a representation of labor. somehowearn it or by the sleight-of-hand almost. we need to think about the day of our deaths more than april 15. guest: i do nothing i can disagree with that last point. we thinke that when about these questions of deficit and debt, the situation can look grim. we are looking at vastly greater debt than we have seen in the past in america and coming at a

time when it is hard to explain with reference to world events. in the past, we have seen debt grow around wars and financial crises. we are looking at data growing because of demographic transformation in our society. we spent in a norm is amount of money providing benefits for the elderly. our society is getting older. baby boomers are in retirement and entering retirement. we are going to see an increase in federal spending over the coming years. the question is whether we can constrain the growth of that spending. while also allowing us to avoid fiscal disaster. this is doable. we are not on the verge of a collapse of our economy. we are not on the verge of a cataclysm. we have room to make this work, but we have to do that. we have to take it seriously and deal with the political implications. there is a lack of willingness,

of courage on the part of togress and the president, take this problem seriously. host: our guest is a graduate of american university earning his graduate from the university of chicago and worked in the george w. bush ministration. he is part of the domestic policy staff. this headline from bloomberg news in a quote we had earlier from carl smith saying a trillion dollar deficit may be what the economy needs. this past week, the fed chair, jerome powell, responding to the interest rate reduction by a quarter percent. he also talked about the debt and deficit. >> the overall -- [video clip] >> the overall economy is growing at a moderate rate, supported by a healthy job market and solid consumer confidence. business investment and exports remain weak.

manufacturing output has declined. and traderowth abroad developments have been weighing on those sectors. we continue to expect the economy to expand at a moderate rate, reflecting solid household spending. strong market remains and the employment rate has been near half-century lows for a year and a half. the pace of job gains has eased but remained solid. we have expected some slowing. participation in the labor force by people in their prime working years has been increasing. wages have been rising for lower paying jobs. host: that assessment from fred chair jerome powell -- fed chair jerome powell. economy, have a robust a stronger economy, reasonably good growth, low unemployment. yes we have at the same time growing deficits.

we have not use this moment to try to get federal spending under control or to get reform of our entitlement system that could allow us to have better control over the growth of deficit and debt in the future. that means we are not prepared for a downturn, for the numbers he is describing to look worse, which they are going to. this would be a time to take some responsible action, to gradually reform our entitlement system and think about the relationship between federal spending and revenue in the future. two thirds of the budget -- medicare, medicaid, social security. guest: within those, there has been a change over the years. if you looked at the federal budget in the 1960's and 1970's, defense was a greater portion of the budget that it was now. we have seen a growth of the entitlement programs, especially social security and medicare, driven by demographic change and changes to the programs. the federal government now is

something like a provider of benefits to the elderly that also has an army. host: this headline from the $984ngton post -- hitting billion in 2018, soaring during the trump era, expected to reach $1 trillion next year. on the republican line, from pennsylvania. >> thank you -- caller: thank you. i have a mechanic's question about funding the government with the fed. to me is since the financial collapse in 2008 the fed started monetizing our debt, which i thought was illegal. it seems to me like it is a money laundering thing where the big banks that have access to the window do not borrow money at the rate of today. bondsuy up u.s. debt and

and take those bonds back to the window and catch them in and the fed buys them. the banks make a profit off that debt. isn't debt and spending of the government a ponzi scheme? guest: thanks for the question. i do not think that is quite right. it is true that the federal government, because it enormously on borrowing, has two sell its debt. it sells its debt now at rates that are quite low. there is great willingness around the world to buy our debt. abroadur debt is brought and not by u.s. corporations or individuals. at the moment, the returns on federal debt are low. i would not say that banks are making a killing by working the relationship with the fed. the challenge we face is that we are very vulnerable now to an increase in those interest rates

, to an increase in the cost of federal borrowing. we have been able to borrow money at very low rates for a long time now. we have done that. as we have done that, we have transformed our debt into more and more short-term borrowing, which means a change now in the interest rate would pose in on norma's problem to the federal government. it would be a huge increase in the portion of our budget we spend on interest, which congress cannot control or change. once you have borrow the money, you have to pay a back. we could lose control of a significant portion of the federal budget every year by a change in interest rates, which we cannot entirely control. we do not really have a say over it. minute youve a half wrote a piece for the national review. you can see the trajectory moving ahead. guest: if you look at that chart -- that is just the chart -- it is available publicly.

the huge spikes in that chart the past are a function of recognizable events in our history -- the civil war, world war i, the great depression, the great recession. the huge bump projected now over the coming decade is not a function of global cataclysm. it is a function of demographics and the state of federal spending. we are looking at a huge increase in debt that would work even our debts taken up during world war ii that is simply a function of the entitlement system at the demographics of our society. it is an enormous problem. host: your work available at aei.org. our guest is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. when we come back, we are going to look back 40 years at the iran heist -- hostage crisis, which consumed the final year of the carter presidency. our guest will be at the table to reflect on what happened and lessons learned.

washington journal continues any moment. -- in a moment. ♪ >> campaign 2020 -- watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020 -- your

unfiltered view of politics. today come alive at noon eastern on in-depth, princeton university professor joins us to talk about african-american history and racial inequality. >> my mother came of age in jim crow, alabama. my mother lived her youth through white nationalists society and it has come back. >> openly white nationalists society. >> that has reared its head again. >> her most recent book is breathe, a letter to my son. other books include province of the hood and may we forever stand. join the interactive conversation. at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, the author of it should not be this hard to serve your country recounts his time as the secretary of veterans affairs the trump administration.

