and intel the washington post" -- inside the "washington post," marking the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln at ford theater. and with the debates in arkansas and indiana this past week, we want to begin on this easter sunday with your comments on this issue. religion, does it unite us or divide us? if you say divide us, here is the number, (202) 748-8000 for. for those who say it unite says, (202) 748-8001 for. you can join us on twitter at @cspanwj. an organization called the center for public christianity has written an essay on this very issue saying that religion at its worst sponsors tribalism. setting faithful against the infidels. christian examples are well known -- the crusades, and the awful covering up of child sexual abuse. no doubt there are hindu jewish, and even buddhist examples, but a fair reading of history won't stop there. religion, at best, unite and divides in a very different way. like debates about climate change or asylum-seekers, some important causes unite and rebel at the same time. and some of which drive people apart. christianity provides a special case in point. this headline this morning from the "arkansas democrat and gazette." religious conservatives will press on. the piece begins by saying conservative state leaders have made it a rally cry as gay marriage has spread throughout the state. by indiana's retreat over an uproar, they vowed not to give up. evangelical and roman catholic leaders say they will continue their push for protection from laws they consider immoral. let's go back to the 1993 religious freedom law, which was signed by a new president, bill clinton, at the white house. it was designed to prevent government from substantially or newly -- burgeoning -- tony perkins is our guess -- just -- guest on "newsmakers." here is a portion of that conversation. [video clip] >> well, it is not that hard to explain. you go back to bill clinton in 1993. the religious freedom restoration act, which, in 1997, the u.s. supreme court did not apply to the states. since that time, you had 20 states, actually you will have probably 21 by the weekend, that have adopted these state versions of the religious freedom restoration act. and quite frankly, all it is is to protect the exercise. it is not the ironclad defense. it allows christians or other religious persons -- it is not just limited to one religion -- to put a defense against those that the state -- of the states that would prevent them from living out. that is what religion is the ability to live and believe. in some ways, it is a shield to defend your beliefs. >> but has there been in your shield analyses and attack in a state of indiana, for instance, that this bill would solve? is the solution in search of a problem? or has the exit been a problem? mr. parker: i think you have seen an increase -- mr. perkins: i think you have seen an increase because you have seen a conflict between christians and the marketplace. and the government trying to force them to engage in something that violates their faith. one of the prime examples cover was came to the forefront in the skirmish and indiana is that of same-sex marriage, where floris, bakers, other wedding vendors have been forced to participate in something that violates their faith. it is not about serving different people of the community. they also people in the community, and they should be. but they should not be forced to be involved and be a part of something that is religious in nature that violates their faith and beliefs. host: tony perkins is our guest on c-span's "newsmakers" program. and a couple of tweets this morning from the pope to his nearly 6 million followers. including, christ has risen. and he also sent out a tweet saying the cross of twice -- christ is not a defeat, it is love and mercy. does religion divide or unite us? many of you weighing in. you can join our conversation on facebook. diane says, it depends on the heart of the people involved. another, the real question is, do religious leaders divide or unite? and marty has this tweet saying, quote, religion is a main provider in the history of humanity. brad from warned michigan -- wa rren, michigan. why do you say religion divides us? caller: well, it has already's -- always been a part of my life. i think they are getting pushed back from the people now that they don't like their agenda and we are going to stand up against it. these governments that back down on these laws, i think they pay a price. i think the vast majority of people in this country don't support gay rights. they turn from victims to bullies. and many of the laws they want to pass are just being turned down because people don't like stuff like that. so that is my opinion. host: brad, thank you for the call. a caller who says religion divides us is michael from jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. i thank you for allowing me to make this call. ok. religions have the same miracles if you study the origins of religions. they are all based on the seasons. and you have an infinite god supposedly, which would render hell, the creation, and all this nonsense and possible. -- impossible. and it all for bid doubt an examination. plus, how in the world will we go against an all-powerful being ? this is ludicrous. all you have to do is look at the writings. and i thank you for your time. or go back, much is said that shows that everything in nature is in eternal flux and reflux. this explains everything. you do not need a prime mover in order to move, which is already in motion. host: "time" magazine -- the freedom fight. the attack on gay rights. one of the issues in the attack on believers. both sides from "time" magazine. and this point on our twitter page. religion? allows christians to be bigoted and homophobic. you can join in on the conversation by sending us a tweet at @cspanwj. next is philip from georgia. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, sir. how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i had a comment on the article. the problem with this is an improper view of history. the crusades, the inquisition what they teach in the united states is basically just a watered down version of propaganda. the inquisitions were in response to atrocities against the church at the time. the crusades were in response to actions by others. with the proper understanding of christianity, it is very inclusive and not divisive at all. the nonsense that they spew on tv in the united states is just awful. if you follow the writings of pope francis and read rhett he writes -- what he right in its entirety, you will see the understanding that goes with jesus christ. it is not what people think it is. it is like the last caller. it is not a hodgepodge of nonsense. it is a core belief system. and then the article you quoted about the gay and lesbian thing that is just -- christianity does not teach that. you do not go to church every sunday and then read about, you know, who to hate. that is complete and utter nonsense. host: i will stop you there philip. thank you very much for the call. on our twitter page, no one is asking to change anyone's religious beliefs. only to treat everyone like human beings. it is being called the battle of indiana with governor mike pence. a couple of news conferences including changes to the law that he first signed a week ago thursday. next is ken joining us from casco, new york. you say religion divides us. why? caller: good morning. first, i applaud c-span for evening -- even opening the door on this conversation. i think it does more harm than good. i am a 67-year-old recovering catholic, as i would like to describe myself. i asked the had a fairly good expense with the church until i was 17 when my faith just burned out like a light bulb for no particular reason. i admired the essence of the church, which is essentially st. francis, as the prior gentleman said. examine your conscience before you do anything significant, and do it in a genuine way. but as i live my life, i have seen people who use religion as a way to set themselves apart from others. and consciously or unconsciously think of themselves as more entitled or superior. i think there is a need for answers in life that we don't yet, and some people create mythology or they find one that -- quite frankly, nine out of 10 times you are sort of stuck with your religion that your parents forced upon you. very little conscious decisions are involved. but again let me thank c-span for keeping the door open. host: thank you for sharing your views with us. dueling essays on the religious freedom lost. are they necessary? one says, yes. traditional christians on themselves under siege. the contrarian point of view saying, no, utah has shown us a better way to protect liberties. perkins has this tweet to me, the religious freedom law gives bigots a license to hate. a study is available on the pew website. it also has a chart that points out compared to other industrialized nations, the united states has a high rate of weekly attendance church services. by the way, jordan is number one. the u.s., according to the survey is pretty much in the middle. and at the bottom of the list is sweden japan russia, and germany. from florida, good morning. you say religion divides us. why is that? caller: good morning. the reason why i am saying that is because i think it is more or less a group thing. people don't go to church. you look at -- you have denominations why you have african-american, white people. we still have separation on sundays. we don't have collectively people who decide if they want to attend a different church on sunday or have a different viewpoint. in accordance to what this indiana law does, it sort of fuels the fact that people can discriminate against gay people, but then again, they get the reinforcement or justification on sunday when they go to church. let's say, for example, you are traveling through indiana and you go to get some gas. you can get your gasoline at the pumps with a credit card or debit card, but if you go inside the store, and you want to buy a bigger chips or a soda, you are going to be denied service because of the law. that is double standard -- a double standard there. fine, ok, did i do the right thing or the wrong thing? you go back to first -- church and the minister says, hey, that is what you are supposed to do. at the same time it you did not let them purchase something in the store. host: thank you very much for the call. we will go to an annexed from nashville, tennessee. also if you are who says religion divides us. caller: well, when you look at all the different religions that we all, you know have to our plate that we can look at, they literally use religion, as in kenya, to sit and justify killing other people. and this has been our history. ever since religion came. i happen to be a product of religion. a pentecostal grandmother who preached. my father started a church in tennessee for the church of christ. i had an uncle who was a missionary in africa. and another uncle who was a -- a military chaplain. and i am sitting here just, you know appalled at what i see. people killing each other in the name of religion. you know, the bigotry is -- i mean, i was in shock when my father told me that the mark of cain was to make him black. and that is why a lot of christians don't like black people. i mean, it divides us. there is no if's, and, or butts about it. host: anna, thank you for the call from nashville, tennessee. david has this point -- freedom of religion means freedom from religious intolerance. the big story in california, of course, the drought resulting in a 25% reduction in water usage across the board. the headline from to california newspapers, where the water flows like money. the front page story. and from the oakland -- "oakland tribune" running try near danville. to give you a better example, we want to share with you two photographs. this is inside the "times." you can see the huge and very stark difference to indicate what the situation is like. this is the front page story. this is one photograph in california where the land development like this one in cathedral city is next to a bone dry desert. the story -- california image versus