tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 20, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
the american prospect. her recent story looks at planned parenthood and the abortion debate after the supreme court decision in role wade.ghed -- in roe v. face a gravee to situation i iran where our embassy has been seized and more citizens arecan held as hostages in an attempt to force unacceptable demands on our country. are using every available channel to protect the safety of the hostages and secure their release. ♪ good morning. the year was 1979. it was an angry mob of young iranians that had taken hostage
more than 60 americans. 52 were held for 442 days at the u.s. embassy in tehran. it was on this day when the hostages were released. we will begin with your memories of that time in american history. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. join us on twitter at c-spanwj facebook.com/c-span. as many of you remember from president jimmy carter froze iranian assets and cut off diplomatic ties with the country in hopes of getting those hostages returned. in april of 1980, the president attended -- attempted a rescue mission.
82 servicemen were killed when a u.s. helicopter and transport airplane failed. let's show jimmy carter taking responsibility for the failed attempt. [video clip] have the my attempt to rescue mission. it was my decision to cancel it. problems developed. responsibility for the safety and early release of the american hostages. the safe release at the earliest date possible. on january 20,en 1980 one when those hostages were released. of the the front page
des moines tribune. "they are free" is the headline from 1981. below that is the headline of ronald reagan being sworn in on that day. january 20, 1981 -- the same day the hostages were released. thoughts, and impressions of that time. john in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. an interesting anniversary. first, i'm not sure how many people know the history of that. what has led up to it. we went into iran in 1953 for their oil. --had a democrat he is democratically elected president
those overturned by the u.s. with help from the iranians. shaw, who sethe up one of the most evil secret -gangs there ever was. we were surprised in 1979 the iranians took hostages. you have to know the whole story. the shower was not good. good. shaw was not we got ronald reagan as a result. it is a strange thing. the effects of reagan overshadow us today, unfortunately. host: why do you say "unfortunately?" you believe it was the hostage situation that led to jimmy carter not being reelected? the rescuee at
attempt with the helicopters where sand or dust got into the engines. they crashed, i forget how many were killed -- a dozen or two dozen. host: 8. caller: it paved the way for reagan. that way we got trickle down economics, which is the horrible mess we are in today. host: do remember in 1981 when the hostages were released? it was a surprise, and i thought it was a complete sham that at reagan's inauguration he announced a hostages had been released when carter had been working on it for a long time. he set the stage. the story i heard was that the iranians were upset with carter and the administration because they tried to rescue. they were going to rub his nose in the sand. and let reagan take the credit. at 10:00s saturday
p.m. and sunday at 4:00 p.m., reel america will show events from the hostage crisis. we have video from events during that time. i want to show you and the rest of our viewers the programming from jimmy carter on january 2019 80 one in the oval office working the phones as he is 20, 1981- on january in the oval office working the phones as he is getting the information as the airplane is about to take off. [video clip] >> we are getting word from a , sayingt country, iran at 8:13 this morning that he would inform them when the plane leaves. that is the first
america. jimmy carter in the oval office the day -- later on that day. ronald reagan things sworn into office. farmington new mexico. good morning. caller: i agree with the first caller. everything he said was direct. host: what do you remember? i was young, but i remember it because there were so many americans. breaking into the embassy, a bunch of young iranians. took them hostage. kept them for over a year. 440 four days.
what was your impression of jimmy carter at the time. thought he did everything he could. he is the one that got them released in actuality. reagan just took credit. go. would not let them the deal had already been made. they would not let them go until jimmy carter got on the plane. daniel in riverdale, georgia. good morning. what are your thoughts on this part of our american history. caller: good morning, c-span. about what happened in iran and -- i think chronologically, when president into thet the shaw country for medical reasons, this is when they took over the embassy.
host: yes. daniel, i apologize. you are breaking up. we will move on to bob and alexandria, louisiana. a republican. caller: good morning, to you. i have never heard of this before. host: what you mean, bob? i'm kind of ahat history buff. i'd never heard of the iranian hostage crisis. host: a little facetiousness there, i detect. some of you know because the prisoners were released recently, the terms the obama administration negotiated, some of the republicans have been critical of the president and what he negotiated.
they have pointed to what ronald during the iran hostage crisis. this is from three days ago, marco rubio and others are wrongly crediting ronald reagan of hostages release from iran. as news of the release of the prisoners spread, republicans were quick to deny president obama credit for the deal. marco rubio said our enemies know that if you capture an american you can get something meaningful in exchange. he said when i become president, our adversaries will know america is no longer under the command of someone weak like president obama, and it will be like ronald reagan when the hostages were released. the gop talking point that we have debunked before. in 2012, mitt romney believed that it was what ronald reagan called peace through strength. related his claims then. in 1979, islamic revolutionaries thathrew the shaw of iran
had been installed through american administrations and held 52 american hostages until january 20, 1981. the day that carter passed the reins to reagan with widespread republican approval of carter's --roval of the christ carter's negotiation of the crisis. the iranians contacted with a proposal. led to thent that release involved in 11 billion dollars in iranian assets that carter had frozen 10 days after the seizure of the u.s. embassy. the iranians feared having to start negotiations over with the new administration, and believe they had extracted most of the benefits from holding the hostages. we turn to you with your impressions. in spokane, washington, an independent. caller: i remember this.
we followed this in school every day. host: every day? caller: i'm sorry, ma'am? host: every day, you follow this in school? caller: yes, we did. host: were you a teacher? caller: i was in the fourth grade. at first jimmy carter was up on the polls. to get theng hostages back. as the election went on and the election date came closer and closer, he lost support. i remember a lot of people believed that when the republicans went to the iranians behind the democrats back and told them if you hold on to the hostages, we will give you a better deal. then came oliver north and the arms for hostages scandal that came out in the 1980's. before this, iran was our closest ally in the middle east. so much so that president nixon
put some of our printing press is there to make money. one thing the iranians did to upset us was pre-parenting -- pretty printing money and flooding it into the world market. host: did your teachers update you on what was happening during the iran hostage? a classwe would have discussion. we watch the news, take notes, and we would go ahead and get news clippings out of the newspapers. we would discuss it amongst ourselves. this was right after via tom -- after vietnam. the morale of the country was weak. world politics, i was an army brat. my old man died in vietnam. he was a company commander for the second ranger battalion. he died in vietnam. me and my group of friends watched world events. i am an iraqi veteran.
when it was my time, i went. host: how old were you during the hostage crisis, 1979, 1980, 1981. caller: i was about 12. ken, goodgood -- morning. caller: i was calling to say that i remember very well that they waited until ronald reagan was sworn in. he was governor at the time. iranians, thathe he was not going to negotiate. that they were going to start negotiations over. he put it bluntly that he was not going to negotiate like president carter did. host: so you believe it was -- the idea of the reagan
administration coming in, is the reason that iranians -- caller: they saw that he wasn't going to be a jimmy carter. which, you know, they kind of we need to do something here. i don't know why they held them for so long. i don't know what they were trying to get. .heir money was frozen the government's money was frozen up. carter, he kind of through the shaw under the bus when they were having the uprisings in i believe it was 1978 or 1977. i remember that. i was i believe, 15 at the time that that happened. he did not help the shaw out. you could have sent in cia --
host: according to the cnn timeline, the shaw's authoritarian rule in 1978 sparked demonstrations and riots. in 1979 he fled iran and went to egypt. in october of 1979, the shot receivethe u.s. to medical treatment for cancer sparking an angry reaction from young iranians that stormed the u.s. embassy to getting the hostage situation. the militants are supported why the ayatollah at the time. he takes over the hostage situation at the embassy. 20,days later, january 1981, the hostages are released -- 34th31st anniversary anniversary. what was your impression of the president during the situation
at the time? keep calling in. i want to share headlines. as many of you probably know, candidateor and vp sarah palin endorsed donald trump. trump makes a push in iowa. he told iowans yesterday, his supporters, the last picked a candidate that would win in 2000. he said if they pick someone other than me they will pick another loser, he warned iowa voters. ted cruz and donald trump are that state.k in [video clip] sarah palin: only one candidate proves he is master of the deal. he is beholden to no one but we the people. he is positioned to let you make
america great again. are you ready for that, iowa? [applause] no more pussyfooting around. our troops deserve the best, you deserve the best. sector,om the private not a politician. can i get a hallelujah? >> hallelujah. the private in theor you have to balance budget and prioritize to keep the main thing the main thing. the president has to keep us safe economically and militarily. he knows how to lead the charge. troops, hang in there. better than anyone, isn't he known for being able to command fire? host: sarah palin with donald
trump in iowa. if you want to watch the whole thing, it is part of our road to the white house coverage on c-span.org. courtesy of the museum in washington, i am with stupid, is their headline. of a feather flock together. sarah palin endorses donald trump in a rambling speech on tuesday, is what the daily news had to say. the washington times notes that ted cruz will get the endorsement of another tea party favorite, glenn beck. he will be doing that today, that is in the washington times. share usant to today's editorial board. they are weighing in on the back and forth between hillary clinton and bernie sanders over medicare and some of bernie sanders' other proposals. they say that a progressive pipe dream marring sanders' agenda. lesson for all
democrats is clear. if the radical changes could not get through in 2009 and 2010 would democrats had a majority and the financial crisis was fresh, they aren't going anywhere now. in november, they say a group would be likely to be twice the size of the electorate in primaries and caucuses is less interested in revolutions and pipe dreams then they are in a candidate with practical solutions for improving their everyday lives. the washington post's editorial board says "level with us, mr. the cost is leveled on sketchy price estimates." more on campaign 2016 coming up arehe journal, but we spending the first part of the morning talking to you about american history when the hostages were released after being in prison after being held
hostage for more than a year at the embassy in tehran on this day, january 20. what do you remember? released remember they the hostages right after the swearing in. carter wasresident no longer in office. i think that was, you know, an insult to him. he did do the negotiations. president-elect reagan had told him that they were going to restart negotiations. it kind of scared them. he is not playing. which he wasn't. host: what was your impression of president carter at the time? caller: he was a weak president.
host: why? man, inhe was a good his heart, i believe. he was actually a smart man. know, an engineer. host: he just came across as weak to you? caller: yes, he was, a weak president. if you remember, interest rates skyrocketed during his administration. ford.ely beat president it was down to the last few days. guess president ford, people were tired of watergate. they wanted a change. the change, i know carter, i don't know him, but he is a good man, but not a good leader.
the debateber between him and ronald reagan at the time? the campaign? caller: yes. yes, i am not old. host: what was your impression of how ronald reagan used that situation? caller: t plate -- he played it up a lot. the country was really upset about it. tried to rescue mission, which was a disaster. claw is it, eagle believe they called it? all of those soldiers were killed in the desert. they had to leave the bodies to get out of there. the iranians returned them, which was fortunate for the
families. the whole deal with his presidency -- that is why it was one term. he was not a good presidential leader, which, you know, at the time, he had a lot going on. as i was saying, he threw the shaw under the bus and abandoned him after he supported us. there.bases listening to advice from russia, this was during the cold war where i was worried about it, ,ou know, as he young man teenager. i was like, oh, man, is this going to happen? host: i will leave it there to hear other voices.