he is interviewed by iraq and afghanistan veterans of america ceo jimmy butler. >> the government's involvement mostalth care is the effective way of honoring our nation's commitment to our veterans. that does not mean veterans should not have the ability to go into the private sector when it is in their best interest, when the care is better or specialized care is available that is not in the v.a.. we all believe that should be available. weekend book tv every on c-span2. the house will be in order. >> c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the world so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in

is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. . washington journal continues. host: it was 40 years ago this week that 52 americans were taken hostage at the u.s. embassy in tehran, marking the final year of the carter presidency, an issue that consumed press carter -- president carter and reshaped american former -- foreign policy. we look back at the events as they unfolded on november 4, 1979. from a canadian documentary, this look at how it all happened 40 years ago. before 11:00 a.m., the attack began. they were over the walls and soon the chain on the main gate

was cut. this was filmed by a student. the motor crew was behind the main gate of the embassy compound. to the right was the chancellor that house the sensitive medications systems. thefront doors of chancellery had been bolted shut. inside were 45 americans. inside firedards tear gas to buy time. when it was realized help was not coming, one of the security officers tried to persuade students to leave. he was immediately captured. the staff are treated floor by floor. one american who spoke farsi went out. he was immediately threatened with death.

the americans surrendered. host: just a portion of a canadian documentary which will be seen later today. we want to welcome stuart eizenstat. his new book, president carter: the white house years. limbert -- negotiating with iran: wrestling with history. in that portion of you documentary. explain what happened as he went outside and then were taken hostage. >> first, thank you for having the program. as they mentioned the documentary, those responsible , the iraniany government, was clear they were not going to do anything.

or could not do anything. there, illed over reach the prime minister's office. the first thing she said was what about those passwords we sent over? are the visas ready? they were not going to help. we were on our own. going out to talk to the crowd was not a smart thing to do. it was one of the least successful negotiations that i had. we did not have a lot of choices. the priority was to make sure no one got hurt. did, if there had been bloodshed, and i take my hat off to our marine security guard, if they had started shooting or somebody has started shooting, things would have ended differently and i probably would not have been here today. host: take a step back. the hostage crisis began in

november 1979 but the roots extend back before that. you were inside the carter white house as this unfolded. how do we reach this point? guest: you have to go back to 1953, when a popularly elected prime minister of iran was cia andin a coup by the british intelligence because he was going to naturalize the oil industry -- nationalize the oil industry. this young shah was put on his father's throne. was ourt time, the shah man in the middle east. he was our principal ally. republican and democratic presidents gave him an open shopping list. by the time we had come into , almost $11 billion of

military aid -- half of it went to iran. he had some of our most sophisticated planes and arms. work --ble work -- able a bulwark against the soviet union. principal supplier of oil for israel. debonair,ve, beautiful wife, gorgeous palace. he seemed impregnable. no one would have foreseen that what we saw occurring here in november of 1979 would have hahpened except when the s was forced to leave. when he was, there was an earlier efforts to get into the embassy in february of 1979, which john will remember. in that instance, i told the leader of the radical the primearies minister and foreign minister

got the police to intervene and take students out of the embassy. this was a repeat later in that same year after circumstances had changed. you have to go back to 1953 to understand the feeling in iran that the shah had been imposed on their country. one last point -- you cannot say h was a typical autocrat. he had a tough security service that went after any opposition, but he was a reformer in many ways. he had a white revolution to compete with the red revolution of communism. notmpowered women, did require them to wear the veil, stressed education, try to reform. any sense, got in front of a very fundamentalist

conservative society. host: he was diagnosed with cancer the late 1970's. you said the following -- i was not privy to the exchanges that went on before the shah was admitted to the u.s. because of his cancer. what i have seen sense is that he said if you do this you are putting all of us in danger. jimmy carter himself, when he come against his own better judgment, decided to allow the with hisome in, along chief of staff and press secretary, said if i do this, what are you going to advise me to do when our embassy is overrun and our people taken hostage? carter and very smart man -- president carter, very smart men. he foresaw what was going to happen.

our chief had warned him this would have serious consequences, including the fall -- loss of the missing. -- embassy. somewhere around october 20, when they made the decision to admit him for medical treatment, we were essentially informed. the message to us was you are expendable. you are out there. good luck. do the best you can. why not have us come back? that is a good question. when i used to teach at the naval academy, my students would ask exactly that same question. it seemed so obvious to them. i have asked people within the administration. as i can piece event together, it was never discussed. cold warhe reason was

calculations. it sounds strange saying this iran was a piece in the cold war game with the soviets. the centerpiece of our policy since the 1940's was to keep the soviets out of iran. the 1953 coup that was just justified in washington as an anti-communist not be able to resist communist influence. at that point, the administration looked at it and said, "if we leave, we are resist -- 30 years of american policy of resistance to

the soviets." are turning over iran to our enemies. theink the problem was administration thought it could have its cake and eat it too. we can admit the shah and iranrve this foothold in with its anti-soviet goals. host: is that a fair assessment? guest: it is. in my book i am candid about mistakes. this was the single worst intelligence failure in american history. which had reinstalled the shah and who was our key ally in the region, did not know for five years he was secretly getting cancer treatments for

incurable lymphoma. they did not realize his domestic support rested on quicksand. the did not appreciate leader of the radical revolution he wase -- the cassettes sending back were stirring up fundamentalist revolution. they do not understand the leader himself. they did not understand the domestic politics. it is an unacceptable intelligence failure. in my book, the head of the cia apologized and said we did not give the president the intelligence he needed. why didn't he then withdraw? the firsty, when assault was made against the embassy, it was repulsed. the government was able to repulse it. appreciation an for the underlying conflict between the pro-democracy nationals and the