dry reality. the announcement from the governor, a 25% reduction involves everybody out there. residents, farmers, amusement parks, golf courses. back to your calls on the issue of religion. does it divide or unitas deco -- unite us? allen from minnesota, use a unitas. why is that? caller: i started off roman catholic and i see all sorts of different religions. natalie christianity, but we have hinduism, buddhism, we've got muslims. and we all try to unite in a sense that we want humanity to live together with each other. and i see a uniting theme among all the various different religions. host: thanks for the call. a survey -- do you want a religious freedom law in your state? you can logon. marquis has this, religion divides, no matter if it is christianity for islam. it is always us against them. from indiana, good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i just want to say it is unfortunate don't have a third category of both, meaning in some instances, it unites us. and in some instances, it divides us. host: how so? caller: for example, the sociology of religion teaches that religion has both its functions and its dysfunctions. in other words, it is not perfect. i am going to leave it at that. host: thank you michael from a cart, indiana. pope francis is celebrating mass in the vatican. a related story about his impact on catholics around the world is available online at washingtonto post.com -- washingtonpost.com. coming at the time when the church is keen to make headlines , but what some are calling the francis affect. his ability to make the church resonate with the young has proven to be encouraging. the headline, pope francis is inspiring millennials to carry the church into the community. from pennsylvania, you say religion divides us. why is that? caller: well, it really divides us -- has divided us for hundreds of thousands of years against things. going back, religion and about the gays and the churches and stuff, it is -- like it says in the bible," in the bible -- it quotes in the bible, man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. religion is than fighting over and over, thousands and thousands of years, against good and evil. it is like -- i disapprove of the gay marriages and stuff like this here. i mean, if you read your bible it talks about it. host: ok. abraham, thank you for the call. another viewer saying, let's ask the native americans about christianity. let's go to norm from pennsylvania. good morning to you in western pennsylvania. caller: yes. i know you lived around this area and i used to listen to you when you're younger. -- you were younger. it is really sad what is going on in this country now. how long do think the country can really stand together -- them trying to divide it all the time. the 10 commandments are a simple -- just a simple 10 rules. people just listen to them and that. the subjects should be president obama going to protect the christian people of the world. you see how many people die, and he is not doing a thing about it and that's there. it is sad to say that -- i really watched c-span a lot in the mornings on the weekends because i work on the weekdays, but i'm so hard to say there are a lot of sick people calling your channel, constantly coming up republicans, religious people. that is what i said, how long do think the country is going to stay together? you have yourself a good day. thank you. host: "timee" magazine has a timeline of what it means for those dates, including a breakdown of the recent signatures by the governors of arkansas and indiana. the question this morning, does religion unite or divide us? allen from montana, good morning to you. caller: good morning. yet, my position is that religion in this form -- a hierarchal structure -- divide society. i am of indigenous background appear in one of the tribes. my family has had generations of experience of dealing with the contemporary version of christianity. to sum it up, the tribes are in the process of surviving and recovering from the american version of religion and christianity. it divides. host: ok. alex, thank you for the call. jim has this. freedom of religion and free speech gives all people the right to discriminate anytime they choose. of course, the first amendment reads -- congress shall make no law respecting an establishment -- the law that is getting a lot of attention not only in indiana and arkansas, but the line -- law signed 20 years ago by bill clinton. what does that look like? [video clip] bill clinton: it reestablishes a standard that better protects all americans of all faiths in the exercise of their religion. in a way that i'm convinced is far more consistent with the founders of this nation than the supreme court decision. more than 50 cases have been decided against individuals making religious claims against government actions since that decision was handed down. this act will help to reverse that trend. by honoring the principle that our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder, but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties. the exercise of religion has been called the first freedom that which we -- originally sparked the bill of rights. our founders cared a lot about religion. and one of the reasons they worked so hard to get the first amendment in to the bill of rights was that they well understood what could happen to this country. how both religion and government could be perverted. if there were not some space created and some protection provided. host: the comments of president bill clinton in 1993 and the signature of the federal religious freedom law. we are asking the question, does religion divide or unitas as americans? bill says, this debate is all due to the combination of the citizens united ruling and hobby lobby equating corporations are people. terry is on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you on this fine day? host: we are fine. how are you? caller: i want to respond to this whole stuff about religion and dividing. i thought the freedom of religion was only extended to the home and buildings explicitly designed for religion. not in the public. i used to be methodist, and then i changed to lutheran. and then i went atheist for a well because i wasn't satisfied at all with any religion. i called upon the how you -- the higher power to help me through my 30 years of alcoholism. for almost a decade, i have been clean and straight and happy because i believe in the life of the universe. and it has come to my rescue more than once in critical situations. host: thank you for the call. another viewer saying religion is the basis of our law. it makes civilized societies possible. from rochester, new york, joe is next. caller: how are you doing? basically, this is how i see it. i have been a part of various different religions, and what they teach you want to adopt the faith is what you know is the truth. and it is the like. and that, within itself, divides us because that has -- that will ideology has embedded in it that what you know is the truth. and it gives you a sort of arrogance that you are living better than somebody else. so that, within itself plagues the division. host: ok, joe, thank you for the call. the headline, jeff bush as the inevitable choice. republicans say, not so fast. three months into what alice once confidently described as shocking on and dominate, his early campaigning looks like it is the junk and not that wasn't. ""po"politico" is reporting -- it soon will come to an and for hillary clinton's earlier staffers. setting up shop at one point plaza in brooklyn heights. a lease has been signed at that location for clinton's had -- campaign headquarters. the operation will occupy two full floors. the clinton team will be taking -- as i should say, with no build out. it indicates that clinton's official announcement will be coming very soon. the federal election commission rules that a candidate has only 15 days between conducting campaign activities and filing the official 2016 paperwork. at the least signature could start the clock for in official launch. hillary clinton's brooklyn headquarters is the story. we'll have coverage from louisville, kentucky. the second republican to officially enter the race, senator rand paul. and next monday, the third candidate, senator marco rubio. live on the c-span networks. you can check on a schedule at c-span.org. next is michael vincent from the figure, new york. good morning, sir. caller: good morning, steve. host: good to hear from you. it has been a while. caller: i am glad to see you. i have tried a couple of sundays, but before i begin, to all the staff at c-span every day, especially those that may be celebrating easter, passover, and working today, we thank you for behind the cameras and behind the scenes. host: and we thank you. caller: i want to get back to the fellow -- i thought the same thing, that it can be both uniting and dividing. my ministry for 25 years has been pro bono, out of pocket. i think people get religion -- which i talked to kids in reform school -- to joining back together just like a ligament joins the muscles between your knee and your thigh. it is an instrument. it is like a hammer. it is like a pn oh. it is whether or not you are playing the tune. now what is a tune? the tune is your faith. and how you play it in your own spirit, it can either be a symphony of the spirit or it can be a cacophony of contempt because one is trying to judge other people by one plus owns -- one's own standard. i think people have to reflect. yesterday was the anniversary of dr. king being assassinated. this country has so much to do, and you just read the first amendment. in less than two dozen words. in about 25 words, madison said that respect -- said respect all. how we have a bill that has over 850 words had not they are going to add more words. i think people have to look at how they are playing their own instrument, and sit into the fact that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women and children are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. and we have yet to come to have equal treatment under law. we have yet to have liberty and justice for all. we need to -- in safe and through religion in one zone spirit, if one loves, then one unites. and one makes whole. and one joins. and if one is living not faith, but in fear, then one will be effect rented, one will be broken, and one will be divisive. my first hospital visit was to a man named jack spitzer in 1979 and he gave me the best theological class i ever had. he just had a quadruple bypass. we were in new york city, he was talking to his daughter in california. he gets off the phone laughing. i said him, look at your spirit -- 1 he said i don't want to to be sad or upset. if you think good you will have good. if you think evil, you will have evil. host: good advice. thank you for your call. you made our sunday. good if you're you again, my friend. our phone lines are open. we want to share with you and picture that you may find fascinating. it is the only known photograph of president abraham lincoln after his death. this was taken on april 24 1865. according to the "washington post" it is the only photo of him after his assassination. of course, this week marking the 150th anniversary of the assassination. communications were quite different in 1865. it often took weeks to get the information, especially to roll homes and businesses -- rural homes and businesses around the country. greece and italy over lincoln's that is the piece. you can check it out online at washingtonhost -- washingtonpost .com. you can check out our information online at c-span.org. c-span3 is across the country and we are focusing on the assassination of president lincoln over the next few weeks. from newport news, virginia. you say religion divides us. why is that, james? caller: i say it divides because we focus on what is different and what is wrong with the people we disagree with. my example would be that, when it comes to homosexual, gay, and lesbian issues, they are always looking at the sins committed by those people, and not recognizing that this is the orientation they were born with. just as straight folks were born with a straight