michigan, you are next, charles. good morning. caller: good morning. i was on a carrier at that time in 1980. i remember when we went over paint racing to stripes on our aircraft to make sure that our aircraft was identified. they had the same kind of aircraft that we could have gotten confused with. we did not know at the time that when our people left, they took away from the iranians that made the aircraft fly correctly. we never had problems. i remember the night that we did the rescue attempt. i got off at midnight off of bridge watch. i watch the helicopters leave that night. the helicopters leave that night. i was on the carrier. we did not have the communications we had today.
we did not know until after the fact what happened. until we got back to the states, we were -- we did not know what was going on. we were just there. they kept us in the dark. host: what carrier were you on? you were in the navy, i assume? nimets.carrier host: for you a navy officer? caller: i was enlisted. at that time i believe i was an e-3. at the time.man as they sent up the helicopters were taking off, like i said, i just got off watch just before midnight. military people could watch some flight ops. i snuck up there and watch the helicopters leave. host: you did not know what the mission was? caller: we knew that there was
going to be a rescue mission. what happened after that, we did not know until later on. reidsville, wisconsin. -- what wast was your impression of the administration of your time -- administration at that time. what was your impression? caller: we did not hear nothing going on. back,mber when i got we stayed there for over 140 something days without seeing land. most everything was all over with when we were relieved. i barely remember the little bit of the elections. a carrier is meant to be out to sea. we were out almost
constantly. very weakr was on leadership but such an honest man everybody took advantage of him as far as i was concerned. an independent serving at the time. we will get more of these calls and. i want to leave in some news -- i want to we vince some news this morning. the supreme court decided it will rule on president obama's executive action on immigration. one last shot to protect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation in the middle of an election year. willourt's agreement add fuel to the debate
paul ryan sweeting -- paul ryan tweeting. thetor john bozeman saying supreme court will take up this case. it says it is one of -- arkansas is one of 26 states to challenge this overreach by potus. also on twitter, the reaction from representative mike kelly. saying confident that -- nanci pelosi saying, confident that scotus will recognize the legality and necessity o. cumbersome ancommerce and gutiez said we expected scotus to take
.p executive actions cumbersome an becerra.an hobb javier some reaction on capitol hill to what the supreme court did yesterday. this from the wall street journal this morning. new scrutiny is on clinton's e-mails. e-mails contain national security information classified at some of the highest levels of according to a new review by a government watchdog. a letter from inspector general charles mccullough finds that contains a type of highly classified intelligence information beyond top-secret. military operations or other
highly sensitive government information. in a separate review, mr. mcculloch's office found top-secret information on mrs. clinton's home server. the intelligence committee now believes even more highly classified information was on that server. , iowan campaign 2016 news is in two weeks followed by new hampshire. this from the wall street journal. an unorthodox playbook is aiding john kasich. he is second place behind esther trump in ohio and some of the polls coming out of there. we'll go to patty in wisconsin. we are talking about 1981. 35 years ago on this day when the hostages -- the iranian hostages were released. caller: good morning.
i remember it well. i am 70 years old. i would have been 35 at the time. i was glued to the news and i was so thankful when the hostages were released. i dad told me during world war ii they brought german and italian prisoners here and one of his duties was to guard them. after the war they were released. we have to remember we have guantanamo bay. upscooped these individuals and brought them to guantanamo bay and tortured them. it needs to be closed. when we point our fingers at other countries, we have to remember what were doing. thank you for c-span. host: todd and robinson, illinois. share your thoughts. caller: good morning. historyo talk about the of what the united states's role
in this iranian thing is. in the 1950's there was a guy named dr. moz a deck and he was elected democratically as the president. tapsnt to shut off the oil for the western countries who had taken over his oil. he nationalized the oilfields. states,in the united they backed a coup d'etat and installed the shop of iran -- the shah of iran. the iranians had enough of this evil man the americans propped up and they took our hostages. i'm not saying they did the right thing. trying to put it in context. if someone did that here, someone came here and backed a coup d'etat, we would be pretty mad. we would be upset with these people. -- his team through back
channels got with the iranians and said we know you dealt with carter all this time. wait until reagan is the president. and then give them back. everything is there for you to read. all you have to do is look it up. host: we read earlier the little fact three days ago set the claim that this appearance of strength by reagan -- the iranians said we do not want to deal with him or start negotiations all over so they freed the hostages on the day that he was inaugurated. they say that -- to give ronald reagan credit is not accurate. something that republican candidates have done. they say they wrongly credit him and they point to a historian that says the agreement that led to the release involved 11 billion to 12 billion --
this historian says that the iranians fear having to start negotiations over with a new administration and felt they had extracted most of the benefits from the hostages. caller: i think that makes perfect sense. it does. you don't get something for nothing. not in this world. ofs is just another example the unintended consequences of american foreign-policy. our mideast policy has been wrong since day one. we are so far from these people and we tried to tell them what .o do and how to live host: you just said you cannot get some good for nothing. you agree with the obama administration did hear to get the prisoners released? look, you have not
talked with these people or had diplomatic relations with these people for 30 plus years. i don't agree with everything president obama does. i do not think he is a good president at all. at least he took the steps to open diplomatic relations again. start talking with people. we will never defeat them with guns and bombs. you have to be able to talk to people. that's all there is to it. host: i want to share this headline in the washington times based on yesterday's daily news briefing with the white house press secretary. the white house says no ransom was paid to iran. they say the $1.7 billion payment was not part of the prisoner release. the u.s. accepted about $400 million in payments from iran in a military deal in the 1970's but the equipment was never delivered to tehran after the iranian revolution.
as we are talking about, held dozens of americans. the money was held in escrow. the white house dismissed accusations that the u.s. paid iran $1.7 billion today as a rates him to gain release of american prisoners. that is how it relates to the papers. getting your thoughts and memories on what was happening during the iran hostage crisis. it was today, 35 years ago that the hostages were released after being held for 444 days. getting your impressions of that time and of the leadership at the time as well. more of your phone calls coming up. front page of the washington post, russian airstrikes are --ping bush are all aside ashar aling bush are al
assad. that in the washington post this morning. a meeting is taking place today between john kerry and the russian foreign minister. they are expected to hammer out the differences at a meeting in zurich five days before the scheduled start of talks in geneva. that in the papers this morning as well. so many of you have mentioned how this played out in 1980 during the presidential race. ronald reagan taking over the oval office on january 20, 1981. the day the prisoners were released. this was obviously part of the debate then and the debate over who should be -- whether or not jimmy carter should get another four years in office.
of course, the two debated during the presidential campaign in 1980. i want to show you a back and forth at one of those debates when the two were asked about the hostage situation. >> had iran not taken american hostages i assume we would war brokeed -- once out between iraq and iran. we are asking to lift the ban to let our people come home. 't this reward terrorism and possibly antagonized nations now friendly to us in the middle east? >> we will maintain our position of neutrality in the iran and iraq war. we have no plans to sell additional material or goods to iran that might be of a warlike nature. when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a result of a taking of our hostages, i announced then and have
maintained since then that if the hostages are released safely we would make delivery on those items which iran owns which they have bought and paid for. also at the frozen iranian assets would be released. that has been a consistent policy. when i intend to carry out. >> could you repeat the question for governor reagan? the eyes of the country remain on the hostages in iran. goes beyond this crisis. there are other countries that have policies that determine how they will respond. israel considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen and what have we learned from this experience in iran that my cause us to do things differently if this was something similar -- if this or something similar should happen again? >> i think you have to have at least one answer to it.
you asked that question twice. i have been accused of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. this comes from an answer i have made at least 50 times during this campaign to the press. the question would be, have you any ideas of what you would do if you were there. i said, yes. i think anyone seeking this position as well as other people probably have thought to themselves, what about this, what about that. these are just ideas of what i would think of if i were in that position and had access to the information in which i would know all the options open to me. i have never answered the ,uestion, the one that says what are some of those ideas. i would be fearful that i might say something that was presently underway or in negotiations and thus expose it and endanger the hostages. and sometimes i think some of my ideas might involve quiet diplomacy where you don't say in
advance or say to anyone what it is you are thinking of doing. your question is difficult to answer because in the situation right now no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay in any way the return of those hostages if there is a chance they are coming home soon or that might cause them harm. what i do think should be done, once there safely here with their families and that tragedies over and we have , then ithis humiliation think it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why have they been there so long, and when they come home, what did we have to do in order to bring that about. i would suggest congress should hold such investigation. in the meantime i will continue
praying that will come home. host: the height of the presidential debate. october of 1980. incumbent jimmy carter who did not win reelection and the governor of california, ronald reagan. talking about the iran hostage situation. released,ages were the same day ronald reagan was inaugurated. we are getting your impressions and thoughts on that this morning. a few minutes left for this conversation. time magazine with the headline, 36 years after the iran hostage crisis, americans will receive compensation. the american citizens held captive for more than a year during this crisis are set to receive compensation decades later. u.s. lawmakers passed legislation recently enabling payments to be completed. the 53 former hostages will do given up to $4.4 million each or
$10,000 for each of the 444 days they were held. the crisis began when the iranian students, militants besieged the u.s. embassy in tehran. 60 were captured. press -- they held onto 52 of the hostages for former 44 days. we will go to ron in california. welcome to the conversation. caller: thanks. we'd better get some historical perspective on this. i remember vividly. let's start off with the bumbling ford administration. how jimmy carter got to being president was because of ford's
bumbling. if you watched chevy chase on saturday night live, that was part of it. people were upset. carter, carter is the worst president we had lbj. the guy has no good people around him, surrounding him. as a result of that, he made constant mistakes. we did not go to the lipids in 1976 because russians went into afghanistan. in 1976 the olympics because russians went into afghanistan. whole place was coming apart. i remember being in a coffee shop in late 1979 when the people are going, are the russians landing their aircraft carrier off of california coast. it was crazy. when reagan came in, he came in
with a strong team. alexander haig was one of the strongest secretaries of state ever. he called that resident and said , you take care of this hostage situation or else. he says we have all your codes. that was all these rumors that were about what happened with reagan are actually true. he is the one that said if you do not release those hostages you will not get a dime in anything we do. he did it as he said in that .omment when barbara walters was interviewing. he did it behind the scenes. he did not take a bunch of credit for it. he said as long as we get the hostages back, that is fine. .hat is what happened i was there and i heard it and everybody else did. host: you mentioned this is why jimmy carter did not win reelection. jimmy carter was diagnosed with cancer and he was -- back in
august he held a news conference. he is now cancer free after getting treatment. during this news conference where he is talking about his diagnosis, he was asked by a reporter about any regrets. take a listen. [video clip] >> anything you wish you had done differently? >> i wish i had sent more helicopters to get the hostages. i would've been reelected. [laughter] >> that may have interfered with the foundation of the carter center. if i had to choose between four more years or the carter center i think it would choose the carter center. back inmmy carter august. he said, maybe i should have sent one more helicopter. talking about the iran hostage crisis. they were released in 1981 on this day on january 20. kevin in florida, what do you remember about that?
caller: top of the morning to you. host: good morning. caller: i was a young man who served in the united states navy on board the uss constellation. 110 days at sea. i thought we had the record. gonzo station. we set out there for 110 days at the farthest reach of supplies. i served under each commander in chief, ronald reagan and jimmy carter. in my opinion, reagan got the hostages back due to the fact that when he got elected iran knew we were coming. , wee we were there 110 days were refueling with the uss sacramento, 11 million gallons of diesel fuel marine. and can only other side with hoses reaching across to each ship. we were run into by a liberian freighter. an iranian flag.