fundamentalists. he used john and the hostages as political ponds to solidify his theort and push out democratic nationalists. they resigned after the hostage crisis. toause of opposition international principles. say wen't we in february had one of these. let's take everybody out. there were 1000 people on the staff and the ambassador got it down to 70. he reinforced the gates. he put more security in. at the end of the day, we had so many assets in iran -- planes, spare parts, cia opposition to

the soviet union and the cold war, and since they had once repulsed students, the feeling was that would happen a second time. wethe cold war calculation, do not want to turn iran over to the soviet union. host: we have a poll on twitter .cspanw what's the iran hostage crisis the main reason why president carter was defeated in 1980? join in and participate in the pool and we will have more results later. let me ask you what it was like for you personally. you were held hostage for just over a year. where were you held and what was it like? guest: it was not pleasant. on the other hand, we all survived. all of us came out. all of us survived, which is a great tribute to president carter and his patients. he was determined that we were

going to stay alive. it did not necessarily have to happen that way. it could have gone in a different direction, very badly. still repeat a narrative that we were treated well, that we were guests in a hotel. this is absolute nonsense. i the 14 months i was there, was nine months in solitary, threatened many times. they arranged mock executions for us. they cut us off from news and information. --were held in camino cotto they attempt to convince us -- we had been forgotten. we had little to medication with family. we were part of the time in iran, part of the time after the failed rescue mission in april scattered around the country.

we were in a prison in downtown tehran. very easy to hear the iraqi planes that point attacking tehran. we were held in various places around the city until we were released in january. our plane took off just 15 or 20 minutes after president carter left office. host: we will get to that later the program. you met with the current head of iran. what was that like? guest: that was a very strange .eeting he was at the time a second ra .k cleric we fell into a iranian host and

guest interaction. i do not abuse him. i did not use bad language. it was tempting to do so, but i did not. instead, my message to him was. sir, i know how to be a guest in your culture. you treat a guest in a certain way. i treated him as a guest in my space. i asked him to sit down. i offered him whatever i had. my message to him was, i know how to treat a guest. you do not. has happened here is absolutely shameful, disgraceful , and violates every tenant not just of religious law, of international law, but if the deepest principles rooted in

your culture. the iranians have an expression. you cut off someone's head with cotton. that was my purpose. guest: let me add something to john's moving account and something he would not have known at the time. president carter decided not to use military action at the beginning. i had recommended it along with our national security advisor, blockade the harbors. he chose instead to plummet see -- diplomacy but he passed a clear message to the germans and others that if one hair on the head of any of our hostages was harmed, if there was any torture, if there were show trials in which they were forced theremit" some guilt, would be immediate military action. as a result, there was none. while john and his colleagues were mistreated, the absence of

camere, of show trials, because of that repeated message my press carter that military action -- by president carter that military action will result if those actions occur. host: 40 years since the iran hostage crisis and that is our focus here on c-span. joining us for the conversation seniorrt eizenstat, domestic policy advisor to president jimmy carter. he is now the author of the book president carter: the white house years. and john limbert -- his book, negotiating with iran. he served as the political officer in iran. he was held hostage for 441 days. we will go first to mickey from milwaukee. caller: good morning. i am very sorry about what you went through in iran. i'm iranian. it is a sad part of iranian history and our relations.

it is widely known amongst iranians that jimmy carter's presidency was responsible for the downfall of the shah's regime. -- william sullivan, the last ambassador to iran, and his message to the shah that president carter wants you to leave iran. on thed your opinion carter presidency and the price we have been paying for the last 40 years. host: thank you for the call. i will have you take that first. guest: i am candid in my book about the mistakes the administration made. terrible intelligence, muddled differences between the secretary of state and national security advisor, wrote diplomacy of abbasid o'sullivan,

and much -- ambassador sullivan, and much else. it is unfair to suggest that jimmy carter lost iran. lost iran by losing support of his own people. as a result, we have the situation we have today. it is no more fair to say that jimmy carter lost iran that would be to say -- and i would say this to your viewer -- that dwight eisenhower as president lost cuba when we had a castro communist revolution 90 miles from our shore or that president obama was responsible. there are certain things a superpower 7000 miles away cannot do. could havey the shah saved would have been massive use of military force, which he himself in his own memoirs said a monarch cannot shed the blood of his own countrymen to save his throne or a very clear message from the carter

administration that the shah should use such force. there was a muddled message that respect. the bottom line is the shah lost iran, not jimmy carter. host: there is a picture in your book from september 1977 in the white house. there is teargas that was in the air. you can see the shah is wiping his eyes. explain this photograph. guest: the first state visit the shah made in the carter administration was in november of 1977. in the outdoor welcoming ceremony, there were demonstrations across the south lawn of the white house in the park by iranian students. they were radical students. to disperse the crowd, the national park service used teargas. the wind blew it into the face of the shah and the president,

causing them to tear up. thats the first sign anybody had that the shah might be in trouble. , time and time again,, -- time and time again, when the immigrations occurred, the president -- demonstrations occurred, the president supported the shah. he wanted to fire our abbasid or for suggesting we should reach out to khamenei. teargas and other supplies to be given to the shah to put down demonstrations. he constantly and consistently back to the shah but the shah lost support and lost support of much of the military, which was bulwark.all work -- guest: what your viewer said is a common and powerful narrative. many of my iranian friends

fall washat the shah's arranged by president carter. -- i don't agree with that. i would say to your iranian we did it to ourselves. middle-classwas people, middle-class secular people, teachers, doctors, professionals, lawyers all out there marching and calling for an islamic republic without knowing what an islamic republic would bring them. president carter had gone to earlyn late december,