orientation. and we seldom seem to look -- if you read the gospel -- christ condemns adultery. and second marriages after divorce are adultery. but they are very, very accepted in american society. so what we are saying is -- we like sex the way we understand it, but we don't like sex the way some people understand it a little differently. host: by the way, to get through , we ask you to turn the volume down. and wishes -- we say the same to you. southern states leverage, hoping to guarantee a republican tilt to the right. looking at states like south carolina georgia, loader alabama. their impact especially florida and georgia. back to your phone calls. bishop is joining us next from detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: yes, sir. good morning, mr. scully. i have good news. true religion unites. the good news is that the teacher is here. the son of man is here. you can reach him on youtube. he streams live today at 12:00 eastern standard time. what divides this religion is that you have so many people falsely represented. they don't understand the scriptures and they are saying that they were sent to teach us. they are basically line. they have divided the books and divided the people. but now the son of man is here tonight is an to just the true understanding of the scriptures. host: ok. from detroit, michigan. another viewer historically, religion has both divided and united. net good or not bad? and political essay inside the "washington post" on senator menendez. bob menendez doesn't belong in the u.s. senate, writes dana mi lbank. next is john from maryland. you say religion divides us, why? caller: hey, good morning. did you hear that last crackpot? the son of man is here? that is wonderful. please give me my two minutes because what i'm going to say isn't going to be popular especially with the chocolate magic easter bunny. host: ok. we are going to move on to rich in kingsport, tennessee. good morning. rich, are you with us? caller: yes. host: good morning. caller: happy easter. host: to you, too. caller: as i told greta recently, please cut me off if i start to ramble. and i promise not to try a french accent. i think i agree with the callers who say both. the topic is pretty broad. when you say religion, you are incorporating all religions. within some religions, you have major divisions and warfare struggling over who was the true profit and so forth. but as far as religion, if we are confining it to christianity -- which seems to be pretty much accepted among the viewers -- you have -- as far as uniting you look at other charitable works, the hospitals, the universities and so forth established in the name of christianity youthful -- you also have to look at the actual purpose of christianity, to unite, to reunite man with god from a broken relationship. so that is the purpose. at the same time, jesus himself -- in that regard christianity divides those who follow sound doctrine and would identify sin from those who don't. and so that is where you see the debate in the culture. whether one's beliefs can be used, and we see that in public debate and politics, we see people identifying the right to vote your conscience, vote for what is right and what is wrong. and yet, who defines what is right and wrong? if someone says i am voting by what i consider to be right and then a second person says i am voting i what the bible tells me it's right, why should one opinion be regarded as valid and yet the religious not? so the answer is both. it does unite, or should unite races, cultures. and at the same time, there are obviously divisions, as long as people adopt different lifestyles. host: rich, thanks. the fourth person to say we should have a third line to say both. so we thank you for that contribution, as well. meanwhile, the debate over where jesus'body -- jesus' body might have been found in jerusalem. finding jesus, and the findings are unite the debate of jesus' bones, and was he married, and did he have a brother. the story this morning inside the "new york times." if you want to check it out, it is also available online. next is janet, joining us from winter park, florida. you say it divides us, why is that? caller: because it does divide people into believers and nonbelievers. you can almost guarantee any time somebody tells you they are doing something in the name of god or in the name of religion, bad things are going to happen. mainly because they seek to justify actions that could not be justified otherwise by using religion. you know, most of the world conflict and wars are based on religion. so religion has ended up dividing us, instead of bringing us together. i am a recovering catholic. i think the pope is a good, decent man and model. and i believe that jesus said a lot of things that we should live our like -- life like that. but as far as saying everything has to be based on the bible there are a lot of things in the bible that i don't think i see other people supporting. so, religion can be divisive. even with islam. that is divisive too. even among themselves. so it is a very divisive thing and many times i think we would be better off without religion. maybe if people thought that they only got one chance at life and they had to do everything right, here and now, perhaps they wouldn't be as evil as they are. thank you. host: janet, thank you very much for the call. a story inside the "washington post." turning the tables on the chicago medical -- mayoral runoff. the cbs affiliate in chicago. you can check it out on our website. one more voice on this issue of religion and religious freedoms, this is from arkansas governor asa hutchinson. here is what he had to say. [video clip] governor hutchinson: this is a bill that at other times would not be a controversial bill. but these are not ordinary times. this bill is not really complicated. the bill itself saves the standard of review for the courts to consider. in determining first amendment privileges and its weight against the compelling interests of the state. that is simply stated as a summary as to what this legislation does. it is a balancing test. the bill itself does not pick winners and losers. it balances to competing -- two competing constitutional obligations that our founding fathers gave to us. but the issue has been -- become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions. it has divided families, and there is clearly a generational cap on this issue. my son seth, signed the petition asking me, that the governor to veto the bill. and he gave me permission to make that reference. and it shows that families -- there is a generational difference of opinion on these issues. host: the arkansas governor after he signed the religious freedom law, saying changes needed to be made. this is the map from "time" magazine. more than 20 have now passed religious freedom laws. this is an essay from the center for public christianity it is based in australia, saying religion at its worst fosters tribalism. a fair reading of history won't stop there. religion at its best unites and divides in very different ways. our last call is dan from dubuque, iowa. good morning to you. caller: good morning. yeah, i do believe it has capabilities of doing both. some of us are fortunate enough to go almost 80 years. we sit there and have our own religious believes, r douglas -- our dogmas. as long as we have our dogmas, religion is good and religion is good for you. but our dogmas are what keep us at war. it is a believe that your belief is better than somebody else's. and that has just been ongoing and will always be going on. you look over in the middle east right now they could tell you it about religion and other people might take it is just about the almighty dollar and oil. so dogma thing. if you're dogma is better than mine, we might be fighting down the road. host: thanks for the call. and to all of you for your calls, your comment, your comment on facebook, and the many tweets. does religion divide or unitas? we encourage you to continue the conversation online @cspanwj. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, what is next in the middle east. eric trager is a fellow. and later, we will turn our attention to transportation. just how much money should we be spending for roads and bridges around the country? and would you pay more in a gas tax? first, our "news anchors" program. he talked about the meaning of race, as well as gay marriage. here is a portion of that conversation. [video clip] mr. perkins: should i be required to bake a cake, for instance -- host: should i be required to bake a cake for a mixed race marriage if i do not believe races should be intermingled? mr. perkins: that is why they lay out a five-point test in which we have to -- you can make the defense, but then you have to prove that this is a, and fact, a true religious belief. you have to lay a foundation for it. while i say that there are those who like to draw the analogy some parallels to the civil rights movement, there is very little scriptural evidence that one can use to substantiate a racist view of black and white or any other races. there are some that try. it is not there. but when we talk about the issue of marriage, echoes from the beginning in genesis awkward to revelations. jesus himself said, have you not heard that god aid them male and female from the beginning? that is what marriage is. he said it. so the scripture is very clear when it speaks to the issue of marriage. you have so much historical evidence within the church that that is a well documented viewpoint. but not the same for the issue of race. host: i am not going to argue scripture with you, obviously. not my area of expertise. policy intrigues me more which it seems that supporters, like yourself, of law under estimated the opposition and the way this lot would be received. particularly in indiana. it seems like it came out of nowhere. and it speaks to how it was that your side sort of missed this coming. mr. perkins: i wouldn't say it was miscalculated. we saw the same thing last year in arizona. a lot of it comes down to the leadership, quite agree, as to whether or not there will be forceful in standing in defense of religious freedom. host: we hope you tune in. also on c-span radio at 10:00 eastern time. our guest this week is 20 perkins. he is the president of the family research council. "newsmakers" re-airs at 6:00 eastern. 3:00 for those of you on the west coast. and joining us is eric trager. we want to focus on yemen and the arab league. all of the confusing stories. thank you very much for being with us. guest: good to be with you, and happy easter and happy passover to your viewers. host: thank you. and i say confusing because we are sitting down with iran trying to negotiate a nuclear deal and how it is going to proceed on its nuclear capacity. and at the same time, we are fighting iran and yemen, either directly or indirectly did guest: it does get confusing. and i think that confusion is a big part of why we are seeing more assertiveness on the part of our arab allies. our arab allies, and we should remember we have deeply invested in persian gulf security to defend access to oil, saudi arabia the uae kuwait -- we have military bases there. we have made that investment relations 1979, since the iranian revolution. and from those allies' perspective, this is therefore very confusing. and they see it represents a reversal. because of that, they are acting more assertively because they believe that the united states is backing away from the region more broadly, but especially backing away from them in search of a separate piece with iran. i think it is part of the reason we are seeing greater saudi assertiveness in yemen. but really, you know, the yemen situation is a result of the houthis takeover of the country. and egypt's involvement, in particular, this kind of due to the houthis takeover, this -- in the southwestern city, along a major port that would threaten transit through this risk and out to the north. the outreach to iran is having huge diplomatic consequences in terms of the weight our arab allies feel as, and what they are going to do their own in the region. host: this is a piece this morning inside the "washington post." the