but a gash down our freighter. we were relieved by the man that called earlier. bizarre.think it is all over again with the iranian hostages and the weakness of obama. trump 2016. we have to make america great again. host: you see donald trump as being strong in the way that you think ronald reagan was? caller: exactly. host: kevin in lakeland, florida. at the time you were in the navy? were you an officer? caller: i was a petty officer second class. boiler technician. 30 feet below the water level on the aircraft carrier. i was on the constellation for four years under jimmy carter and reagan came on. the contrast between democrat jimmy carter and republican
ronald reagan. in my opinion, jimmy carter's weakness caused the crisis. just like obama's weaknesses -- even though he has the world peace award, what a legacy he is leaving. i hope trump can clean it up. new york area share your impressions with us. caller: thanks. i could not disagree more with the last caller. i was in my late 30's. i was a working mother. the hostage crisis was on tv all the time. it was the birth of nightline and ted koppel. they had how many days of people held hostage. a lot of emotion. it was inflation.
people -- because of the economy -- theypeople wanted to saw jimmy carter as weak. he was working on this every single day of his presidency. he got those people back and the hostages were not killed. the thing that was so unfortunate is, he says he wished he had another helicopter he would have sent and he should have probably. or else he would have been a hero because they would have come back. a lot of emotion just like there is now. i see nightline as the beginning of the cable news culture where everything has got to be magical and simplistic and reagan got this credit. he did nothing for this. he did not do anything and jimmy carter worked on this like crazy. it was a very difficult situation. he got those people back.
the same thing with obama right now. the -- has done with talking with iran. it is wonderful. he has got strength. host: are you a lifelong democrat? caller: a lifelong democrat. yes. i hated jimmy carter at the time . i was swept up in the emotion. people can get swept up in emotion and not see the forest. every single night they did nightline. every night. he had so much pressure. those two articles you read about jimmy carter and what the real deal was, they are accurate . he is the one that worked on this. obama, someday, we'll get the
credit. host: we have to leave it there. thanks for calling in, sharing your thoughts about the iran hostage crisis and what happened on this day 35 years ago. american history tv will be featuring this as well on their reel america -- their america program. when we come back, we'll talk with adam green, cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee. we will talk about the progressivist agenda. later we will be joined by dr. russell moore, president of the southern baptist convention. we will talk about the role of christian conservatives in the 2016 elections. let me show you the front page of the detroit free press this morning. snyder apologizes, the michigan governor. he will release his e-mails that relate to the flint water crisis . yesterday in his state of the state address to his state, here
is what he had to say about the situation. [video clip] >> i'd like to address the people flint. your family's basic crisis you did -- your family's basic crisis you did not create and could not have prevented. i want to speak directly, honestly, and sincerely to let you know we are praying for you, working hard for you, and we are absolutely committed to taking the right steps to effectively solve this crisis. to you or the people of flint, i say tonight, as i have before, i am sorry and i will fix it. government failed you. federal, state, and local leaders, but breaking the trust you place in us. i'm sorry most of all that i let you down. you deserve better. you deserve accountability. you deserve to know that the
buck stops here with me. most of all, you deserve to know the truth. i have a responsibility to tell the truth. the truth about what we have done and what we will do to overcome this challenge. tomorrow i will release my 2014 and 2015 e-mails regarding flint to you. you'll have answers to your questions about what we have done and what we are doing to make this right for the families of flint. anyone will be able to read this information for themselves. michigan.gov/snyder. the most important thing we can do right now is to work hard and work together for the people flint. host: we are covering many of the state of the state addresses by the governors, including last night's state of the state by
the michigan governor. if you want to hear everything he had to say, go to c-span.org. you can see his and others on our website. in our studio this morning, adam green, cofounder of the aggressive change committee. -- the progressive change committee. what is your prediction? guest: it is all a matter of inspiring people at this point. we have been encouraged by a race to the top on a lot of issues. whoever has a stronger message going into the caucuses with up that dayng thinking, -- host: who does your group think that is? guest: we have had a clear mission to work and engage with all presidential campaigns privately and publicly and set up a system of incentives. one year ago today there were
zero politicians who supported the goal of debt-free college. today, all three candidates have their own plans to do it. we have 100 members of congress on board. it was unthinkable all caps dates would be talking about jailing wall street bankers and a picture systemic reform. ownthree have their variations of expanding social security benefits. we hope that in the final two weeks we stay focused on substance. host: bernie sanders has been critical of the former secretary of state saying she gets paid big fees to speak to corporations, to wall street. does that concern you? guest: it has concerned us. part of our point this year was the burden of proof is higher on her given that she has taken multi-hundred thousand dollars fees.
it is notable that she is talking about breaking up the big banks. she and bernie sanders have different ways of doing it. i think it is a legitimate line of critique. we are happy there is not a division in the democratic party right now whether to big to fail should be addressed. there's a question of how to do it. host: another issue is health care. the back and forth between the vermont senator and former secretary of state on this issue of medicare for all. [video clip] >> secretary clinton did not answer your question. what her campaign was saying, bernie sanders who has fought for universal health care for my entire life, he wants to end medicare and medicaid and the children health insurance program. that is nonsense. what a medicare for all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman, and child as a right. the truth is that frank lindh
delano roosevelt, harry truman, they believed that health care should be available to all of our people. i am on the committee that wrote the formal care. i voted for it. but right now, what we have to deal with is the fact that 29 million people still have no healthy insurance. we obtained the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and it ripped off. and here's the important point. we are spending far more per person on health care than any other people in the country. i want to get private insurance out of health insurance, lower the coast of health care for middle class family by $5,000. that's the vision we need to take. >> i have to say i'm not sure whether we're talking about the plan you just introduced tonight or we're talking about the plan you introduced nine times in the
congress, but the fact is, we have the affordable care act. that is one of the greatest accomplishments of president obama, of the democratic party and of our country -- [applause] and we have already seen 19 million americans get insurance. we have seen the end of pre-existing conditions keeping people from getting insurance. we have seen -- [applause] -- women pay nothing more for our insurance than men. there are things we can do to improve it but to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of contentious debate, i think is the wrong direction. host: adam green, the opinion page they can editorial views of the "u.s.a. today" says on this back and forth between the two candidates that it's not realistic. bernie sanders' plan is not realistic and that it could cost
the government $14 trillion over a decade and more -- or more than 10 times the price of obama care. guest: that's a very long clip and i am going to have a few thoughts about it. host: go ahead. -- : our goal for the dem democratic party is there are what is that the corporate democrats of the world largely have been sidelined and as long as we can leave this with some consensus, that's good. to give hillary clinton some credit first. the critique on bernie sanders on the gun issue. it was fair game and it was a contrast from the progressive perspective, holding corpses more accountable. and i'm very happy that he has now said he will get rid of that immunity and we have peace in the land. we have a united democratic party. on this conflicts surprised by this line of contrast with sanders.
and in the dem accuratic primary, those numbers are be higher. i thought that was a weird line of attack. practically, i didn't hear bernie sanders saying he would do this in his first year. it's ironic that they were pressuring him of the plan. that was symbolic that he was not priority rising this issue. many progressive, some version of medicare for all is the north star that we are going towards. do we want some version of that? yes. but sure. we just had a big fight and for now, there will be improvements on the way. hopefully, going into iowa, there's intellectual honesty and
more contrast from the progressive viewpoint and not demeaning medicare for all. host: let's get the calm george in louisville, kentucky, democrat. hi, george. caller: hi, greta. hi, adam. good morning. while this is something i thought about for a long time, we always talk about free market, free world, free choice, it's a free country. our minds are so polluted with the word free that we can't see the conditions around us. if you have a major investor who is seeking to make an investment in a change somewhere be it a restaurant or a department store or whatnot, we would never -- a company would never unnerve or upset the customer. we would never tell a customer of retail outlet or restaurant chain or whatnot, well, if you don't like it here, you can go elsewhere. but the person who works every day out there in the retailer
environment who has the least amount of autonomy, who had to petition their job, loves free market, free choice, if you don't like it, you could go elsewhere and they had to apply for that job and hope their petition gets picked. but of the consumer, the investor or the worker, the consumer didn't have to apply for it to be a consumer. the investor didn't have to apply. but they have the most autonomy. the worker has the least amount of autonomy. and we realize the working conditions for people have eroded over the few decades in the supply side. employers have too much of leverage over employees so much we need something like workers lives matter. there's too much employer abuse in employees. taos too many underpaid people. and this is what we need. host: ok, george. all right, adam green? guest: workers lives matter. you might just made a claim
there. hashtag it. there was a rising populous tide in america on the republican side and democratic side. what separates 2016 and 2008 that we're living in this populous moment? and there should be a pro worker agenda. whether it's expanding social security benefits for workers after they retire or liberate people to take the job that they want and not be shackled with debt. whether it's wall street reform to ensure the corporations are not ripping people off or whether it's just basic union rights collective bargaining, these are things that our next president needs to address. fundamentally, you're right. hopefully, people wake up on election day both in the primary and the general think about these things. and if democrats elevate this, the general will win this handily. host: ed, independent from
washington. caller: yeah. we need a national sales tax, you know. people come on over more. and they don't get benefits and then they contribute to the sales tax, that would help a lot. in europe, you can get health care. you get education. aren't those good things? i mean, should we tax bad things? and reward and give good things? host: mr. green? guest: i want to say something really controversial here. we should reward good things. that's what we should do. so your fundamental point of, you know, aligning a --? the marketplace makes sense. the sale tax is regressive. that has a lot more meaning to a poor person than a rich person. if beer going to do tax reform
the preference of most americans is if we ask the rich and corporations to pay their fair share. let's solve that before we apply a new sales tax to everyday goods in the supermarket. there are many lobbyist in this town to save their plans tens of billons of dollars. let's solve that first. your core point is right. we need this money to invest in a debt-free college and public tools, roads, bridges, highways, and stuff like that. host: there is 12 days to go before the iowa caucus. so we're talking with progressive change campaign committee co-founder adam green about the presidential race, the democratic party and getting your questions and thoughts bout that.
i want to share this with our viewers as well, the "wall street journal" this morning. their editorial, "taking sanders seriously is what they say." and they point to hypothetical general election matchup between bernie sanders and donald trump and when polled, americans say, according to this "wall street journal" nbc poll, 54% would pick bernie sanders in that matchup. guest: people pay less attention to labels and how authentically they stand for those ideas. people are hurting this country. and we want the issues addressed. bernie sanders is putting those at the forefront. that would be a very interesting matchup to say the least. one thing that concerns me about donald trump, particularly if he's running against hillary clinton is we could have the 2016 election devolve into distraction issues as opposed to having a paddle of ideas. the fact that he would drive the question about whether he she
took a restroom break. he is petty but we don't gain anything in the long term by winning that way. we do win if we have a contrast of visions. if someone like ted cruz is also very dangerous but we might have an ideological battle. host: perhaps a more conventional republican would get in or perhaps elizabeth warren or joe biden. what do you think? guest: i don't think elizabeth warren. i don't think joe biden. i don't think michael bloomberg, but that would be interesting. elizabeth warren has played a really important role in this
racism she's not driving headlines every day but her influence has been looming over the entire 2016 election. and has been the north star that candidates have been walking towards on every issue and it's notable to me that pretty much on every issue she's called on presidential candidates, they've addressed quickly. for example at the convention last surges she addressed a bill that would explode the revolving door and the government regulate themselves. thin two weeks, the bill was endorsed. so elizabeth warren is content playing this influential role. host: do you know when she'll endorse? guest: i don't know but if something is working, keep going. and the fact that she has all candidates addressing her issues , it's a good scenario for her and her agenda. host: tim in alexander, ohio, democrat. you're next. caller: hi.