1978ry of 1978 -- 1977, and made a speech, a toast, and a dinner in which he spoke about iran being an island of stability in a turbulent region. a year later, the shah was gone and iran was in chaos. if i might make one last comment on this -- from the shah's point of view, and the shah believed what are viewer said. he believed president carter and hadr western leaders decided to get rid of him for reasons that he did not know. they were superpowers. they could do what they want. they did not have to tell him. from his point of view, looking at it from his point of view,

when he got in trouble in 1978, president carter would not -- as he went to president carter and said what should i do, president carter said it is his country. he is the king. . cannot tell him what to do which is quite correct. from the shah's point of view, for 30 years american presidents had told him what to do. looking at it from his point of view, he said president carter has abandoned me and thrown me under the bus. host: joining us from damascus, maryland. caller: i have a quick question because i have to leave for church in about three minutes. i was wondering how the gentleman feels because iran and russia are aligned. this is been historic since

khameni- meaning -- came to power. how do they feel about the fact that president trump has given away syria to russia and iran? guest: iran is a factor here as well because iran is not only the world's worst supporter of but in syria as well iran is trying to build a permanent military base with missiles that would be able to attack israel. interestingly, the administration, with all of its chest puffing, is pulling out of the middle east and sending the signal to the russians in particular that we do not want wars" so we step

back from supporting the kurds, who have done so much for us. footprint inng our iraq and afghanistan. it sends a clear signal to iran and russia, who are filling that vacuum, that it is fair game and the u.s. is not going to block them. that is what is happening in syria now. instead of having a pro-american -- the pro-american kurds, we have the russians and irradiance. -- iranians. host: walk us through how the initial moments of the event unfolded. you are inside the u.s. embassy in tehran. you leave the front door. what happened after that for you and your other colleagues? guest: when i went outside to they hadhese people,

me and one of our security officers, who was mentioned the documentary. they were in front of the door. they were in front of an iron door, which was the second floor about chancellery to the second floor of the chancery building where both american and iranian staff had taken refuge headsy put pistols to our . and they said, if you don't open this door in five minutes, we are going to shoot these two people. we are going to shoot these two men. were they bluffing? i don't know. but i have always been gratified we did not call their bluff and find out. once that happened -- the embassy would have fallen eventually anyway.

when -- any embassy, anywhere in the world, it is the host government that is responsible for the security of diplomats. if the case in washington. it is the case in london. it was the case in benghazi. sometimes governments build their commitments. obviously in tehran, they did not. the provisional governments, of hadh six months earlier thrown out a group of invaders, absolutely who had left us unarmed, in this case was simply unable to respond. the only one who could have given the order was khomeini, and he was not going to do it. host: the political environment in the country where senator toard m. kennedy, was about

challenge president carter -- in iran?e you involved was very much involved. i was involved in trying to develop an energy policy because of the cut off of iranian oil. it's very important to understand, the notion that we own devicesh to his is not true. we said, you have two options. a military government or a coalition government with the second international front. we backed every effort made to put down the demonstrations and we sent a three-star general two toks before the shah left but got the military, to support ah's, prime

minister. we tried to get them to put down these demonstrations. at every step, there was an or,rt to save the shah, when it was clear he could not be, to make sure khomeini did not take over. host: did you realize this would into for more than a year? guest: no one knew it. 'se prime minister, khomeini own prime minister, and the foreign minister both said to us, the administration -- this is going to be like a vietnam era sit in. it will be gone in a couple days. what changed it was the embrace of the student takeover, which he did not do in february 1979, because he used his to rally support behind

radical fundamentalism and push out his own moderate government. and we did not appreciate this at the time -- there was this fight betweeng the pro-democracy secular nationalists of the radical fundamentalists. john perhaps would have appreciated that but we did not understand that. thing press. what's a radical islamic government? is the person history. they had no idea that many of the nationalists thought, oh, a figurehead,be on the sidelines giving sermons, not realizing he wanted to take over the government and make it a radical islam and government. int: we will go to randy east chicago, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i love the show.

i appreciate your being there. my recollection -- i agree, this was a huge foreign-policy blunder. i think our country never really had an appreciation of the iranian people or the culture, what they were thinking. pawn on thean as a chessboard against russia without appreciating what people were thinking. --emember police, who were trained here in the united states, in the ways of torture and interrogation, it was a military dictatorship we created the iraniantand why

people to this day are upset with us. i wish we had left them alone. host: you are shaking your head. it is a good point. the iranians, the last couple hundred years of history, have not been fortunate. these have not gone well. the last 100 years, there has been this ongoing struggle of iranians to establish a government that treats them with dignity, treats its own people respects the country. the prime minister tries to take control of iran's oil. .t is one main resource perhaps the revolution was seen in this way.

an interesting part, the u.s. originally, in this 100 year struggle, was on the right side of things. we lost the young missionary, princeton graduate -- the class of 1907, killed in the iranian constitutional revolution in 1908, 24 years old. thatdent truman supported she did not want to do the coup, he did not want to do the crew -- the coup. but somehow we ended up on a different side. was when the administration was deciding whether to admit the shah or not, from all i have read and all i have heard, this history shahot known, so when the

was admitted to the u.s., he had been deposed. to 98% ofranians, -- r irani is, it was like a rerun of 1953. have a poll. the question is whether you ce of the inciden theian hostage crisis was reason for president carter' is defeat by president reagan. ohio, you are on. caller: i have a question. -- first of all, -- [indiscernible]

i did not vote for president carter. i did not agree with his policies. that being said, i remember after the inauguration -- president reagan stood up, and i believe he made the announcement the hostages have been released , [indiscernible] like most americans, i was glad they had been released, but even though i was not a supporter of --sident carter, i felt [indiscernible] host: rick, you broke up a little bit, but we got the essence of it. that gives us a chance to talk about january 1981. i have a little bit of sound