struggles and yemen have deep roots. i want to share with you a portion. saudi arabia's determination is rooted in something deeper than overcoming into kitty on its borders in fear that rival iran could take advantage of it through perceived links to the insurgents. can you touch on that, please? guest: look, saudi arabia has really flexed its muscles since the air of spring -- arab spring started. it has strongly supported the egyptian, you know, the coup in egypt that removed the muslim brotherhood president. and it did that because it is frankly, during the arab uprisings as a threat to it because it is, of course, a monarchy. but in box rain, in particular as well as in yemen, it was very concerning that the success in box rain -- bahrain, ruled by a shiite minority, could inflame tensions in its own country. shiites tended because in tribute in the eastern part of the country, where many of the oil fields are. and saudi arabia has therefore been pretty concerned about a shiite uprising in that area. so they have been pretty aggressive, certainly within the peninsula, in putting down helping to quell the uprising in bahrain. now they are very involved, of course, in yemen where the houthis takeover has been backed by iran. so we have the regional diplomacy in which iran and saudi arabia are longtime adversaries, but we also have a domestic political situation in saudi arabia that makes us especially worried about regional trends. host: some background on the league of arab states, which by the way, was formed at the end of world war ii that connecting 45. six founding states -- egypt, iraq, georgia, lebanon, saudi arabia, syria. syria, by the way, was suspended back in 2011. and mike has this tweet. does the formation really unite these countries, or is it largely symbolic? how would you respond? guest: it is a great question. first of all, we should remember that this is just being proposed. the notion of a joint arab military force is something that has been out there for a long time. the arab league was founded in 1945. it was something that there -- that was discussed. the have been notable arab appointments. but as far as forming a joint military right now, that is still under discussion. we see that the arab states that would participate in that maybe are unified in yemen because of just how unstable that country has always been. because of the houthis takeover of the country threatens maritime secured, and therefore oil. but when we look at other conflicts around the region, it is not clear to me that they will be on the same page. egypt is most concerned about the situation in libya. quatar is on a fundamentally different side. they are not really unified on syria, where, as you noted syria it was suspended from the arab league. but egypt, while not particularly liking inside, is afraid that if it goes will be a catalyst or crater for stability -- instability there. the uae very aggressively pushing against has had -- h assad. with the notable exception of oman, because they try to have it relationship -- try to have a close relationship with iran. but i don't know that we will see a joint airports really fighting -- arab force really fighting in other venues. host: in just a moment, i want to redo this editorial, but first, can you give us a sense of the country of yemen? how large it is geographically? how many people live there? and what it has become such a hot spot in the region. guest: sure. we should remember that yemen was divided for many years. first of all as far as arab involvement in yemen in 1962 there was a -- the start of the yemenese civil war, in which the was her coup that removed -- there was a coup that removed the monarchy. so it basically became a proxy war between saudi arabia and egypt. that was extremely costly for egypt. egypt lost 26,000 troops out of a 70,000 troop deployment. so that history weighs very heavily on a egyptian involvement. but the country was reunified in 1990. it is mostly tribal outside of the major cities. that is to say that various big clans control many of the areas. and the houthis which have now cut of taken over the country are a sect from the north that is associated with shiism, one of the variance of shiism -- variance of the key battleground right now in yemen is in two areas in one being on the southern border and the port city. the fear around the region is that if you these really succeeded taking over the board it would impact maritime traffic. host: as the situation continues to unfold in yemen, the era forces -- arab forces working together. this article from the new york times. it would be a catastrophic mistake for saudi arabia and other arabs date to allow the many civil war to become the catalyst for a larger secretary shiite sunni war with iran. president obama should press the spectrum on this audi leadership. -- press this fact upon the saudi leadership. guest: yemen has been an unstable country for a very long time. we need to keep this in mind as we look at this conflict. it is not clear to me what stability in yemen really looks like. pakistan is also getting involved in this particular war. the goal is to drive back the who the takeover, and restore the government to the major cities. this is a very tribal country with serious infrastructure issues. it might be the first country to ever run out of potable water because of the crop that is a major part of the domestic economy. will this, as the editorial suggests, become a more regional war? it already is. the broad he sunni shiite division that has dominated regional politics for the past few years has a focal point in yemen but u.s. outreach on a wrong -- to iran on one hand, and there'd folded with syria on the other is likely to the sunni shiite divide the focal weight of middle east politics for a while. host: our phone lines are open for republicans -- are open. for republicans, andd democrats. >> as you know the gcc has been a aged on a just resolution that deals with the political situation in yemen. we will work to reach a consensus on that. we are will also get to the root causes and conditions that led to the current situation in yemen. it is due to the failure of implementation of the resolution. >> did any councilmembers asked to evacuate their own citizens? >> there are evacuations happening right now. >> how are these resolutions going to work together? >> we just met, so i cannot give you answers before we discuss them. we have meetings on each side between the members of the council and the gcc. we are working on that today and we hope that we can, by monday, come up with something made - - -. host: the representative for jordan. her comments from new york. your response? guest: the situation in yemen is some that is obviously unified. most of the sunni arab world and the united states is supporting the saudi effort there. i think the conflict was likely to continue for it well because the country is very unstable. it is a very tribal country. it is a country with serious poverty, serious infrastructure issues. i think that it is possible that the saudi intervention might succeed in beating back the advances but this is going to be a problem that requires international attention for a while. host: one report from the red cross, the streets of human are strewn with dead bodies in neighborhoods across the country. good morning, color on the republican line. caller: i have a very short comment. this tentative agreement with iran by obama i think us but the world in harms way. i just think it is a misguided attempt on his part to further his legacy. if i can just comment on washington journal in general. you guys have been around for almost 36 years. there was a time when i would religiously get up and listen to washington journal. as i return give a daily part of my routine. -- retired, it became a daily part of my routine. but, unfortunately, i feel it has launched into the 21st century version of the beverly hillbillies. host: why is that? caller: my only response to that is that people have to listen to washington journal, and just listened to the comments, and how people will invoke situations in the united states that have no bearing on whatever that subject is. they find a way to talk about -- to change the subject to their own political bent. i think it is said. host: thank you for your comment. we tried to make this every day an honest dialogue about the issues in the country and around the world grew we hope you keep watching. it is always a two-way street. we welcome your comments and criticism. we go back to the first point. a related tweet. what happens if iran becomes -- gets political control of yemen? guest: first of all, we're talking about hourthi control of yemen. they are really a domestic group that arose in yemen for domestic reasons. they are backed by iran. to the caller's first point from my standpoint the risk with the iran irandeal, is that it basically does not in any way address rani and profanity around the region iranian profanity around the region. iran will have a freer hand to continue supporting proxies across the region, to continue to gain dominance in lebanon and iraq and syria at elsewhere because sanctions will be dropped. in 10 years, they will be a richer countries with roxy's that are so awarded. they may then have the opportunity to pursue their nuclear ambitions more aggressively. i think this creates a dangerous road map to an even more iranian dominated middle east. host: some background on our guest eric trager, he has studied at the university of cairo and the university of pennsylvania. he is previously a professor at the university of pennsylvania. next is ed, from our republican line. go ahead with your question. caller: my question is really about jordan's role in the region, in this coalition, and more recently in yemen. guest: jordan is contributing to bethe air effort. this enjoyed military force is something that is still evolving. but certainly jordan is likely to remain involved. host: what does iran get from all of this? caller: iran does not just see itself as a kind of big and powerful country. it sees itself as a country that should dominate the region. it aspires to be a hegemon. it aspires to export its own islamic revolution. those ambitions are seen as threatening to its neighbors. a hegemonic power's ambitions are always seen as threatening to it a verse, but this is also threatening because of particular ideology it is trying to ask her. what washington should remember is that just because we might make a deal with the wrong just because we might take certain steps to try to control iran's nuclear ambitions for the next 10 or 15 years, does not mean that our allies who view iran as a threat will sit still. that is really what this plan to form a joint military force should remind washington of. that we can try to reach out to iran, tried to create an accord but they will still see iran as a threat, take matters into their own hands, and that will make the region even less stable. host: from ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a statement, we are talking about a region. but so many people have no idea of the jogger aubrey -- geography of the region. they do know where yemen is, where saudi is, rather than iran and iraq. i think it is important occasionally, to bring up the real areas you're talking about and what they are in control of . the canals in the transportation modes. all of that is important. they need to see who is threatened. where is the location of israel to saudi, and all of that organism to talk about that. host: thank you for bringing that up. let's look at the map again to the end the importance of his location as a seaport country. guest: you really want to pay attention to that south western tip of yemen. if you go straight north, you will see to the northwest, the red sea. and the suez canal. that is not only a major point of transit and shipping, it is a major source of revenue for the egyptian government any traffic that is going to pass through the suez canal will have to continue into the red sea. that is why any shot down -- shu t down is a threat to global shipping and maritime securities and egypt securities. by the way it is also a very important for u.s. national