can i say this is why i love hillary, ok? the affordable care act is still new. it takes years for us to perfect them, right? and as a young person, i'm 28 years old. obama was the first person i was able to vote for. and by golly, i did and i believe in what he does and i believe in what he stands for and i believe that hillary will continue that. and she will make things better. and as for trump, that's a joke. host: ok. so kim, echoing something that hillary clinton says. i will -- she is saying i will defend president obama's administration and what he has done. guest: yeah. i don't think that's the contrast in this racism i think both candidates will both defend the affordable care act and many of the things in the progressive
direction that the president has one. she's battle scarred. she knows how to engage in battles and could both fight and cut deals with congress and move things forward. that's her core governing vision and there's experience mixed into that. bernie sanders has different governing vision. he says we needs a revolution. unlike president obama and some of the things that people -- ght would happen to him, bernie sanders seems to be saying even if i'm all alone in this town, i will galvanize my supporters and we're going to have a revolution and force congress to act. it's up to the people. which one meets the moment? but there's no doubt that at the time one would defend the
affordable care act or the things that president obama has done. how will they govern? what is their approach on these ssues? host: to florida. george arc republican. caller: good morning. before i ask you why you keep calling yourself progressives and socialism has failed over the last hundred years so miserably and you should be alling yourself progressers. a man called to me and he said bring me in all these refugees. they're going to all of a sudden ome into our political system. and you know so,-to-ask him that, everybody who comes here gets into our political system.
so you really showed something that you gave your hand away, but sir, you are definitely certainly a -- communist, there's no question about it. everything is marxism. now, what -- host: george, let's get a response to that. he says that everything you've said today is that you're a communist and marxism. guest: first, thank you. pretty much time every time i've gone on c-span, there's one person with that comment and you've checked that block and i appreciate it. when it comes to these issues, there's overwhelming consensus in america. not just democrats, it's republicans as well the idea at g.e. should not pay taxes is common sense. it's tough in d.c. to take on corps interests. they're paying finance bills and lobbyist. the idea of allowing students to
graduate without debt, possibly doing some work study, but also having aid from the state, pell grants, these are very popular position. and that means that anybody's children out there won't have to take some big corporate job means that the next google co-founder is free to form google without taking some off jobs somewhere else and it means people can start a family, buy a home, buy a car and not be shackled in our life. that's a common sense and the american dream. i would reject that. i call myself a bold progressive. there's about a million of us across the country who are part of this organization. and it really is. because we want to fight for the little guy. and if you ask even republicans or invoters, that's a consensus position. host: henderson, nevada, david, democrat there. caller: yeah. you said --
host: we're listening, david. all right. let me move on to allen in texas, independent. hi, allen. caller: hi, good morning. what i want to know is number one, we were told years ago that president roosevelt's fund could not run in the united states because he was born in canada. now, if mr. cruz was born in canada of an american mother that supposedly makes him an american citizen. well, then let's talk about the mexican lady that comes across the border and has a child. her child, then, is not an american citizen. her child is a mexican citizen. now, can we have it both ways? answer this for me. i'm 81 years old and somebody wants it both ways. what's the real way? i'll hang up and listen.
host: all right, adam green, the progressive group is weighing in over whether or not ted cruz can run for president. guest: we have not weighed in on that particular question. didn't quite hear the contrast in that question. it sounds like you're saying someone is born in america to mexican parent and they wouldn't be -- well their constitution says if you're born in america, you become an american citizen. you can dispute, you know, immigration policies but i don't think that's actually in question. host: and what is your group's stance on immigration? guest: we need comprehensive immigration reform. this whole secure the border thing first is a way to delay progress. and, you know, the network station was in arizona and there was a border tour type of thing that i went on there, seeing some of these immigration detention center up close and hearing from the families of those who were in there and what
became pattern was there's two systems of law. there's an actual system of law and an arcane system of law. someone could be at their job and whisked away and have no due process. and their families both aren't having that income and are missing their father or mother or both. it's really horrible. and that's partly why we need immigration reform to really kind of apply the set of rules that makes sense and they're not taking away from families from each other. if one were to enter this conversation in a good faith way and try to establish principles up front that we all should live by, i think one should be don't destroy families, right? people may have differing opinions on how to approach the question, but if somebody's advocating for taking a mother away from their kids or taking a child away from the rest of their family, a child who really has never lived in a different country but sending them back to a country because they happen to live there the first 12 days of
their life, that seems arcane and crazy to me. so i think there's a larger justice argument in play here. host: speaking of ted cruz, "politico" with this headline. many of you know sarah palin endorsing donald trump in iowa yesterday. the governor of iowa also asking voters to not vote for senator ted cruz. cruz hit back against governor terry branston. this is no surprise. he says that establishment this full panic mode. he told reporters we said that the washington cartel that the governor of iowa is concerned with that. you're going to see the cartel firing every shot that they can because i lives on cronyism. we will go to pike, a republican. hi, mike. caller: yes. yes, good morning, c-span. good morning, mr. green. get ready to check box one more time.
you sound, you know, progressive and sound good but what -- guest: thank you, thank you. caller: communism by evolution rather than by revolution. and c-span had somebody on yesterday pushing the progressive agenda who worked or the sore russ group and a had of months ago, they somebody from the socialist -- i have two questions for you. she advocated the complete -- like what they did in venezuela. where they took the businesss and she wants to give them to the people. you had mentioned taxation and the rich already paid the majority of taxes in this country and part of the progress rub, if you will, is they demonize -- they say the 1% when actually, the percentage is much smaller. you're talking about 0000. you're talking about 15, 20, 100 families that have this wealth and control the political
process the way progressives maintain that they do. and you're actually demonizing the guy who paid for his own college, has worked in the private sector for 20, 30, 50 years, and amassed maybe five, 10, $15 million. why does that gallo more than anyone else? he's done his share the whole time. so my question is how much money do you think people owe the government to pay for these programs? and my other question is why do you think subsidizing programs through the federal government is any way to control cost? if you look at medical costs, medical costs skyrocketed. what's the federal government started subsidizing the cost? host: mike, we got those two questions. we'll have adam green respond. guest: let me start with your last point first about subsidizing. i don't know if you call the g.i. bill subsidizing, veterans going to college.
but the g.i. bill was an investment in a new generation of people and investing our economic future. and it had a seven to one return on investment on our economy. we're talking about giving people a chance to succeed and not saying if you're born to lower or middle class parents that you are destined to stay there forever. because you have to ping huge college debts and take a less etc.ideal job, nobody is demonizing the person who put themselves through college. but again, i feel like a lot of these issues, there's a tendency for people to fight over the crumbs as opposed to looking at the actual pie. if you watch movie, "the big short," you can see some of what corporate leaders look like. there are a lot of corporations whose names frankly you don't know, they're not how old names, but -- house hole names, but again, just have as part of their business models, lobbyists to get exemptions from the tax
code, saving themselves ten's of billons of dollars that the rest of us make up for. i don't think it is crazy to think that asking those corporations to pay their fair share as the first element of tax reform is that. i think it's a good thing. and we're living in an economic populous moment where even republican voters agree with that idea. host: the "washington times" with this headline "polls showing sanders taking 30% lead over hillary clinton in new hampshire." guest: that's fascinating. things are tighter in iowa. but again, the way this is happening -- there is such a contrast between the democratic debate and the republican debate. and the republican debate, you see petty arguments, issues of the day that aren't relevant the following week. and we're talking about big ideas on the democratic side and we are very proud as the progressive campaign committee to help them develop their ideas and have a race to the top on
big economic populous ideas. host: hanging over the debate though, for the democratic nomination is hillary clinton -- the investigation to hillary clinton's e-mail server and private e-mail address. the headline in the "wall street journal" this morning and many other papers "hillary clinton e-mails face new scrutiny." some of the e-mails that she was receiving were beyond top secret. they were this special access program. it's designated -- that designation is reserved for information shared on a need to know basis to protect ntelligence sources. concerned about this? guest: i think there is a concern about this. question this -- question is on what grounds? some people are concerned on the national security grounds. frankly, the bigger concern for
me is how much of the conversation in 2016 this has doubled up if it keeps developing. how much do we get sidelined from the issues that would impact people? and are we forced to debate this? this is for substance tiff than donald trump talking about hillary clinton taking a estroom break. on that level, it is a concern. voters in iowa and new hampshire minor league not vote for hillary clinton who have that concern. we'll see how that breaks. host: we'll go to north carolina. janice is next, independent. caller: good morning. i was in the former hillary supporter but a turning point for me was when she voted to give george bush authorization to go to war in iraq. and once she did that, i really
started to take a good look at her record and -- well, mainly at her contributors, and to me, it's just a matter of common sense that anybody who gets huge sums of money from goldman-sachs and other banks as she is now is going to be able to work for the american people. she's going to be beholden to the big financial institutions, which, by the way, let me say, i have heard or read and researched that they're in far worst shape than they were back in 2007 when we had the last collapse. host: janice, i want to take your point though because adam -- do you agree or disagree what janice has to say? guest: i think you're making a very valid point and we have a culture here in d.c. if you're surrounded by the same people for 20 years, 30 years, will you think differently from those people the next year or be willing to challenge those interests? that is a legitimate issue.