from president carter. he is on the phone trying to get the very latest on the release of the hostages, which did come later that day. let's listen. [video clip] president carter: we have gotten word that another country, at 8:13 this morning, he stated he ,ould inform when the plainly so i presume that is the first measure. .he plane will be leaving stuart eizenstat, you are

in the oval office. that was a very long morning. just a long morning. these negotiations have been going on for a year. the last three days of the administration, literally, the president did not sleep. he stayed because he wanted to get that final agreement done before he left office. he cleared the deck for his successor, ronald reagan. speights,inal act of khomeini only allowed -- final onlyf spite, khomeini allow the hostages to leave after ronald reagan was sworn in. wingtaff were in the west to the a connection president's appointment

secretary as reagan was being sworn in, hoping to tell the president the passages -- the hostages had been released. onlytunately, they could him they would be released afterward. the operator said, i'm sorry. your administration is over. i can give you that information. to thes a clear in administration. it was so dramatic because literally the president worked day and night to reach the agreement that was finally reached in terms of the assets we froze, and many other details. it was reached beforehand, but a final jab at the present, would not allow him to have the and if it of having the

hostages released on his watch. host: and on that day you were where? we waited -- we were told the night before we were leaving. we were examined by out jerry and doctors. actually we were leaving and we would have -- a television interview, the implication being what we said in the television and review view would determine whether we left are not. but we were told by the algerians, you are all leaving. that was 2:00 in the morning. then we just sat there all day. sat there through the day and we were ready to go and we did not untilhat had happened about 6:00 in the evening tehran time, which would have been

10:00 in the morning here in washington. they shoved us into buses to go to the airport. i went to the airport sitting in the bathroom. they got us to the airport. there were three planes on the tarmac. the swiss ambassador was there. make sure everyone was there. 52 namesked off all and the plane waited, and in this final bit of spite -- if jimmy carter or the person who brought khomeini to power, this to an odd way for khomeini behave, to put his finger in his eye.

the other narrative which is out there and frequently heard is the whole thing was a put up job, that there was an agreement between the republican campaign, the reagan campaign, and the irani and to delay a release until after the election so jimmy carter could not benefit from this for his election. this is a very common narrative, but when people ask me about this, all i can say is, i don't know. there's never been any documentation of something like this happening. but there was a particular and dislike ofte the revolutionaries from jimmy carter. he took it from both sides.

the revolutionaries disliked him and as our caller said, the shahsition, the pro- iranians disliked him. some of the hostages met with jimmy carter. why did 20 decide not to meet with him? guest: this is new to me. i was notuch a state counting who was there and who was not there. and i knew he had sacrificed his and i was not us about to show disrespect at that point. ,here were others who disagree -- she disagreed, who resented it. of our 52 people i love them all very dearly, but there are great

political differences. ,ost: our guest is john limbert one of the hostages taken for 444 days. we are looking back at 40 years ago. , who had aeizenstat front row seat to all of this as president jimmy carter's advisor. is a lever question and about whether there was a republican led october surprise. about this.ook he alleged there was a secret deal that was arranged, either by then vice presidential candidate george h w bush or william casey, who was the campaign manager, to tell iran, don't release the hostages before the election. there were congressional

investigations that pound was inconclusive, but it is true and bushy disappeared went to paris. the evidence is inconclusive. i would not allege it occurred but there is lingering doubts. but more significant, what triggered, at the end, the hostage crisis? its unmistakable that with all the radical forces it was the asision of president carter the last holdout to admit the cancer treatment. it's important to understand how this happened. there were efforts made for months once it was disclosed tot the shah had problems get him in the united states. president carter said, no. i remember what happened in february. our embassy was assaulted.

want pictures of him playing tennis in california. then what happened? a pr effort with henrythe shah kissinger, david rockefeller, and they put relentless pressure on the president, saying how can you turn your back on an ally of 25 years who has done so much for us? you are weak. you are not standing height our when hehe middle east needs it. carter continued to say no. , only inin october october was it disclosed by david rockefeller that the shah had cancer and had been treated for five years. his own family did not know it. the equation.

vice president mondale, who had been against it, said, we can't let someone dying of cancer stay out of the u.s. the president, even then, one of the state department doctors to opinion. can he be treated elsewhere? two doctors said, probably not. it turns out he could easily have been treated in mexico by u.s. trained doctors. that was the precipitating factor. as carter said at the beginning, when all the others said, we have to admit him, carter said, what are you going to ask me to do if they storm the embassy again as they did in february, but this time they don't leave and they take our diplomats as hostages? host: we will hear from present carter 1980 at his state of the union address in a moment. atpresident carter in 1980 his state of the union address in the moment. but first we have our caller.

caller: hello. hello to your to guests. let's get to the root of the problem, at the beginning of the history of this country. our first foreign war that was fought was called the barbary wars, it was a war on the religion of islam. it was not a war of radical extremists. this was something that jefferson and adams addressed to , addressing the ruthlessness and savagery on our merchant ships on the mediterranean and they quoted the ambassador to tripoli and were asked, why are you being so savage against us? ,hy are you asking for tribute and the ambassador quoted from

the koran. so this is the beginning of our history with islam and you can take it all the way back to the sixth century. host: thank you. your point? guest: i am an historian by training. i do not know the ins and outs of the war with the barbary pirates. this whole episode has nothing to do with this -- with islam. i'm sorry. islam is one of the world's great monotheistic religions, shares a great deal with christianity and judaism, and nowhere in islam, as i , is such an action as was taken in tehran permitted. host: patrick in minnesota, good

morning. caller: thank you, gentlemen. -- and it wass answered in the past segment to the flavor oft -- the culture, the country, the timeline was horrible. the economy was in shambles. pride was in tatters. kids were going into college wondering where we stood, why we stood. was -- who was to be ?redited the carter administration in all it's hard work that the individual just mentioned -- its hard work that the individual just mentioned, or just