security. we have multiple military bases in the persian gulf. they are there historically to counter iran's hegemonic ambitions, but to keep them supplied we need access through the suez canal. this is not just a threat to regional security, to egyptian security, this is a threat to our own ability to supply our bases in the persian gulf. host: roger from virginia. caller: good morning. religion is an individual -- it is automatically going to divide. over the spread of the world they have been fighting for 2000 years. nothing that we are going to stop them from fighting, because it is the difference of religion. host: thank you. guest: obviously at the heart of this particular conflict is a sick carrying conflict. i would tend to agree with you that there is very little chance of the united states, from 7000 miles away solving those kinds of conflicts. but on the other hand, we have historically had a stake in this fight. the iranian evolution -- revolution in 1979 was an anti-american revolution. it was a revolution that immediately changed a long time i laid made it a longtime adversary. that country has since tried to create its own agenda in the region. we have long time allies that gives ordered for many years and now trying to reach out to those allies adversary, we are confusing the region. we are causing them to take matters into their own hands in ways that make the region even less stable. i agree, we are not likely to solve this sectarian conflict. but at the very least, by reassuring our allies, we might be able to encourage greater stability in the region. host: if you want more information on the washington institute, this is what the website looks like. we're also taking your tweets this morning. those countries are religiously supported monarchies, aren't they? guest: pakistan has gotten involved, turkey is likely to get involved in some way. i would have to run through the exact list of who is so far contributing troops to kind of think that through. but this is a saudi led fight. the saudi's have dedicated 150,000 ground troops. this is certainly a regional war. it is also a regional war that is hitting the traditional sunni powers against iran. at the heart of this, i think, is an alignment on yemen that we might not see on other regional issues. host: virginia caller on our democrat line. caller: i'm going to play on his point, of the confusion of the masses. why would we go into iraq, take saddam out, and then let others take over. this creates confusion in the area. this goes back to their country. iran is playing a big role. shiites are killing sunnis. this is seen as allying with iran even though they attacked to the embassy. even though they were our enemies, and even though saudi arabia is against our war they were a loyal ally to the united date and this is very confusing. host: thank you for the call. guest: we were talking about how the united date is aligned against iran and yemen. the united states is also on the effective side of yemen, but against isis. the iranian backed shiite militias were one of the fact is an targeting u.s. troops raid of course, iran has been deeply involved in syria. here is the problem. by positioning ourselves as being aligned with iran according to one way of looking this, being thereir air force in iraq, we're sitting ourselves for that eventual moment that the air campaign feels that its proxies in iraq cap iran -- in iraq have wion. we have be extremely careful in the way which we align with iran and iraq. one of the key catalysts of the sectarian warfare in its revolutionary ideology has in the cause of the sectarian flareup. we are effectively treating a ron -- iran as if it is the firemen, while it is also been the arsonist. host: a caller from england. caller: happy easter. just want to make a reasonable brief point. historically, iran has always tilted between being friend and foe. but we also know that in 1999, with the launch of the euro, iran was seriouslyy thinking about switching oil sales to the euro. how much of this has more to do with petrodollar preservation, and less about actual security? we know that the private citizens of siberia have been financing isis and other very dangerous groups in the region. i am wondering why we are prepared to have a go at iran and not prepared to have a go at saudi arabia and force the necessary change in preventing terrorism and groups like isis from existing? guest: i do not think, at the moment and the current conflict is primarily about oil. it is primarily about our regional control. iran is a revolutionary republic that is been trying to export its revolution since 1999. it does that your various proxy groups prayed has proxy groups throughout the region -- it does that through various proxy groups. it has proxy groups throughout the region. for saudi arabia, that is a tremendous threat. it is a threat or regional regions, it is a threat for security reasons, it is also a threat for internal reasons. saudi arabia has a repressed shiite minority, about 10% or 15%. that minority is concentrated in the east, and saudi arabia has long been concerned about a shiite uprising. saudi arabia itself is a deeply sectarian and intolerant regime that has no willingness to integrate its shiite minority. it stands off with iran as both a struggle for regional power but also saudi arabia is afraid that iran might incite a domestic shiite uprising. host: i want to go back to the other issue we talked about negotiations continue to the end of june, as the president tries to sell this to congress. obama lobbies for the iran deal, as u.s. assures on sanctions. in a flurry of calls to lawmakers, and assurances that the sanctions will not be lifted anytime soon. this is just one part of the different layers of our relations with iran. particularly with their role in yemen. his that complicate nuclear deal ? guest: the administration has made the judgment that it is not going to focus on what iran was doing in the region when it comes to nuclear negotiations. is going to focus squarely on the nuclear issue, because a nuclear iran would be much bigger threat than anything else they are doing. in the administrations steve and a very reasonable of you this is the worst of their behaviors. that is what it has chosen to focus on. in terms of whether sanctions will be lifted soon, or at what point they will be lifted, one of the real challenges the administration will face is that the iranians are messaging something very different. where the administration is saying that sanctions will not be lifted soon the iranians are saying that they will be lifted soon. the foreign minister say they have already collapsed. it is not clear exactly what the foreign minister was referring to. whether he was trying to address his own domestic audience with that sort of comment. that is going to be a real challenge for the obama administration. trying to convince skeptics of this deal that it really hold iran speak to the fire when it recently expires after 10 or 15 years, allows around to keep many subdivisions -- iran to keep many center freesias -- centrifuges. the bottom line is this deal does not in any way, address what iran is doing in the region. because it only focuses on the nuclear, and at some point those sanctions will be lifted, they will be a richer country much more connected to the world, and therefore will have greater resources for doing what it has been doing in the region for the past three plus decades. host: since the fighting began, the death toll estimated to be about 500 in yemen. good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you for letting me speak to you. i have a lot of questions. first on my mind is that supporters of the ousted president are in support of the houthi rebels throughout yemen. iran has been backing shia related minority groups to various types of success, and yet we are concerned that they are going to convert people? i do not see them as conversion, as convincing the masses they need to be relieved great even if that happens, what good will come of any of this? host: thank you. guest: as to the caller's first point, it is one of the most interesting developments in the human conflict with the way the ousted president has tried to ride the wave of this conflict back into prominence, and possibly back into power. i do not know whether that will succeed, but definitely he has tried to use this conflict to shift his own fortunes. as to the second point, the caller is right, iran through its proxies is not likely to convert many people to shiism or spread its revolution in that sense. winning new adherents, but it is trying to dominate the region politically. it has had some real success. that is why we are seeing such a response to yemen by the sunni arab countries. and really want to try to resist that and focus on the one conflict in which they are really on the same page. host: another partner in all of this is of course egypt reviewer interested this guest has written an essay on egypt being a partner in the human campaign. -- yemen campaign. we have a caller from roberta, georgia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think they're taking a greater role in the middle east. i do not attend to believe that iran is not a problem, but 30 years of hostility against them has produced very little results for us. that said, i am wondering what the extent, country by country or total, of our financial and physical support four players in the region are? if you can give me a general idea of what we are on the hook for. host: ballpark estimate? guest: when it comes to egypt it is one point $3 billion a year. president obama made a very important decision on tuesday to resume the shipment of those weapons to egypt. many of those weapons have been held up since october of 2013 in protest of the ouster of mohamed morsi a few months earlier. we are deeply involved in supporting egypt and we are also supplying intelligence and diplomatic support to the saudi led campaign. we have all sorts of arms sales to these countries as well you nerds take this deeply involved, and strongly supporting the saudi led effort. the confusion is the way the obama administration has reached out to the iran administration. those things are great irritants to our long-time allies, the involvement of a ron iran and it is deeply troubling to these countries. and the united states supporting the against iran is deeply confusing to our allies. caller: good afternoon. what should the arabs be doing? 19 thousand firefighters -- foreign fighters land [indiscernible] we are helping america. your gift said that in the middle east there are more sunnis. but 90% of iran is shiite. 