there is no doubt that over the years -- whether hillary clinton or bill clinton or the entire apparatus, they've been very close to wall street. there's no doubt about that. that is why we said the burden of proof is on her to go above and beyond that she's willing to break up the big bank. it's great that she's putting big ideas on the table. but that lurking feeling that you're feeling, you're not alone. and it's a valid skepticism. the same thing applies for wall a step back in street. we are very happy that not just on the iraq question but on other questions. there are a whole series of candidates from ponts down that have been willing to challenge the party orthodoxy in washington, d.c. over the years. on the campaign trail running for senate, russ feingold was fine being the only voice
against the patriot act. he is now the frontrunner in the wisconsin senate race. don edwards running in the maryland race. there are a number of people that you probably haven't heard of where most likely whoever wins the primary will win the ongress. all are willing to challenge corporate power have grassroot and challenge orthodoxy and big contenders to be in congress next year. but we're very excited to have from top to bottom, a growing set of people who say let's challenge corporate power that includes those who attack women's rights. let's be willing to challenge the old way like the d.l.c. let's be willing to challenge the democratic model and have a breath of fresh air in d.c. and you're not alone to have
that mentality that we have. host: there's a story there is t the dnc chairwoman said the enemy list keeps growing. where does your group come down peopleleadership? guest: who consider her an enemy echoed -- enemy? host: her list of enemies keep growing. usst: it is noticeable to that as we try to engage young people in the election and have our message -- our message, that republicans have had 100 million viewers on their presidential debates and democrats have had about 50 million viewers. debate -- debates. we have debates on friday and saturday nights. havingived ourselves of an amazing debate over big ideas. dnc will hope that the
do that again. they need to change that. where saying that we're looking the dncto working with and others and the general election. but as regular people submitting questions, voting on questions. the moderators choose from that and ask bigger follow-up questions. this is a way to sideline silly questions like what would your secret service codename be. i have more questions people ask a care about like how to create jobs and protect the environment. things like that. i'm not going to say too much. there are conversations with the dnc and others where they need to try to have that kind of debates both in the primary. my guess is that it we succeed, will have much better response with the public. host: us go to michael and alabama. you are next. caller: thank you. i have a few things i like to say. come i think the fact that we have somebody stand up like donald trump who can put
all of this you hurt my feelings stuff away. is about time somebody got up there and said with the american people want to say. and most everybody in america who are too scared to say it because they're afraid of for did somebody's feelings. that is also on his gun-control thing. this dictator we have an office at the call the president is trying to take guns away from people. the way he took the car and random people down to vegas come they do not blame the car, they blame the person. host: a few points for adam. i want to get in and then get a response. high, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a registered democrat. i'm concerned about the race between bernie sanders and hillary clinton. i like hillary clinton's message. is really like she trying to help the middle class
to get ahead. same with barack obama. i like how she uses some of what he says and how she lives him a set of trying to bring him down. i know, the last caller all people that are not racists like -- donald trump in the study is espousing, is very hateful. everybody in america is not racist. now, i'll want to know, my question is, why are people so afraid of hillary clinton. in new hampshire, that is one pulled. overall, hillary clinton does better above and african-americans, latinos, she is going to do better even with other races. even white working-class people. so, i think the media is giving her an on time i think there could her unfairly. host: mr. green. guest: i'm glad you said it did
about hatred and racism. i would like to say before that in addition to donald trump in a one distraction, unfortunate byproduct of his candidacy and jimena front runner is that he is giving grateful -- hateful racist people license to say racist things. when he says we should ban all muslims, that is not a legitimate political opinion. that is racist and anti-muslim. that is an attempt to stir up hatred against people. when people say he is senator but is failing, if you think that you need to check yourself. it is unfortunate, he was the have 47% of the electorate or 45% he had before losing and rallying around that flag of hatred and racism, that would send us back decades in america. to call outeed racism and hatred for what it is. on the hillary clinton question, we'll get to that. come i thinkon
your points are fair. i do not think anybody is terry down barack obama. bernie sanders has been proud to say that he campaign for obama. he supports the progressive things obama has done. i do not think we should fool ourselves. obama took the maximalist position when it came to popular is a. we are in a new era. with people like elizabeth worn speaking to an increasing number of voters. while the formal care act was good,. frank was good. bringing up the big brings will be better. when we start to have that debate, and medicare buy-in for all, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. we will be better. if our viewers want to learn more about the progressive
agenda, you can go to full progressive.org. green, the cofounder of the group. will talk with rachel cohen of the american prospect. we will talk to her cover story about the magazine on planned parenthood leadership in the abortion debate. it marks the 42nd anniversary of rove the way. of next, we'll be talking with dr. russell moore of the southern baptist convention. we'll talk about the role of christian conservatives in the campaign. the rolled airplay nationwide. dr. moore had this to say. on monday as donald trump address liberty university, when the bill spoken on monday, here are some the tweets from russell moore. air promises to make mexico pay forward. he also said this would be hilarious if it was not counter to the mission of the gospel jesus christ. he also tweeted out this.
he policy describes the gospel, rather than the other way around. the third 10 taste of christ overcame it. will we? , yesterdayuniversity the senate energy and national resources committee held a hearing on the near-term outlook for energy and commodity markets. oil prices. this was from tuesday's hearing. >> this year brought a significant shift in creating a comparison between renewable energy and fossil fuels. that is off of bloomberg's new energy finance. can you talk about how you see these trends moving forward you price and based on how you see solar and battery processes and continue to lower cost. quick thinking for the question. is a point want to make on the comments. and -- costre cost
competitive. this is the playing field at which the competition is taking place. obviously, they have excellent national resources. they can compete against the incumbents. competitive,ost and the center of the country and oklahoma and parts of texas, and also iowa and minnesota, and elsewhere. some extraordinary wings. that, combined with the fact that sears seen bigger and more effective eyes been deployed. belski blog more the wind and generate more power. though make it way more competitive all the time. they will not see the same level
decline over the next two years. although come we do see decline in longer-term. and, as you know, correctly, that when you're competing at the local level, by consumers be the best position. another words, electricity is priced on a wholesale basis. at a retail basis, most prices are higher. they you just have to off the price or the homeowner or the business owners pay the final price for electricity. it includes distribution. in the region murders taking place, i will say thinkooking forward and a about how competitive it can be, we will continue the press of natural gas. just, increasingly in the market and guess a two dollars for the mbt today, they were saying the forecast is looking at three
dollars for the next several years. we are expecting it to be in the same ballpark. a lot of gas prices stay relatively low. as gas prices go back up, we have an extremely low position. it is not at the same salary to, but more generally going forward. >> if we were to describe the ending of the ballgame, we are in the first or second inning. >> maybe the third or fourth. everybody thinks that one day we will wake up and clean energy will be cheap. world. in a complicated over time, different places, we're seeing more and more of this take place. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is russell moore. the president of the ethics and religious liberty commission of
the southern baptist convention. he is here to talk about the role that evangelicals will play in this year's election. dr. moore, thank you for joining us. a little bit about what evangelicals are looking for in a president. guest: it is a little confusing to say evangelicals alone, because there are many sorts of evangelicals. many tribes within evangelicalism. there are generational divides as well. if you look at the common denominator, there are three basic things. number one, a commitment to human dignity. that includes the dignity of the unborn. detection for the unborn. pro-rights -- pro-life issues. we have many evangelicals showing of the nation's capital this week. for the march for life. that is a major commitment of evangelicals prevent, there was a concern for religious liberty.
that wesomething previously could take for granted. it had a bipartisan consensus around at least basic pretension for religious freedom. last six years, we had a culture were divide over the issues. those would be two of the major issues. decidingn it comes to on a candidate and vetting candidates, how much do the issues matter? or is it values that each candidate portray's." evangelicals, along with other americans are looking for issues. do candidates have the same concerns over issues that they care about? secondly, they want to look at character. and it would know whether or not they can be trusted. if you have somebody that supports or issues, but cannot be trusted, then that is not something that we need to be voting for. host: have you met with many
candidates for president this year? guest: most of them. host: have they reached out to you? what do you think about most of them? that personally, one has to have a great deal of admiration for the rigorous work of running for president. for anybody. anybody across the ideological spectrum running for president. this is a very grueling task. so, these are people, even owns i do not agree with that i have to remind myself to pray for. as host: they endure this task. host:we're talking to russell moore about the role evangelicals are playing in this election. we want to bring our viewers into the situation. this is at 202-748-8000 republicans can call 202-748-8001. independents can call 202-748-8002.
talk a little bit about donald trump. have you met with him? guest: i have not. host: he spoke at liberty university. let's take a look at what he has to say. >> we are going to protect christianity. i can say that. i do not have to be politically correct. we will protect it. i asked jerry and i asked some other folks, two corinthians. 317. that is the whole ballgame. where the spirit of the lord. where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty. here, there is liberty at liberty university. it is so true. when you think, that is really cap is that the one? that is the one you like. it is so representative of what has taken place. to protectg
christianity. if you look at what is going on throughout the world, in syria, where if you're a christian, there will cut off your head. you look at the different places , christianity is under siege. i'm a protestant presbytery. i am proud of it. we have got to protect it. add things are happening. very bad things are happening. i do not know what it is. are banding together. here, if you look at this 70% or, it has got to be 75% -- some people say even more, the power we have. somehow, we have to unify. we have to band together. we have to do a large version of what they have done at liberty. liberty university has done that. you band together and create one of the great universities anywhere in the country. anywhere in the world. that is what our country has to
have. we have to do that around christianity. you were critical of those comments. can you tell us why? guest: i am not critical of the fact that liberty invited donald trump. we have the best school and the best alumni in the country. many people working around the country are liberty grads. one of the strengths is that they will invite people from across the spectrum. that goes back to the 1980's with kennedy and jesse jackson. just this year, they had bernie sanders in donald trump. i think that is healthy. we respect the students to be mature enough to discern between various political viewpoints. i am not critical of donald trump for saying the bible verse. that is a great bible story. it is a great account of people using the -- the people of god
discern what they needed. i find it refreshing that a candidate did not have somebody standing and speaking into his ear, second corinthians is the way have to pronounce this. that does not bother me. what bothers me is that this was an opportunity for gospel witness. , the mosticals important thing we have to offer to the world is not our voting bloc, the most important thing we offer is the gospel of jesus christ. as some of yoump said as recently as last sunday that he has nothing to which to ask forgiveness from god. he is somebody with a track record that is unbelievably out of step with what gospel christians believe. wen, he speaks of himself as in terms of christianity. i think that was a missed opportunity. host: we want to bring our viewers into the conversation.
up first, on our independent line, we have mel from new york. am i saying that correct? caller: yes. i am in agreement with the doctor. concerning the witness or lack of witness by donald trump. i am astounded that there are so many evangelicals on the bandwagon for donald trump. it is like we put our principles off to the side so that we could get a pragmatic person to have an opinion that reflects our emotions, rather than sound thinking in accordance with christianity and conservative principles that would reflect a biblical worldview. point, the new york times, after donald trump that at a headline saying with trump, evangelicals are judging not what he is
resonating. can you speak a little bit as to why that popularity is happening? guest: we have an old problem in the church. it is something the new testament speaks about. the apostle paul says romans do not conform to the patterns of this world's thinking. i think that is comment that you have whatever's going on the culture impacting people who are within the church. i think that is what is happening here. when it comes to donald trump, this is a test for evangelical christians. yearse been saying for 50 that in american life, character matters. now, we're in a situation where many evangelicals, or at least professing evangelicals are saying character does not matter when it comes to donald trump. matter that if character for bill clinton, it should matter for donald trump. host: up next, on the republican
line, we have dennis from florida. dennis, you are on. caller: good morning. i apologize for not using your title. i'm not sure he's a second what it is. i apologize for that. a republican. i'm concerned that republicans seem to be moving away from social values. been to several campaign websites. i do not see a word about it. the far left. the democrats seem much more anxious about the supreme court justices than the republicans do. the big issues for me last year and 15 was the religious freedom issue involving the homosexual agenda. and christian rights to do what they think is in accord with their religion. to me that republicans could not run fast enough aware from the issue. i am sick of it. two thirds of republican voters are claiming the religious right. i do not know what they think
they will do. if we stay home on election day, they are not addressing our issues. i thank you. guest: certainly, religious freedom is of critical importance. and, we need a president who will be able to say ahead of time what he or she is going to do to ensure religious freedom, not just for christians but for all people. that is something that is increasingly contested in american life. the caller is correct. we have several supreme court justices who are into their 80's after this election season. this campaign may be about the supreme court as much as anything else. several of the supreme decisions upholding religious freedom, they haven't 5-4 decisions. so, this election will be pivotally important when it comes to that. host: on your website you wrote a post on russell moore.com. religiousue of liberty. talking about donald trump again, and his calls to ban muslims.