happenstance that they collided at the same time and i think the question got answered. but where are we in history? it seems like carter's still deemed failure in this and reagan seems to be the dean savior. -- deemed savior. host: which is outlined in stuart eizenstat's book. is deemed a success because the hostages were released when he was inaugurated after president carter had negotiated it. i want to be frank. we had a major decision to make once the hostages were taken four years ago. a military option, which i droppinged -- not bombs on tehran but preventing

their oil from being exported. the argument against that by the military in others was we are in the cold war. the soviets could try to confront us. that is one option, and i think if it had been taken, the hostages might well have been released. the second was diplomatic. hostages' nt had the families to the white house and he said, our number one priority is to get your loved ones out safely in sound. and he did. but that met he took the military option off the table. in a, he made a mistake holing himself up in the white house, canceling foreign trips, canceling campaign events to day andwas spending night working on the hostage crisis, but instead it made him, in a sense the hostage, gave khomeini more negotiating

authority and caused your profession to spend even more attention. the nightline program, ted koppel, what the concrete -- walter cronkite, every single broadcast. a drop ofe taking poison every single day. becauselast point you're caller talked about the state of the economy. 70's was aof the decade of slow growth and high inflation under nixon, ford, and carter and we got to double-digit inflation. insignificant part because of the iranian revolution. why? cut off the oil. oil prices doubled. and here was carter in one of his most courageous decisions --

he appointed paul volcker to head the fed, knowing he was going to choke the economy, raise interest rates, raise unemployment to deal with this embedded in inflation and carter said to us, i don't want my legacy to be perpetual high inflation, even if it means my reelection. the hostage crisis the main reason carter lost reelection? would you say yes, no, or is compensated. guest: i would say yes, but the risen economic impact. absolutely it was humiliating the superpower could not get john and his colleagues released after 444 days. in by the way, we had several agreements with his prime minister and each time khomeini would veto it. in my opinion, yes, it was the prime reason and the hostage rescue became a matter for for

the failure to get the hostages out. that was the thread, in my opinion, that led to his overwhelming defeat, but the ,oint i was also making, steve iranian -- there was a to mystic economic impact oil.ing down iranian host: we will talk about the rescue section in a moment. let's go to phil. of the cia wase basically to stay quiet. and of course, that is when they began to clamor for attention.

host: have you heard of that? guest: i don't know that the cia was. shah's government subsidized a lot of the clergy and there is one theory that when faced with economic difficulties, that created problems for khomeini. but the idea of a blockade or cutting off the shipment of oil, it might have worked. it might not have work. we don't know. i am not a disinterested observer in this. think personally, and i for my colleague, the priority was to get out of this alive,

, soif it took a long time be it. hearing that they wanted us to deliver the shah. i was sitting in a cell thinking, if they want the shah, that sounds alright to me. if they want their parts for aircraft. by that point of view, that was clearly the priority. what the caller talked about that's absolutely untrue. the shah substantially restrict cia -- activities of the restricted the activities of these cia.

he only focused on the soviet union. so these cia was hobbled. it's totally fanciful that the cia was using u.s. government money to pay off those who were the opposition. in december of 1979, jimmy nationald not like the christmas tree as a symbol of unity for those held hostage. did that become another matter metaphor? guest: it was. him, during the book, to a number of your colleagues, people who were reporters at the time and they -- said that carter called and he admitted it to me in an interview for the book, that he gave too much attention to it. he could have said, we made an offer to the iranians about

negotiating this. they are responsible for the histy of john and colleagues. if they violated, we will go about it militarily. ribbonsyou had yellow all over, not lighting the christmas tree. he caused more attention for this crisis. you could not have avoided it, obviously, but he made it the centerpiece. he said publicly, every morning when i get up, the first thing i think about is the hostages. and every night when i go to think the first thing i about is the hostages. he put the spotlight much more -- then there would have been otherwise. host: there is also the canadian six. story this is a very good which became a good book and a six of john a

posse of austria's colleagues were not in the embassy. they found their way to the embassy. the canadian ambassador, kim taylor, hid them. there's a wonderful story. working with the white house and the state department, we got the cia to masquerade as a canadian film company coming in to take film footage in iran and then, through kim taylor, the canadian ambassador, got this fake canadian task force and we had to have a special secret session of the canadian parliament because you couldn't come into canada under fake passports to allow this to happen. interestingly again for president carter, he did not try to take credit for it. he did not want to risk john's --e is saying we just got 6 through the canadian passport, six of our diplomats out.

this book.e out with you mentioned ted koppel. he told the hollywood reporter the following. several journalists became aware of this faction. koppel was one of those. from thei got a call canadian ambassador. he said, i understand you are going to put this story on the air tonight. i can tell you not to. but i would ask you not to. ultimately decided not to go with the report, the only time in more than 50 years that i ever killed the story. guest: that's absolutely correct. ted deserves a great deal of credit. the story hadley doubt. we implored them not to do it sixuse it would risk those -- it might have wrist john and

his colleagues' life. to tedgreat credit koppel and his colleagues for not running with what would have been a great headline. toby, lexington, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. for mr. stuarts eizenstat. i read you book. carter broke off campaigning and left chicago, flew back to washington to deal with this -- i think this was early sunday. the country seemed to get its hopes up, only to be disappointed when the hostages were not released. how much of an impacted this have on the election, in your opinion? the election seemed close up that point. what is his hunch about how the election might have turned out if none of that had happened that final weekend? guest: it's a great question.