60% of iraq is she it. 40% of yemen is shia. your guest is supporting terrorism. he has to remember that our country, which helped america is key. host: thank you. caller: iran is a major force in the deep secretary a device that is right now overtaking the region, that has dominated regional politics for nearly the past decade, and arguably longer. it is a ron iran that helped the civil war syria continue to where it has made it helps the breakdown that gave roots to a group like isis. i am certainly well aware of the threat of isis. i think the caller is correct that it is a major threat to the united states. fighters from elsewhere will fight with isis, and they might someday come home. that is a huge risk that we are to take seriously. the question is whether ron is a partner in that fight -- iran is a partner in that fight. host: last question. caller: i wanted to comment, and say what is wrong with a ron being the dominant force over there? -- iran being the dominant force over there? they are two different issues . caller:guest: first of all, it is an anti-american country that has tried to move through many different mechanisms to resist american influence in the region. during the iraq war they supported troops fighting our troops. they are now pursuing nuclear weapons. they say they want to destroy israel, our ally. this is a country with very hostile intent in the region. hostile intent against american allies. when we look at yemen and the current situation, we have to remember that for 36 years we have aligned ourselves in the region against this particular iranian regime. we have built bases against this regime, and now when we reach out to that regime, we confuse our allies. they do not just sit still and say i guess america is trying to make a deal, they start matters into their own hands. we cannot just look at the merits of a new new deal with iran with that narrow lens. we have to consider the way the other regional layers will respond. what we are seeing is that they will respond more unilaterally. that will make the region a region that is the biggest supplier of oil around the world. they will make it even less stable. host: we will conclude on that note. eric trager is a fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. thank you. we will take a short break them and then we will turn to domestic issues. the roads, bridges, and potholes you're facing. and the obama administration calling for more money for highway and road and bridge transportation repairs. kellie mejdrich will be joining us to speak about it. negotiations with iran and other countries with nuclear capability. but first, if you travel to tulsa, oklahoma, you have to cross route 66. this weekend we travel to tulsa, oklahoma on c-span2's book tv and american history tv. we travel downward 66 -- down route 66. >> right now we're at the centennial lazo. an incredibly important point on route 66, and an important spot for the city of tulsa. this plasma is dedicated to route 66, and especially to a man, and adopted tolleson like me, named simon - cyrus avery. that is him behind me in that ford, with his wife and his daughter. he is driving along this new road he has helped to create that was unveiled in 1926 and he has come across a teamster coming out of the oil patch. calling pipe -- haauling crude, and the horse is startled. it represents the old and the new meeting. that is why this point is so important here to the city into the road. this is where we call east meets west. right here on the banks of the arkansas river. this is where it all happened for tolleson. -- tulsa/ . host: as they say, get your kicks on route 66 as we travel down that historic route into tulsa, oklahoma. you can watch more of that program at 2:00 eastern today. check out the full tour on c-span.org/citiestour. kellie mejdrich joinsns me j to speak about the federal transportation budget. guest: this year's transportation bill is slightly larger than what the administration produced last year. the major christian, whether that take any flight in congress or not, you have the problem of the road funding bill. four years congress has been plugging up this hunting -- funding gap between the highway trust fund and the actual revenue. host: driving more fuel-efficient vehicles you're not spending as much as gas -- on gas which brings down the revenue from gas tax. in the netherlands it is $3.79. in italy it is $3.67 a gallon. in greece, three dollars $3.37 a gallon. and in the united states, $.53 per gallon. guest: there is just not a bill in congress to support a gas tax increase. and many say that is good for americans. any type of gas increase at this time is pretty unpopular. host: we cover the political playbook lunch moderated by mike allen. we sat down with transportation secretary anthony foxx as he aligned with the administration is looking for. >> the transportation system in this country is in a huge pothole, if you will. they have been under investing in transportation for a long time. over the last eight years we have had 32 short toerm measures. when you to pivot forward to substantial injections of financing into transportation. we also need to give enough certainty over a longer term so that we can actually get something done on the street. we have a grow america act that we put out today. we are very excited about it. >> you said earlier that the transportation system is a merry-go-round. you put a quarter in net and it goes around again. that is how we have been treating it. you say we need a different approach. >> frankly, since 1956 with me hen the interstate highway system was established, the funding and policy has been the same. the way we pay for his also been the same. we really need to think differently about all thtrree of those things. we increased transit investment by 76%, $115 billion over six years, to recognize that we have a great country, growing needs and frankly our transit systems are an escape well for some of the traffic that is going to cause congestion in the future. host: that is anthony foxx. the president has essentially a year and a half left in his administration. can he get this done? guest: that is an interesting question. with a republican controlled congress, it is unlikely that his proposal would go through. but at the same time there is commitment from republicans, especially chairman of the transportation committee bill shuster that he wants to see a long-term bill. the deadline right now is may 31, when current funding expires. it seems that a short term extension at this time is likely. there is a lot of will in congress to get something done before the end of the year. the funding question is the major question. host: it is one of the most common complaints. you can travel across any bridge in this area, in new york, of weston california and see the wear and tear these bridges. more than a hundred years or and ld in some places. guest: they agree there needs to be more funding for infrastructure but the obama administrations proposal for a one time 40% increase, shuster does not think that that could be tenable. he thinks that read treating on corporate earnings is a way to get that funded. host: the deadline right now is may 31. the deadline for what? guest: last year congress passed an extension of a bill that was passed in 2012. then injected $10.8 billion into the highway trust fund, which state submit receipts to the highway trust fund for work they do across the country and may 31 is when the bill expires, but also the expected date at which there's not going to be enough money in the highway trust fund to continue reimbursing states for those receipts for projects they have going on. by may 31 congress needs to make some sort of action in order to keep the fund solvent. otherwise the department of transportation, as secretary fox told us all last week, sometime in late july or early august, it is going to run out of money. they're going to have to take is used to ensure the solvency of the fund by the end of july. host: 61,000 u.s. bridges in need of repair, including these figures. at least 50% of the bridges were rated as structurally deficient led by rhode island at 23% pennsylvania at 22%, iowa at 21%, south dakota at 20% oklahoma at 18%, nebraska and 70%, north dakota at 60% and maintenance 15% -- and maine as 50%. t 15%. guest: there was a report that came out last week from the american road building association showing that of those structurally deficient ridges in this country, there are about 250 million trips a day on all of this infrastructure. this definitely has a recognition of a backlog and need of repair. it comes down to a political question of how do we funded. the answer is not clear right now. host: the douglas memorial bridge that is an example of the wear and tear you can see. the cracks of the decaying cement that hold of that bridge. let's get to your cold calls -- phone calls. caller: happy easter. main point, i remember when vice president joe biden said a couple of years ago that if you are flying into america and you were to go to laguardia or jfk boulevard -- airport i mean, he would think you are flying into a third world country. i do not understand, we need to have a gas tax maybe charge $1.50 a gallon. we need for structure on our bridges. we cannot wait for one of our bridges to collapse. host: he is referring to the one that collapsed in minnesota. guest: that could be a consequence down the line. but the department has shifted away from the number of structurally and sound but when do not believe that is fast enough. host: caller from rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning. happy easter to you. there is some really misgivings in the information. when you show taxes paid in europe, the difference over there is that they made drive to or three miles to go to work. we have a big country, we have 5200 miles back and forth to work . and that is why you cannot have such a big tax in this country. they do not drive nearly as much as we do. most of your federal jobs that come to roadwork the union has to get the work. it is proven that it is 30% more cost to do roadwork when it is federal, rather than an open right to work in states. the way we drive in this country is our further, so our amount of tax is that we -- tax that we pay is a lot more. thank you. host: we put that information up , as a way of comparison of the way we rank with european countries. guest: it is a contrary of how do we fund rose, and should there be a gas tax -- quandary of how do we fund roads and should there be a gas tax? many people say it is not getting at the right user fee. regardless, with the tax that hasn't increased since 1993, the buying power has gone so low it is not worth what it used to be. with increased fuel economy from vehicles, that revenue is continuing to decline. the problem remains that congress has authorized a certain amount of funding for programs, and there is not enough money to pay for it. something has to be done. some people say scale back the program, maybe we should draw down the amount of funds we are spending on the gas tax to match the revenues. there are several proposals from several publicans -- republicans in congress, who advocate paring down the federal goldman -- program entirely. host: kellie mejdrich began as a reporter for the reporter in los angeles. now she works for cq roll call. from massachusetts, good morning. caller: this really shows the majority of both our congressman and the american public. -- immaturity of both our congressman and the american public. i am a listener of c-span, we are spending all our money going toward benefits. just part b of medicare causes us $85 billion. i'm shaking my head, as a 57-year-old, that we need to get some grownups down there. guest: one of the things is that the gas tax and the highway trust fund are separate accounts. they spend the money a little bit different. but ineven with that in mind, there are calls for congress to cut down on the spending. general fund revenues have supplemented the fund. there's that argument in congress that there is an overspending in certain areas, and that it does to await what can be spent on infrastructure. host: this is a tweet from another viewer, saying that the fed just uses gas tax to control the state. let's go to zach in las vegas. good morning. democratic line. caller: i would like to agree with the republican caller a couple of comments ago. the implications as far as how low our gas tax is compared to other countries, i think it should be kept that way. you should not be punished for driving to work. that is how i view that gas tax . host: thank you. guest: the congressional research service just about a report a couple of weeks ago about the gas tax, and road funding questions in general. they explored the argument of how may be general fund revenue should he used to fund transportation. maybe the gas tax and user fee is not the only mechanism behind building bridges and roads in this country. maybe this is something that should not be shouldered entirely by the drivers but on the other hand, some people say that increasing the gas tax might make people turn to public transportation as a viable alternative that can then compete. that the price of driving a car is artificially to load compared to other methods of transportation. some believe that the gas tax pays a part of that. host: it has its limits. if you live in south dakota or parts of california or other parts of the country, public transportation is nonexistent. guest: and there is debate over whether public transportation should be part of the highway trust fund expenditures. there are those who want to see bike paths and sidewalks taken out of the highway trust fund program. the nation's roads and bridges