you said that even though you said it with islam, you is not an spite of it that we should stand for religious liberties for everyone. guest: the baptists have believed that if the state affords people's conscious, what you end up with is not christians but pretend christians. you do not have authentic conversion. what we want is an open marketplace of ideas. we believe the gospel is able to fight for it self in the world of ideas. so, that is what we want. we do not want the power of the state to restrict people or ban people simply because of their religious convictions. that is a matter of principle. it is also a matter of self-interest. people who want to give caesar the power to differentiate theologically between people are eventually going to find caesar turning against them. thatnk that is something
all people, of whatever religious faith ought to be concerned about. up next, democratic line, mark from florida. good morning. my main problem is religious people endorsing political candidates. i'm african-american. sometime after the black pastors met with donald trump, he was at liberty university. pastor or religious group that publicly endorses a candidate need to lose their tax incentives. i'm thinking of what does a lawsuit on that issue. i do not think that people who get on television and on public forms and endorses political candidates need to have my tax dollars going to them. they can vote for whoever they want. but that is in the public space.
i start endorsing candidates and send us on his goodness was bad. they need to lose tax incentive data. host: let's give the doctor a chance to respond. guest: i think there is a differentiation between what i think should be legal and what i think is wise and right. there is a long tradition in american life of religious people openly endorsing candidates. it goes back to the early baptist and the founding era supporting thomas jefferson and james madison. it needs to think be against the law for religious people on either side to stand up and say this is who we support. as a christian, and as a minister, i do not think the pastor of a church should use the prophetic mantle of the church in order to endorse a political candidate. instead, what we ought to do is an forms people's consciousness about the duties of citizenship. what are the issues of justice that the scripture mandates upon
people to take into account when they going to the voting booth. i would not counsel a pastor to endorse a candidate. host: on monday, jared fogle junior was on hannity and he was speaking about donald trump. he compared him to his father. let's take a look. >> these are all things you never hear about donald trump because he comes across as sort of a tough businessman. it reminds her so much of my father. that makinguld say politically correct terms of those years. he would do in real life and in personal relationships with people. manyve voice so scholarships to the students at liberty. he almost bankrupted the school here. he was always giving away. >> scholarship, scholarship scholarship. here's one thing people do not know about your dad. a couple stopped to help him and he paid off their mortgage. that is pretty impressive.
if would say that he has the money to do that. there are a lot of wealthy people who do not do things i'd that. i knew something but your dad. >> on 60 minutes donald trump was watching a report about a maytag plant that moved out of iowa into mexico. the three companies in that report he ask a search them out. they're about to go out of business because maytag had left. he found ways to buy products from the companies for his hotels to keep them in business. to the local domino's pizza so they could buy cheese and bread and keep the business in business. those are just things i think the world needs to know about donald trump. because the bible says by your fruits you shall know them. he may not be theological expert and he might say two corinthians is that a second corinthians. when you look at the first of his life, and all that he is provided, i think that is the true test of some of his christianity. not whether or not they use the
right theological terms. host: what is your response? guest: i do not think one is justified by job creation. i think what is justified before god by faith in jesus christ. that means repenting of sins and trusting in jesus. the very thing that donald trump said he has not done. he said he does not need to do. so, i would disagree with that. i certainly do not take issue with the fact that he probably has done many terrible things. i think that is great. that does not reconcile one to a holy god. host: do you think donald trump has the character for president? guest: i am concerned what the character issue. we have someone who is treated women reprehensible he. the way he speaks about them. boasting and bragging about having slept with the top women in the world -- in his words. you have somebody who has made a part of his fortune off of casinos and gambling.
of poor people. it destroys lives. it destroys families. i'm very concerned about that. he is somebody who is spoken with the harshest and ugliest terms about racial minorities about immigrant communities. also about african-americans posing a tweet with a false racially charged bit of crime statistics about 81% of white people who are murdered are murdered by african-american people. these are my brothers and sisters in christ. i find that deeply telling of one's character. host: our next call with russell moore is on the independent line. phil, for massachusetts. you are on. caller: yes. good morning. christian, and an african-american, i do not put my faith in man and its government.
so, my question to you is why our christian conservatives, wiry also wrapped it in the political process? if you believe in christ, and his father, then that is all you need. everything else, he will work it out anyway. so, it is wasted energy, as a christian, i do not see why christian conservatives, they have this hate in their towards muslims, or towards immigrants, america is lacking love in itself. so, i am just curious why are christian conservatives, if they believe in christ the way they say they do why don't they act that way. why don't they talked that way? host: let's give the doctor chance to talk. guest: i think he is confusing actual christian conservative churchgoers with caricatures of
christian figures. there are some people who use christianity for political agendas or something else. the views are contrary to the gospel of christ. most conservative evangelical christians in this country are not hostile towards immigrants. in fact, they are ministering to immigrant communities all over this country. when the migrant crisis happened last year on the texas mexico border, i was receiving call after call after call from churches wanting to be there and minister to those families. you can see that in every community. evangelical christians are not hostile to muslim neighbors. we disagree on the gospel and on what it means to come before god on jesus christ. evangelical christians love our muslim neighbors. we have seen mosques that have been defaced. evangelical christians there. they have muslim neighbors,
helping them to rebuild after that. i think that is a real conservative christians are. we are to the ordained southern baptist minister who served on a number of churches before entering the ministry. he served on the hill here as an aide to u.s. congressman gene taylor of mississippi. do you miss being on the hill? guest: parts of it. it mixes up my life. the: next, we go to democratic line. middleton from west virginia. you are on with dr. russell moore. caller: good morning. since you are the head of the ,outhern baptist in the south which do you want to preach? the teachings of the lord jesus christ, or do you want to take the old testament, use all of
the things that god supposedly did to people, or do you take jesus christ and love people? if you're going to be this way and religion, you have to go by the teachings of jesus. that is why he came down. he was sacrificed. god knows he did a lot of things wrong. place jesus christ in his , to take people's sins away and try to get them to do things. another thing, you talk about the pro-life -- how about all of the mothers that lose their babies that go and die in wars that we are supposed be fighting? does that mean anything? is that the same thing as an abortion? host: ok. that we can go head address the issue of war and how christianity plays into that. i think christians have to be the people who are arguing for a commitment to the dignity
of life. which means that we will only go to war when a war is just. that includes the fact that a war must be the absolute last resort necessity. some of the conversations we have had over the past several years are about that. wars we have fought recently. we have the debate that americans can and should have. when it comes to the caller, i make a distinction between the old testament and the new testament. it is interpreted through and by christ. i certainly do not think that to just dos son things wrong. i think that god sent his son because we had done things wrong tone and we need to atone for our sins. host: what about some other candidates? are there candidates who appeal
to you? endorse do not candidates. i simply talk about candidates expressing our concerns and what we believe and what we are concerned about. so, i think right now, most evangelicals, and iowa it is a different situation because, in iowa, people are accustomed to making decisions more quickly. they have the caucus process to go through. as the rest of the country i'm talking to evangelicals, there watching the race. they are evaluating candidates the same way other americans are. line,up next, republican john from texas. you are on with the doctor. caller: good morning. my question, first i want to make a quick comment. this earth to restore the covenant that was broken by man. that is the reason he came. as it may come in here
is the key. we have too many people in this nation that call themselves questions. the true blood brought christians, this is how we take the country back. need a second chronicles 714 experience. i personally believe that people who believe in jesus christ firmly will stand and band together and seek god's faith, god will turn this nation around. even though we might be in the minority, we would control the majority. if we did like we were supposed to come on needs would be met. god never says you should not help people. it does not say we have to enable them. that is a big problem in this nation. that is my comment in question. thank you. guest: i am not sure what the question was. i do think that evangelical christians recognize that we cannot count on being a majority. i think what we have to do is to build a collaborative majority
with other people of like minds. and what we have to do is make sure that we retain the distinctiveness that comes with evangelical christianity which is a commitment to the gospel of jesus christ. blur that that and line, then we will have nothing to offer to the rest of the country. getting back to the 2016 race, what do you think about the democratic front runners? runners haveront showed great hostility towards the sanctity of human life when it comes to unborn children. both front runners have been very poor on issues of religious freedom, for all americans. so, i'm concerned about that. especially because it has not always been the case of the democratic party. there was a tent big enough for many years in which pro-life pro-religious liberty democrats
could exist within the party. that is increasingly nonexistent. there are democrats for life. an organization with many members of congress and the it is down to two or three. american,s a pro-life it is not a good situation to have only one party committed to the lives of the unborn. i wish that we had two parties that had that kind of representation. sadly, we do not. think it is more important to have that than a gop candidate's values are alive with evangelicals, or is it more important to have somebody who can beat the democratic nominee? guest: i think we need somebody who can make commitments to issues that are a concern to evangelicals and the rest of the country. and somebody who can implement them.
being able to persuade people asked why his or her viewpoints are correct. when he to persuade people who are not yet persuaded. even governing, working with people in congress, -- congress. host: let's go to eric from pennsylvania. independent line. eric, you are on. ,aller: good morning people while i was on hold, previous caller asked to cut of cover my question. i have a slight remark here that also came up. attention has been for mr. trump. whatever your feelings are about him. people are trying to much and for his treatment of women. from the perspective of the evangelical church is kind of disingenuous. sacks, offer women to be basically the property of their men. and subjugate themselves into a
form of subservient bondage with men. it is in other parts come wall it is their husbands and even on two adult sons. my question, given that mr. , ase sits on the committee approved his caller asked, what would you say if the ethical response to religious organizations that benefit from tax-free status, it is irs regulation. to have a going church or school or religious thinkzation, what do you is the ethical responsibility of such people? that is in the attempt to sway religious groups and huge blocs of voters. but give dr. more chance to respond. guest: there is no form of
christianity that holds that women are the property of husbands or sons or anybody else. as a matter of fact, christianity is what has led to a great liberation for women. in the roman empire, women were indeed treated as the property of their husbands. christianity, scripture speaks to women and men as being traded in the image of god. both as heirs to the light. that is a caricature and a bearing false witness against christianity. when it comes to the issue of tax exempt status, tax exempt status, when comes to churches and religious organizations is not a benefit from the government or subsidy. it is a recognition by the government but the power to tax is that how to destroy. so, a government that is able to tax churches is a government that can destroy churches, and
can destroy the free exercise of religion. christians like everyone else are citizens of the country. they have the right to stand up and speak their minds. about -- butgrees disagree with the views. host: you talk about the march for life. it is this friday. can you talk about your message to congress, and the discussion about defunding planned parenthood. host: -- guest: i think that needs to be at the forefront of congress. many people want to turn their faces away from that. they want to turn their consciousness away from the issue. we believe there is a nonviolent solution to women who are in pregnancies that are in a time of crisis. and, violent solutions in the taking of the life of a child and harming the mother of the child we believe is wrong. a moralve it is
compulsion upon not just evangelicals but all people to stand up and speak out for the most vulnerable and our society, including those that we wish to depersonalize with clinical language of and bureaus and fetuses. -- embryos. rather than recognize them as our neighbors. host: next, on the democratic line, we have from kentucky. you are on the dr. more. caller: thank you for taking my call. wish that christians would not have anything to do with the politics, because, politics is one of the most cryptic things on earth. christians who cast their votes the way they feel they should, they do not need to be supporting one politic and --
politician or another. you have to ask yourself, what would jesus do? jesus would not have anything to do with politics. do,way the christian people i'm a christian, i have been so for 25 years. the thing is that i do not like anybody.t and push or anything like that to win. i cast my vote and let my vote stand for what counts. i just you see how christians can get so involved. about abortion. i do not think abortion is right. i do not think god gave me the power to tell a woman she cannot get an abortion. change the law. don't griping complain. just change the law. host: ok. would you like to respond? there he is correct that is a condition towards political idolatry. he is certainly correct about
that. there have been and are toistians who allow politics drive the gospel. rather than the gospel to drive politics. it is a big generational divide we find even within evangelicalism. people receive their first identity in terms of political conviction and commitment. wrong is the he is fact that we have duties as citizens in this country's in roman 13 to speak about how god holds the powers that be accountable. in the first century roman empire that was caesar. those are the officers of the empire. in a democratic republic, that authority rests with all of the people. so, we have a responsibility in terms of our neighbors how we will administer justice. that has to be informed by the consciences.