it's not a hunch. let me give you the figures. going into the one and only debate with ronald reagan, eight days before the election -- and one should never give a challenger a debate that close. reagan did very well in that debate -- host: in cleveland, ohio. ahead at that time. reagan surged. not just our own internal polls, all have him they ahead and gaining among undecideds, because reagan was an unknown figure. i was in the hotel with the president and his traveling carter -- party that last weekend and i am told that at 3 a.m., i get on air force one, the president is going back to

the white house. there has been a new offer from the iranians and i said, no. don't go back. look at the offer and determine if it's adequate. if you go back it will bring the whole hostage crisis story back. he insisted he had to go back. we looked at the offer. it was a positive step, but not .nough myself, and jordan, the chief of staff, we all said, if you are going to do it, last the hell out of the a ring is for trying to interfere it in the election. balancede gave a very statement. all the support collapsed. it was not sufficient to resolve it. it was a huge mistake and i think the election would have been very different had we ignored it or simply said, the press statement is inadequate.

host: let's go back to president carter delivering these remarks in his state of the union address. [video clip] tosident carter: we continue pursue these specific goals. first to protect the long-range interests of the united states. second to secure as quickly as possible the hostages' safe release. impossible to avoid, bloodshed endanger the lives of our fellow citizens, to enlist the help of our fellow nations and condemning this act of violence which is shocking and violates the moral and legal standards of the civilized world, and also to convince and persuade the uranium leaders that the real danger -- iranian leaders that the real danger to their nation lies to the north in the soviet union, and from

the soviet troops now in that thisn and -- the their response squirrel with the united states hampers their response to a far greater danger. arehe american hostages harmed, a severe price will be paid. that was in january of 1980. then there was a rescue mission. president carter said one of his greatest regrets was not having another helicopter. ?here were you they came in. they did not tell us what happened. but there was a sense of hysteria on the streets.

the crowd seemed to be much less but the hysteria was rising. they came into ourselves. of they said, packed up. thehey said, packed up to we are leaving. this is not just going from one building to another. they did a lot of that. i ended up about seven hours south of tehran. i did not know until about a week later when i was able to steal a newspaper and in the newspaper there was a story about the mission, and what i learned, there had been a failed and there had been american casualties.

-- ispread that story spread that story as well as i could. the reaction from most of us was -- first of all, obviously, disappointment. grief for the brave men who lost their lives in the iranian desert, but also a sense that, by gosh, we are not forgotten. we had no illusions about how difficult this was. you are extracting somebody from the middle of the city of 6 million people in broad daylight . how do you do this? this is going to be. but the people who did it -- i still talk and am in contact with a lot of them. they had the guts to try.

they were willing to put their lives on the line to, and rescue us. as you point out in your book, the secretary of state a post to this mission and resigned. guest: he did. we have to go back to the date two days before john and his colleagues were taken. two days afterward, the president authorized the of the planning of a hostage rescue. we went through all the diplomatic channels to try to get them released, but during , we had what was called camp smokey in the hills , rehearsalsolina for this hostage rescue. we did not have a

counterterrorism force. we created it then. this was its first opportunity. why did the president finally pulled the trigger? because the last effort in paris had failed and the president said, i've had it. we have to try this. we will pull this off the shelf. why did it fail? of a gutsy, instead move, as another failure by the president. the rad to be a minimum of six -- there had to be a minimum of six helicopters. they had to go on to the outskirts of tehran, stay overnight.

they stormed the embassy and came back. eight left. two had mechanical problems. there were only five left after a hydraulic failure. and the colonel was urged by colonel kelly from the air force, let's go when with five. it will be 20 less men, but let's do it. and the colonel said, our agreement was we had to have a minimum of six. they called the president of the united states. at that point and the president to overrule going colonel beckwith. if he feels we can't do it, i'm not going to take the risk. so we did not do it. we knew there were problems with the helicopter. there should have been 10 or 12

more backups. the helicopter pilots did not know, even though there was intelligence about it that there were sandstorms that blinded the in 200ter pilots, coming yards above the surface. if they had gone about it, colonel kelly to that day says i wish we had not had radio silence because when they had the same storm, they could not communicate. last, the lakh of interservice coordination. services.r military they were not properly coordinated. there was not one dress reversal. of coordination on the ground. sandstorms. hydraulic problems. lack of coordination. terrible luck. when it was completed, the president got the word we have

,o abort and he said, thank god no was lost their lives. at the end of the mission, one of the helicopter rotor blades, trying to take off -- they had already gone 600 miles in two iran -- into iran. because the huge flame. service members went down. host: our conversation is with a formerzenstat, advisor to president jimmy arter, and john limbert, who served in the embassy for 444 days. good morning. caller: you brought up interesting points about how jimmy carter was caught between well,reign policy and --

i am not going to say new because reagan continued it, but do you think if carter had been a little more forceful in his effort to obtain the foreign policy continued from gerald ford and richard nixon, do you donk he would have been a think he would have been a , howe more -- should i say the shah was running his economy? that seems to have brought it on as well. people do not flip overnight. they influence people who have been hurting for quite a while. host: thank you for your call. we will get a response. guest: good question.

the first, there's no question -- there wasident a clear signal to the shah about using military force. a divisionre was between the secretary of state and the national security advisor who wanted a harder line. give ronaldand i reagan full credit in the book, for bringing the soviet union to his knees. but we used the soft power of human rights and hard power. reagan reversed the post-vietnam decline in defense spending. every single weapon system ronald reagan deployed against the soviets -- the long-range

cruise missile, the stealth bomber, intermediate nuclear forces in europe -- every single one of those was greenlighted and started by jimmy carter. and after the afghan invasion, ,hich collided with this crisis christmas day 1979 right after the hostage crisis, the soviets invade afghanistan and even his conservative critics say it was carter's finest hour. ,ncreased defense spending great embarq of even before the iowa caucuses against the opposition, the boycott of the olympics. we did use hard power. let's go to london watching on the parliament channel. good afternoon to you. caller: good afternoon to you. thank you for taking my call.