that will not be informed on every issue. but, consciousness that is informed. on what is just and what is correct. next, we have richard from minneapolis minnesota. -- minneapolis, minnesota. good morning. i have three things i would like to correct you on. i would like to correct you a donald trump said about muslims. he said he wanted to delay the immigration for a while. lot different than banning muslims. that is what some people are referring to in the media and on this program. and about the mexican immigrants. , i think you meant that some of the democrats coming across were indeed breaking the law. another thing. i am not sure about the other statements you said, that he
said. i'll have to find the source of those. you know, how you combine these two items, i think you might be incorrect. if you are not endorsing a candidate, why are you running down donald trump? that is the same as endorsing the others. guest: what he said about immigration is that mexico is send in, their rapists, their murderers, i am sure some of them are good people. when it comes to the muslim situation, he said let's have a temporary ban on muslims coming into the country, based upon the fact that they are muslim. that is where i have a problem with somebody committed to religious freedom. it is one thing or he said we will double down our efforts to keep terrorists out of the country, or keep people from a specific terrorist targeting nations. said we would differentiate, but in people who
are coming in people who cannot come in based upon what religion they say they are. that is where have a problem. host: there has been a focus on terrorism with a lot of people am a particularly on the republican side saying that we need to identify islam and terrorism and focus on that word. do you see a conflict there and focusing on islam and the fight against terror with the message being for religious freedom. think it is possible to deal honestly with the we are talking about which is radical jihadist islam is an without indicating that we are somehow at war with their muslim neighbors who are not radical, or not terrorists. i think people in america can understand that. on the independent line, we have loretto from ohio. you are on with russell moore. caller: it is not a matter of hating muslims. it is a matter of the people who
believe in the koran. it leaves in the killing of christians and jews. why don't we bring in some christians who are being a genocide right now. they are getting killed off the face of the earth. everybody is screaming about muslims, and christians are being murdered by muslims. why don't we bring them in here? with 2 million people in the united states who are muslims. why do we take out -- take care of our own? guest: she is right. christian genocide is on of the biggest issues that we face the world right now. we have isis, other groups who are beheading and murdering not just christians, but other religious minorities as well. there has not been enough of a response from the united states government towards that. we also have to recognize that we have to expect moderate muslim governments to join in the fight.
we need muslims in the middle east to stand up. they need to stand up against the radical murderous strain of islam. have republican line, we michael from alabama. michael, you are on dr. russell moore. caller: hello. i have been on here and been attacked some many times. life as aed all of my baptist alabama. we hear people to about the racial tensions out here, there are none for real. aso not -- we are looked at the kkk. and all that. once in aflare up while. that bothers me, because my friends, i have black friends,
have white friends. we all laughed this off. the donald trump stuff being laughable. it is a joke. but, there is a timer he have to is serious. the be the next president for real? i do not understand it. he is telling what he said. he segment mexicans. and he just about dan everybody he could dam. the only have a few seconds. i want to give the doctor chance to respond to that. do you believe southern baptists have a reputation of not being nclusive deco -- inclusive? guest: that is a major priority we have. we have been working on that. we have one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the southern baptist region is african-american church members. the same is true for the
hispanic community in the asian-american community. so -- moore, theussell head of the ethics and religious liberty commission. we thank you for joining us today. coming up, we have rachel cohen. she is an author of the cover story on the american prospect ,agazine on planned parenthood antiabortion debate. stick with us. ♪ >> american history tv has every week and on c-span3. all day saturday and sunday. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. an interview with conservative commentator armstrong williams. part of the exploration and black leadership projects.
>> certain people recognize that's my father comehither strong reputation. just before he was about to be introduced, he came in and said you are a racist. >> what did he say? >> he said what grade are you in? when you graduate from high school, if you ever want to go to washington, work for me. 9:00 on theafter anniversary of the 1773 boston tea party, reenactors re-create the scene of the old meetinghouse in boston. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the right house. republican campaign. with interviews on ronald reagan, george w bush, john anderson, and howard baker. recorded by students at salem high school in new hampshire, airing for the first time on national television. and at four clock unreal america, 35 years ago, a ron
released 52 american hostages after holding them for 444 days. their videos will look back at the hostage crisis. carter's president rescue attempt. and, the release of the hostages minutes after ronald reagan was sworn in as president. for the complete tv we can schedule, go to c-span.org. washington journal continues. >> joining us now is rachel cohen. she is with the american prospect. part ofthis is our ongoing the spotlight on the magazine series. we'll be talking about her cover story about planned parenthood, and there leaders. rachel, thank you for joining us. >> tell us a little bit about this cover story. -- new kind said she is a
of leader for the organization. can you tell us more about that? she became the president and ceo of planned parenthood in 2006. she really came into the organization with decades of experience in political organizing. political advocacy policy work. spreading campaigns and nonprofits. the presidents who preceded her cut their teeth in nursing and health care. so, it was just a very different skill set. -- planned parenthood hiring she is not the reason the organization is more political. that happened before she got there. she definitely lead into the skills that she brought. she helped push the organization and a better direction. host: hot how she was able to do it. she came in at a time in the
last few years where there has been more of a focus on planned parenthood in the abortion debate. talk about how her skills as change the organization. so, she, i think that understanding her as a labor organizer, her experience in the labor movement is really helpful to think about how she thinks of planned parenthood. they look at the organization is a movement. one out of five women in the united states will go to planned parenthood for health care. so, she thinks how can we turn those numbers into voting advocacy? create a do we community of people who we can both provide and help rally and push this movement forward. cecil richardst really thinks about building
coalitions with other groups, other progressive organizations. she is with one of the leaders to help bridge the connection between reproductive health care as an economic issue, you'll see the union, and wearing planned parenthood. in a way, that people really start to see these as interconnected issues. host: we want to bring in our viewers. as we talked about the cover story on american prospects. we talked about the present of planned parenthood. a democrat. -- democrats can call in at 202-748-8000. republicans can call 202-748-8001. independents can call 202-748-8002. now, she was in the news a lot this past year when she testified before the house oversight committee. tell us a little bit about that testimony. guest: yes.
she came for congress at the end of september this past year. she went to talk about how planned parenthood spends federal funding. 40% of planned parenthood's $1.3 billion in annual revenue comes from the federal government the forms of medicaid, title 10, because the family planning program. , thee she got there organization had turned over tens of thousands of documents. she was showing up to reiterate what was going on. the reason she was looking at it was because earlier in the summer, an organization known as a center for medical progress continue to show planned parenthood illegally profiting from the sales of field tissue come under federal law, you are allowed to donate and transport material for medical research. critics majority of claim to do, these videos
attended to show that planned parenthood was breaking the law. planned parenthood denied the accusations. they are suing the organization now. so, cecelia richards came to defend the organization, and reiterate how the organization spends its dollars. host: as a note to our viewers, the founder of the americans for center progress will be on washington journal on friday. tune in for that. ,uring the committee hearings was there any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of planned parenthood? no.t: that has been an interesting part of this, because there have been state and federal investigations launched. today, 11 states have cleared planned parenthood. 11 states have cleared planned parenthood. hearingrman of the
admitted that his committee could find no evidence of financial wrongdoing. there are still a few states out there. and other committees looking into it. no we has been able to turn up anything. host: what can we expect moving forward? there are more hearings on the house and senate side? guest: there is senator blackburn leading a committee forward with more investigations. they have not said what they will do that. it is up to her. there have been a bunch of hearings in the beginning of all of this controversy or they did not even invite planned parenthood to testify. so, they could do whatever they want to do. host: we with rachel: and of the american prospect magazine on her piece on planned parenthood, we want to bring viewers in on this
discussion, from louisiana, richard, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. from what i was told on this particular topic, i heard this was edited and put in the press and worded where it misinterpreted a lot of things. my first night -- my perspective of anything is that when it comes down to a woman body -- a woman's body, politics should not have anything to do with what she does with her body. that asi like to say and everybody else as far as the investigations, i think it is a tit-for-tat like they could
be sued, you guys could sue them. host: let's get to her response. planned parenthood says that the videos were highly edited and doctored, which is what is part of driving their lawsuit against the organization. they are saying that the center for medical progress engaged in methods to unlawful obtain what they purported to show and that it was presented in a way that was not accurate. i think that those questions will be further explored as the lawsuit unfolds. host: you mentioned congresswoman blackburn, from tennessee who is heading up a special committee. she spoke about the issue. bill, verya small explicit in having energy of the investigative panel is going to
be utilized. they are six items being cast to investigate. metal procedures and that -- and business practices used to buy entities involved in fetal tissue procurement. we know there are questions that surround this, whether it is the nonprofit or for-profit entity. any other matters with respect to fetal tissue procurement. support foring and abortion providers. ofy practices of providers second and third trimester abortions, including partial-birth abortion procedures that may lead to a child born alive as a result of an attempted abortion. medical procedures for the care of a child born alive as a result of an attempted book -- attempted abortion.
any changes in law or regulations necessary as a findings from the committee. i want to clearly state that this is about getting answers. how we treat and protect life. host: can you talk a little bit about what the reaction of planning -- of planned parenthood supporters have been to these investigations and the release of these videos? guest: you have seen a lot of people come together to demonstrate support and solidarity. i don't think that planned parenthood is a desk enjoying this experience at all. it takes a lot of political energy to deal with it and there has been evidence that in the wake of these videos, the incidence of violence and harassment of abortion clinic providers or even planned parenthood clinic's an independent providers have gone up.
in late november, a gun man walked into a planned parenthood clinic and killed three and injured nine and he invoked the videos as the reason. it has been hard for them. they are not happy that they are dealing with this, but you have also seen hundreds of thousands of people changing their profile pictures on facebook and donating money and wearing pink to show support. ,here has been a lot of people old and new, coming out for sure. host: let's go back to callers, we have robert from arlington heights, illinois, independent line. caller: hello. plannednt would be parenthood, why should the taxpayers subsidize health care in that regard when there is health clinics available for birth control? shouldn't birth-control be the
main objective instead of abortions? thatot against abortions, is a woman's right to choose, but at the same time, i don't believe i should have to pay for it. that is a financial issue and a birth-control issue. once you get to that point, you have to evaluate all of that. why should the taxpayers have to pay for that stuff? host: your response? guest: the way that planned parenthood sees it is that there is a wide range of health services that all any section of -- that all in the section of birth-control -- and reproductive health. , they would not want to even provide birth control, but planned parenthood these this as all necessary health services are women who are looking to control the reproductive life. host: democrat line, we have leah
democraticxt on the line, we have leah from texas. my question is really for the guy from before, but that's ok. i don't like abortion and i don't think anybody really likes it, but my question is this. the republicans engaged, the -- it is ok it is to take off everything when the child is born, take away their food, cut off the school, cut off insurance, so what difference does it make to kill a child when it is an abortion or kill it after when it's already here in the earth, that is my question.
guest: you raise an important point that you do have lots of legislatures who call themselves pro-life but are looking to cut funding to important programs for mothers for housing or health care or education or job programs, all of the things that are important for providing people with healthy and productive lives. you are pointing at the contradiction between opposing -- opposing also abortion by saying you support life but also saying you cut so much money into social services that help people live better lives. know, this is an election year, can you talk about the role that planned parenthood and the abortion debate is playing in the 2016 election discourse? guest: it is playing a big role.
planned parenthood has already said they spend the plant at least $20 million electing leaders that will defend reproductive rights. this month, they came out to endorse hillary clinton, which is their first ever primary endorsement. -- also endorse hillary clinton which is interesting because they endorsed barack obama over her in 2008. you have planned parenthood looking to educate voters and also pour money into senate in senatemobilize races, but what i think is interesting is that republicans are definitely talking about the abortion debate, that is an issue that they know is extremely important, especially to primary voters. it is also important to democrats and independents and a lot of research shows that
people who might not turn out to vote are actually more likely to vote if they feel like they will help to protect women's health care or defeat a anti-choice candidate. it has been interesting that in the past four democratic debates, there has not been a single question asked of the candidates about reproductive rights or abortion and barack obama did not mention it in his state of the union. it is interesting because we know it will be an important issue, but for some reason, it has not come up. host: x caller on the independent line, sandy from north carolina -- next caller on the independent line, sandy from north carolina. caller: thank you for the formal. -- for the forum. when i was in college, i used planned parenthood for health care. i think women should have a right to their own body, like the nra and the owners -- and
the gun owners want rights to their own guns. theink republicans and others should not focus on women's reproductive rights but focus on babies that are being born to women that are addicted to prescription drugs and heroin. it is on the increase, but they don't want to address that and thank you again for having this. host: do you want to respond? it sort of plays and the idea that you think it is a bigger issue but has not been resonating yet, at least when it comes to some of the candidates. i think it sort of goes to the previous caller who notes that while there is a lot of attention on restricting access to abortion, there is less attention on helping people with drug addiction get treatment and get the care that they need. host: next on the republican
line, jeanette romm massachusetts -- from massachusetts. caller: good morning. about the previous caller and another caller mentioned, it's the woman's right to her own body. actually, the baby is a separate, complete separate person with its own dna, different blood type, it is not just me saying this. the -- dr. rights in a world in which adults control power, the fetus is at a disadvantage, being small, nameless and voiceless.
biologically, the stage -- at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is merely an appendage of the mother, genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception. host: did you have a specific question? caller: i do. i want to say as another caller mentioned, because i am completely against, giving the government one penny for planned parenthood or anything else because i don't want to be part , since january 22, 1973 and over 60 million people have been killed,
murdered. i am upset about it because if i think theck, condition of this country began with the killing of innocent babies, this is the slaughter of our country and we answer to god before we answer to the government. host: let's give rachel a chance to talk about that. talk about the issue of funding that she brought in particular. people have a very strong and differing opinion on this issue, i guess what i would say is that in the wake of these videos, there have been more than a dozen national polls and surveys by a variety of organizations and consistently, they find that a majority of americans oppose defunding planned parenthood, they find that majorities of americans support the legal right to safe and legal abortions.
i think what we are seeing in states that are restricting not andit does abortion, it usually just makes them go underground and women look to terminate pregnancies in unsafe ways. andher or not you want to access at an abortion clinic or train people to help do it, it would not actually lead to an end to this because women would still find ways to not have a baby if they are not willing. talking to rachel: when, a fellow at american prospect. planned parenthood has said that -- pointed out that the funding they get federal government does not go directly to abortion services, but a lot of critics of the organization say the money is fungible and therefore it is. can you talk about that?
it is interesting because for the past 40 years, there has been a ban on federal spending on abortions, which with me is that even if there is the constitutional right to have an abortion, if you can't afford one, many women cannot actually afford the services and that restriction of access is certainly real and that's why i find it interesting that hillary clinton came out this month saying if she were president, she would seek to overturn the law that bans federal spending. thateople that are worried their federal tax dollars are going to work the services, that is why there was a whole movement to overturn an amendment because these women cannot get that funding. there is a growing movement to overturn that law, but it
and in someist states, i think maybe 10 states, you can use state medicaid funding for abortions, but that is not federal funding. host: let's go to the next caller on the independent line, we have jim from wilmington, north carolina. caller: thank you. and asked to20's get a vasectomy and planned parenthood said because of some kind of political reasons, they could not do it. it took until my late 30's to myself and for it i've always wondered why planned parenthood could not do it for me. i have two kids and i was out of the game, i was done. host: can you talk a little bit about that?
you talk a lot about women's reproductive health, is there a issue of men's reproductive health as well? guest: i don't know why they weren't able to get that service, but i do know that especially in recent years, men are a very fast-growing percentage of planned parenthood patients in part because they feel it is a non-stigmatized environment to go and talk about their reproductive health. i don't know why they did not give that service. host: next up on the public in line, we have cindy from illinois. -- on the republican line, we have cindy from illinois. caller: i think that people are in denial of what's happening. i think planned parenthood and if330,000 children you lined up all of those babies in front of you and took a copy gun and kill them, you would
probably go to jail, so i think it is like denial and the other thing is, if we weren't funding planned parenthood, would they existence? if they were, why don't they go and not make people fund of something that is annihilating a whole generation of children? host: can you talk about her question? guest: it is important to majority ofat the patients who go to planned parenthood are low income women or people who are living in an area that is not have up -- that does not have options or access to other health centers. when people talk about defunding planned parenthood, the question is like where will these people go and there is a broad
recognition that planned parenthood fills a really important health care need and we don't have -- for people who are not eligible for medicare health, it is important to because just of the fact that we don't have the kind of broad alternatives that people sometimes assume that we have. was there anything else? host: relatedly talking about the debate as it relates to the presidential election, as well as the supreme court who is set to weigh in on abortion in a couple of cases, can you talk a little bit about those? guest: it is a big year for the supreme court and the reproductive rights world, not only because the next president is going to likely be appointing , as a previous caller said, this is the week of the anniversary of roe v wade,
and you will have marches for life all over the country and people rallying in support of it, the run many people in the country who are hoping that the next president elect justices who can overturn roe v wade. more immediately, the supreme court will be hearing two cases this year, a reproductive rights, one is about contraception coverage under the affordable care act. there is a regulation that says employers should provide birth control to their employees. 2014, the supreme court heard a case where they rolled that help -- that organizations if they have a religious belief, do not need to provide contraceptive care to their -- employees and this is sort of an extension of that case, certainly nonprofit organizations that have a religious belief and they have to fill in a form that says the object to it and the insurance provider will cover it.
they claim it is a -- the supreme court will adjudicate on that question. the second case is really big, people think it could be the biggest case for reproductive rights in this generation since 1992. 1992, the supreme court found that states can impose restrictions on abortion, but not they impose the undue burden on women who wish to end a pregnancy. what we have found, especially since the tea party's rep power in statehouses after 2011, you see legislatures really testing the limits of what that undue burden. year, it is, this looking at a package of restrictions that texas past in -- texas used the hat
-- used to have 41 abortion clinics in 2012 and this year and later they17 will have 10, only located in major cities, the supreme court will decide whether the passage of these restrictions impose an undue burden. host: can you tell us about what some of these restrictions are? guest: one of them is a the -- theythat have admitting privileges to a neighboring hospital which many medical organizations have issued statements about this case and there is no sound medical reason why this would be necessary, it is just another expensive requirement that is challenging for clinics to meet which is why you see a lot of abortion clinics close. -- the question is, is
it a undue burden to ask a woman in this part of texas to travel hundreds of miles? is mandatoryiction waiting periods. they cannot even schedule an appointment for another 48 hours because they want the women to think about it, which imposes a lot of statistical and financial challenges for women to cut jobs and family and still live close to clinics. host: next caller, independent, lee from washington. caller: good morning. thank you for discussing this topic. woman in my mid-sixties and when i remember back in my youth, i had gone to planned parenthood and i have experienced having an abortion. it was a time in my life that i was focused on getting education i was not in a
right situation to go through with having a child. i have also gone to an abortion with abecause i went younger person and i saw a person in their, probably seven months pregnant having an abortion and it was kind of sickening to me. there are a lot of issues to discuss when it comes to abortion. when that child is viable and andsurvive outside the womb with science the way it is, today, we know that many children are born three months before they are ready and they survive. i think that is part of the issue.
if a woman cannot decide to have an abortion, they say three months, when it could not , versus waiting until it is a baby, and then you are killing it, that is something that really ways on the american people. host: let's give you a chance to weigh in on that. guest: first i wanted to say that since i think how you were just brave enough to share that you had gotten abortion is something that i know has been hard for people to do because there has been so much stigma and shame attached to the procedure. i wanted to a knowledge that the reproductive rights movement has been really focusing past couple of years on fighting stigma and creating the spaces for more
people to tell their stories, which i think is just a big development in the movement. cecile richards share her story in 2014, she had two kids at the time and felt it was not the right time for her family to have more. knowledge that the local culture is working -- a political movement is working on creating the spaces for more people to share their stories because one in three women in a lifetime will have an abortion. six in 10 of them already have children. as to your question of late-term abortions, i think the discomfort you identified is something most americans share. most americans are uncomfortable with late-term abortions which limits to howre late one can have a legal, safe abortion and i think it is important to recognize that the best majority of abortions
happen before 12 weeks. what we about why people get it ise, one of the reasons because they cannot afford it, so they are waiting to get the procedure because they are trying to save up money. if we make it harder and harder for people to afford, we will see more late-term abortions. all these additional restrictions that state legislatures are passing also push back the timeline when women are able to access it in their way. host: next caller on the democratic line is alyssa from washington, d.c. caller: good morning. i read your piece in the prospect and it was really fascinating. i had no idea about the background and i appreciated improvedhow she has the organization.
i want to move away to ask you about her leadership style. you mentioned in the article that the previous president came from health care and nursing and moved up the planned parenthood ranks, where she came from the labor and organizing world. is, howion, the first do you think her work has better positioned planned parenthood to advocate for both women and men's reproductive rights because planned parenthood does how has our leadership -- how does her leadership served as a model for other health care organization leaders? guest: that is a great question. that the movements that -- ias pushed forward and think what is really interesting
about cecile richards is that she has both really good ideas she you brought -- that brought from her experiences and she also recognizes when other people are good -- putting forward good ideas and she listens to other people to push those ideas forward and i think they sort of -- the sort of recognition, you will need a lot of diverse, awful leaders, so the reproductive mites -- she is not the first person to put forward more of a reproductive justice framework. forwardve been putting this movement for several decades now and part of what cecile richards done -- has done is try to elevate those messages which is showing that productive health care means there is little if you don't have economic security, if you want to have a child but cannot think sheldcare -- i
has done a good job of connecting these issues and a lot of other progressive health or organizations could certainly follow that model. att: rachel cohen, a fellow the american prospect magazine, talking about her cover story richard, thank you for joining us, and that is all for today, we will be back at 7:00, tomorrow. ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ >> loretta lynch