what they have learned, the best way is for them to react slowly. strategy.ccessful they will take 15 months to return the punch. by that time, the adversary will be distracted by something else. this was the strategy of the islamic republic. it started with the hostages in 1979. , that evendline set today is the state department strategy. host: john limbert, i will get your reaction. guest: it's an interesting point. andsurvival of the islam republic for 40 years has caught

observers -- islam at the public for 40 years is caught a lot of observers by surprise. happend not expect it to . there was the eight-year bloody war with iraq, the economic catastrophe, international isolation, all of these things have not brought down the islamic republic and it's very clear the priority of those in survival.their own their survival in power in they will make the kind of compromises they need to do. they may say never. , but forhuff and puff example, in 1988, khomeini himself agreed to a cease-fire

with saddam hussein, something he said he would never do. he only did it after tremendous cost. but the story is his advisors went to him and said, sir, we are finished. we are broke. we don't have the people. we have to get the best deal that we can. retreat,eed to make a and i think the supreme leader phrasei has used the "her heroic flexibility -- "her roicic flexibility -- "he flexibility" in this regard. they used events like the hostage crisis to cement their own power. one of my students said, this is not about you.

this is not about america. this is not about the shah. is not about settling scores. this is about ourselves. we want to push out the leftists, which they did. when i say we, i am talking about the religious seller, the effectivelyand very they use these events to crush opposition and to monopolize power for themselves and they have done it for 40 years. on? i willll they go not predict. my record is not very good, but the problem they have, of course who took power and

consolidate power in 1979 in 1980, some of them are still there. they are still alive and still in power. host: stuart eizenstat? one of the lessons i draw from this whole episode is that iranians,ranian's -- you can't simply negotiate without some force behind you. , whichthe military use we took off the table or a real sanctions regime. about thene thinks nuclear negotiation during the obama administration, which i think was a positive, was the

only reason be a ring is even came to the table was they refused to let international transactions be cleared through the swiss system -- unfortunately we were not able to get our allies to do it. they continued business with iran. they continued. 11 deals with iran, they are master negotiators. they play chess. chess was invented by the persians. they will continue to play chess with you. that is one of the lessons i learned. host: what was the algiers accord? in august of 1980 there was essentially an agreement. died in, after the shah

july -- late july, i believe, he called in his advisors and said settle this. .ettle the hostage crisis enlisted one of his relatives who had good relations with the german spirit of the story goes one of his advisors came back to him and said, sir if we settle this we will have to make look toons and khomeini him and said, what part of "settle it" don't you understand? months, and four eventually the mediation shifted from the germans to the algerians and i salute the algerians. they did a super herb job. , and over thatal

for months, that was the agreement that was reached. host: this is what he said in a 1996 interview in our studios. [video clip] back, but part of was the algiers , that none of the hostages would be permitted to file suit for further damages against the government of iran. we signed onto that. worn christopher signed onto that -- warren christopher signed onto that. hostages were concerned about that. we felt we were denied a sick human rights -- basic human rights. we were doing what we can, at first legally, and now through the congress to see if an

arrangement cannot be made to permit us to gain some degree of from the government of iran for the way we were held and treated in violation of all the principles of diplomacy. that was the bottom line. chris -- seek relief on that count in particular. by the way, he died earlier this year. stuart eizenstat? guest: it's a very good point. we had an agreement basically in august. the human emission would come and -- the u.n. commission would come and interview. what changed it was the invasion iraq, which they

thought we engineered. second, i totally sympathize with what reuss said. one of the most difficult we gave up the right for the hostages to sue. i wish that did not happen. it was necessary to get the deal done and i wish we had given some of the 10 million dollars in assets and given it to the hostages and their families. in fact, this was done fairly recently by the congress, but bruce is correct. it was a terrible trade-off. but it's not as though we did not get something for it. not only did we get the hostages out, but we kept frozen assets to satisfy claims by companies who made sales to iran and never been paid. host: final word. guest: as i understand the negotiations, this clause in the

agreement that we be prevented from being sued, president carter did not want to agree. i understand he was assured by his lawyers this would never stand up in court. this was under duress. it has stood up in court. for 40 years, it has stood up in court. i would finally save the real damage from this -- what ever you think about what happened -- it it did immeasurable damage to iran. all indications, the government there continues to do so and continues to take hostages. nationals, foreign citizens and others.

have they learned nothing, because they continue. john lindberg, one of the american hostages held. , negotiating with iran, wrestling with the ghost of history. a front row seat from here in washington. >> thank you. >> up next, the documentary from ,anada released back in 1989 444 days to freedom. that is coming up next. morning.ck tomorrow our coverage from iowa begins

today. the president is in kentucky in advance of the election there on tuesday. all of our coverage available online any time c-span.org. have a great week ahead. ♪ [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] >> next is newsmakers. mike johnson is the chair of the republican study committee. the senate foreign relations committee considers the nomination of john sullivan

to be the u.s. ambassador to russia. then washington journal on the 40th anniversary of the iran hostage crisis. >> andrew yang is traveling to iowa to hold a townhall meeting. all of mine at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. president trump holds a campaign rally in lexington kentucky. atight on q and a, looking chief justice john roberts. a litigator in the law firm -- in separate caucus

rooms, we do not serve one party or one interest. you look under the hood it is hard to do that sometimes. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. host: this week on "newsmakers," congressman mike johnson, a republican of louisiana. take for being with us. rep. johnson: thank you for having me. host: we also have scott wong, who covers capitol hill with the hill newspaper, and kathy mcmanus, also a capitol hill reporter.