should be where the money is focused. caller: good morning. first of all i am 76 years old. and as long as i can remember there has always been a gas tax to the problem is the money going into washington is like feeding pigs on a hot farm. no amount of money is enough to keep them going. rebuilding roads and bridges, by the time that goes to contract and goes down to the people who physically do the work, there are so many layers that it is just waste and fraud. i am in the homebuilding business. he you have a superintendent to build a house, you do not need corporate structure. they're on these government programs and get all this money. but the waste is the real problem. it comes down to very simple, number one, you see signs and highway crews working. if there are 10 people you have a bunch of people standing around at taxpayer expense. guest: one of the things about math 21, which was the legislation that was passed in 2012, that is the mass ager highway bill that was passed -- the last major highway bill that was passed. in that bill they included for the first time some of these sun performance measures. means by which they evaluate how the money is being's band, and tried to weigh success of the project -- being spent, and tried to wave the success of the project, to try to answer some of those waste ends. how bad is congested, what can we do to prove improve it. in the past there was less oversight on how this money was spent, and it was given to the states with a lot of freedom. it still is, but these are new ways to evaluate spending of this federal money that is in place because of this legislation. host: the white house requesting $470 billion over the next bill. caller: we are in a dilemma in michigan right now, trying to pass a sales tax, and they are saying it is for the roads. but as i have been reading the newspaper, it has been breaking down, and none of the money is going to go to the roads for two or three years. people's faith in our politicians, i guess i wasould say, is eroding. in spending of money on war s, we need to spend it on our citizens first. caller:guest: local sales tax initiatives have pretty high approval rates. 70% of local tax initiatives were successful it is harder for people to understand where that money goes, and so while local initiative, ok, i have debate sales tax and i can expand the size of the freeway i take to work every day, it is really clear to people that pay that tax to see where it is going. i think one of the struggles for a lot of people out here is that in washington, it is harder for your average citizen to see where that money goes, but with the proposal of 478 billion dollars for six years, this is the money and there is a lot of work to be done. there are billions and billions of dollars backlog in construction, and roads and bridges across the country. there is a definitely a need. it is just hard to see where that need is. host: from lebanon, connecticut steve is next. good morning. caller: good morning. my thought is that obama had a hundred 80 billion dollars in stimulus went recession began. and i sent e-mails saying i would support it, but spend it on infrastructure. instead, my share that was a $50 rebate on a quote on quote air-conditioner that was made in china. infrastructural spending would have helped when the bridge went down in minnesota, then you bridge was opened in one year so he could have channeled that money towards infrastructure. i just wanted to know if you have a comment. guest: some of the american recovery act money was appropriated to transportation programs. it actually resulted in demonstrable improvement in road conditions. there was a study that was done by the federal highway administration that showed that 2009 influx of funds was helpful to the transportation system. in projecting out how much money would be spent later, they had to downgrade kind of their baseline projections because they did not expect that much money would come in the future. but, the other thing about the recession was that it also decrease the amount of people driving on the road and is a very complicated issue. if there was some money that would have to growth funding but some of the lasting problems at that time are making construction and projects difficult now as well. host: if you're driving in your car and listening to us on c-span radio, 90.1 fm on washington dc and on channel xm 120 across the country we are focusing on the highway transportation bill. whether or not we should be spending more for roads, bridges, and if the structure. william from miami, florida, republican line. you are next. caller: good morning. my question is or my comment is just like the other caller was saying, the contracts issued for the roads, the management like the central artery project, that thing was $14 billion, 25 year project and a lot of the money was spent in oversight. a lot of oversight money. yet, we keep putting a lot of layers on top of the contracts overseeing supervisors or managers. there has got to be a way of -- we should be able to get money from all over spending and we should be getting it back in the united states. host: william, do you think we should eliminate the federal gas tax and just put it on individual states like florida where you live? caller: i think so. i definitely wish -- definitely we should at least tackle the mass amount of oversight. you can see when you are building a how we, the same companies are doing all the projects. there is also a situation where it happens along -- among large companies and the little guys competing in the projects cannot. so, yes. host: thank you for the call. the latest of series of calls talking about the mismanagement and abuse of these dollars. guest: contract reform is a hot topic. when it comes to trying to make projects streamlined, trying to eliminate some of the waste that people say occurs in these projects there are some things in the obama administration proposal to try and speed up environmental clearances, for example, streamlined the environmental review process. again, the performance measure types of changes to try and make projects more efficient is something that occurred in the 21 legislation, but i am so that contracting and project efficiency will be a topic of debate as the highway bill makes its way through congress and session. host: when of our viewers living in new york saying the total tax that -- gas tax is $.90, including 18.5 for the federal reserve and 69.5 for the state. does that sound right to you? guest: that does. a lot of states that come up and implemented their own gas tax higher than federal levels in an effort to try and increase the amount of funding available for local road projects. some argue that this is a case for highway funding responsibility going back to the states already. others say that the federal gas tax is the basis for a nationwide program that is necessary for interstate commerce in order to have both state and federal arms of highway road funding projects. in the absence of gas tax increase since 1993, there are states that have come in and dramatically increase their own local gas taxes. host: other viewers think people are driving more with lower gas prices and gases -- and cars getting better gas price -- gas mileage, and they think we should start funding more for highways and bridges. lewis from florida, you are next. good morning? caller: yes, good morning and happy easter. host: you, too. caller: my concern is basically that they would miss allocate the money to basically all the told money they allocate now which is supposed to be going to road repair which is being mismanaged. my concern as a taxpayer and american is they will use it as another slushy fund for earmarks and we will still have our infrastructure in need of repair. i think we don't need to give them another slushy fund and they need to be able to resolve the problems with what they have already. host: two up for the call. do you want to follow up with anything further? guest: the idea of eliminating waste and projects is high on the minds of lawmakers out here. how to show americans that that is occurring at the federal level is difficult. host: we will go to michael in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we need to lay off 50% of our police officers in order to save $60 trillion over 90 years. we have to many cops. they're taking away from local revenue. thank you. host: more of a statement that comment. let's go back to the issue of private businesses. what are they saying about the state of american roads and bridges? or organizations like that chamber of commerce? guest: the chamber of commerce has supported the gas tax increase, but again, the political mechanism by which tax gap has increased is much different -- tax -- gas tax increase is much different in an environment like that. many groups seeing the need for an increase in infrastructure finance, not only to improve the efficiency of the movement of goods, but also as a means to help the economy continue to recover. i think that while there is a lot of public support trying to figure out how to find it is the thing that is holding us back. host: again, this headline from the u.s. department of transportation with an estimated 61,000 bridges in need of repair across the united states. we will go to tom in vermont for public in line. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. i am just wondering, all the decades of this gasoline tax and then not playing it into the infrastructure, where did all this money go? and then again, i senators and congressmen -- our senators and congressmen get $100,000 a year for travel expense, i think we should take this money away from them and let them really see how bad this stuff is and use that money towards it. it is just a thought. they failed us, so let them pay with all the travel expense money. host: thank you, tom. guest: this scale -- the size of these projects is so big that that small amount of money would just be a drop in the bucket. the other thing is that the gas tax money has been going to projects, but congress has recognized it is not enough. since 2003, there has been $63 billion appropriated from the general fund to keep the receipts that states submitted the federal government for eligible highway and transit projects since 2008. 60 the billion dollar -- $63 billion has gone to the highway trust fund to keep the department of transportation's ability to reimburse states for those projects. while some argue that there is -- that that money has gone to waste work where did it go? congress has wanted more than what the tax collects. host: i last call is from aurora, illinois. john, good morning. caller: yes i would like to make a comment. the federal government has monopoly issue of the currency and has no functional constraint on the the ability to spend money and move real resources around to achieve full economic output an appointment. host: this goes back to the issue of state versus federal taxes. guest: this is a hot topic. with billions and billions of dollars in receipts already being submitted to the highway trust fund, even if we halted all federal funding, it would still take i think one year for them to reimburse states for what has are ready been spent. it seems unlikely that such a massive movement like that would occur in congress. we really are looking to continue the road funding and that is the main conversation. host: kellie mejdrich is on the transportation beat and her work is available online at and in the newspaper. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for your time. host: when we come back, we turn our attention to nuclear treaties and countries that have nuclear weapons. daryl kimball will be stopping by to add his perspective to the issue. you are watching and listening to "washington journal" on sunday, april 5. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> the most memorable moment of this week for me was hearing senator cory gardner at our lunch yesterday say, you need to be firm in your principal but flexible in the details because i think it really reflects the solution that -- the harsh polarization across the country and a methodology that at all the senators, all the congressmen and women, and all the state legislators can adopt we can really come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite came from julie adams the secretary of the senate. she says to remember to be humble and have a strong worth -- work ethic because the people you meet on the way up, you will meet them away on that the -- he will meet them again on the way back down. >> in particular, in congress itself, we have a lack of true statesman. as much as i may disagree with them, senator john mccain did something very impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill and reading the senate torture report and maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy. i think at the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle, who are willing to make these decisions with people but it may not often agree with, that is essentially what we need to maintain the security, the integrity of our nation as a go on. >> high school students who generally rank academically in the top 1% of their states were in washington dc as part of the united states senate youth program. tonight, at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span "q&a." >> monday night on the communicators, author vincent moscow on the development of cloud storage of big data and how the government is using it. >> the national security agency is building one of the world's largest cloud data centers in a secure mountain facility in utah. it is doing so because it's surveillance -- it surveillance needs that degree of storage and security. the u.s. government chief information ordered u.s. government agencies to move to the cloud. as a result, even civilian agencies are turning to cloud services. >> monday that at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: the framework is in place and the negotiations with iran over their nuclear capacity joining us in washington is daryl kimball, the executive director of the arms control association. good morning and thank you for being with us. let's talk about countries which have nuclear weapons. how many right now? guest: nine countries that have nuclear weapons. the first five to acquire nuclear weapons words the united states, soviet union now russia, written, france, china and since then, there has been an effort to hold back his spread -- the spread of nuclear weapons. some countries have not joined the nonproliferation treaty regime, india and pakistan have conducted nuclear test explosions and they have nuclear weapons today, but they are not members of the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty. israel has nuclear weapons that won't acknowledge them. of course, north korea has pursued nuclear weapons. they have produced material for about 10 bombs and they withdrew the nonproliferation treaty in 1993 and efforts are underway to hold back their buildup. those other countries that have nuclear weapons state. -- weapons today. overall, the effort to stop the spread hasn't succeeded more than it has failed. there have been several countries that had nuclear weapons but gave them up. south africa had a small nuclear arsenal before the end of the apartheid regime. also ukraine and kazakhstan inherited nuclear weapons from the soviet union. it fell apart in 1991. they agreed to get rid of those weapons and joint the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. host: focusing so much on iran, but there are two other countries that pose a serious concern with this nuclear proliferation and that is syria and north korea. can you touch on that? guest: syria has been accused, and i think it is an accurate accusation of trying to build a secret reactor that could be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons with assistance from north korea. and israel bombed that reactor some years ago. it is still under investigation by the international atomic agency to determine they are not pursuing nuclear weapons technology. north korea, which has been in conflict technically with the united states and south korea for many years, has been steadily pursuing nuclear weapon related technology. it has the capacity to produce plutonium and has been pursuing the capability and it has it now to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. uranium can be enriched to reactor grades, low enriched uranium or bond grades, which is 90% of uranium 235. north korea's program is a major problem. in future years, it could acquire an arsenal of dozens of nuclear weapons and it could arm its nuclear -- its missile arsenal with those weapons if it is not constrained. host: we heard from a number of republican critics is that the framework worked out by the white house and the nations is a flawed agreement. secretary john kerry responding to the criticism last thursday. john kerry: parameters of this agreement will be implemented in phases. some provisions will be in place for 10 years. others will be in place for 15 years. others, still, will be in place for 25 years. but certain provisions including many transparency measures, will be in place in it definitely into the future -- indefinitely into the future. they will never expire. and the bottom line is that under this arrangement, the international community will have confidence that iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, providing of course that the provisions are here too. if they are not, we have provisions that empower us to deal with that. ultimately, the parameters that we have agreed to will do exactly what we set out to do, make certain that all pathways to make enough missile material for one nuclear weapons have been cut off. including the uranium pathway and the plutonium pathway at iraq, and of course the covert pathway. host: as we look at is now courtesy of the bbc, these evident your facilities that secretary kerry was referring to inside of iran. how do you verify that how do we ensure that the verification progress -- process is part of this agreement is firm and ironclad? guest: first of all, iran's facilities have been under scrutiny by the international atomic energy agency for years. we have iaea inspectors in there now. secretary kerry is describing part of the framework agreement with iran. our enhanced monitoring with transparency measures that go beyond what iran is currently agreed to. one of the chief challenges is not just verifying that there is no nuclear weapons activity at the sites no noncomplying activity, but we want to make sure that at sites that are not declared by iran officials nuclear sites, that there is no nuclear weapon activity going on. the value of this agreement with respect to monitoring and transparency, is quite important. especially as the secretary of state says, these provisions will extend well into the future . some of them on a permanent basis, so that can help close off the so-called clandestine iranians have to nuclear weapons. that is only something that can be achieved during -- through the diplomatic agreement and we would not have it if there wasn't this conference of nuclear deal. host: our guest is a graduate of miami of ohio, daryl kimball executive director of the arms control association founded back in 1971. our phone lines are open, 202-7 48-8000 four democrats. 202-7 48-8001 four republicans. we will go to barry in tennessee. caller: good morning. i have a question in regard to what is it that is practiced in india because i think those are dangerous areas as well as iran. guest: the call is right. many of my colleagues in the expert community look at the india-pakistan situation and see probably the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint in the world. the two countries share a border that had several skirmishes. there have been fighting this year along their disputed border in kashmir. the two countries have each about 100 nuclear weapons. pakistan has a policy of potentially using nuclear weapons in the event that india would attack with conventional weapons. this is a key flashpoint and a major concern. and it is important for both countries to exercise greater restraint -- restraint with respect to their ongoing buildup of nuclear weapons. both are increasing the nuclear weapons capability and arsenal. and that they find ways to engage in dialogue to prevent the type of conflicts that could lead to a nuclear war between the two countries. host: this is a piece from michael gordon in washington in open -- in "the washington times." nuclear agreement sounds different from each side. what are the chief negotiators of iran's foreign minister and president of iran may be engaged in their own form to camouflage the significance of the concessions that they made. is this unusual between two countries are several countries? guest: i don't really think so. this is to be expected. there are critics in both countries about any compromise with the other. this is a negotiation that has been resulting in compromised from both sides. foreign minister and president of iran have been working hard the last couple of days to emphasize what they see as a positive element of the agreement. from the iranian standpoint, that is the promise of relief from the punishing sanctions that have been in place for many years in response to iran's nuclear activities. we are seeing from the obama administration, its description of the limits on iran's nuclear capacity, the president and secretary of state are deciding the constraints on the nuclear program. we are going to see more and more detail in the coming weeks as the two sides negotiate the detailed technical annexes behind the agreement that we just heard about in the last couple of days. congress and the american public will all hear more about the details and how this will be implemented over the next several years. host: this agreement according to the white house is called a parameter for a joint agreement between iran and the p5 plus one. it is available online at white house.gov. this is a story related to that from "the statement." this was on the wall street journal website. we will go to girl in st. louis, missouri -- we will go to e arl in st. louis, missouri. good morning. caller: i want to know how the united states can think that iran does not have nuclear weapons when israel has them. i don't think we would do the same thing in mexico had nuclear weapons. if we do not have any, i think we would try to get some the same as iran. guest: it is to that some countries have nuclear weapons and others do not. the united states and russia have by far the most number of nuclear weapons. he was in russia possess about 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. -- u.s. and russia possess about 90% of the world nuclear weapons. all states have the -- the nuclear nonproliferation treaties and support israel and india. under that treaty, the states with nuclear weapons have committed to pursue the elimination of those weapons the gradual and verifiable reduction in illumination of those weapons. the other nonnuclear weapon states including iran have agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to allow international inspections by the international atomic energy agency to assure they are peaceful nuclear activities, if they had them, and are not being used to build nuclear weapons. israel is an outlier, but israel's program really is not why iran has been pursuing nuclear weapon capabilities. remember, the iran and iraq war of the 1980's, a very terrible war and affected iran deeply. the iranians were even before then, pursuing nuclear energy programs. it appears as though the sensitive nuclear activity that can be used to enrich uranium produce plutonium, emerged out of that period as a hedge against saddam hussein's nuclear program. saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities but that was cut short in the 1991 gulf war. it is a complex situation in the middle east. israel is obvious the concerned about iran acquiring nuclear weapons. it would change the dynamics in the region dramatically, but i think this agreement that has been struck does, as the president and secretary of state said, block iran's pathways to nuclear weapons for over one decade and puts in place extremely strong verification measures that will allow us and the rest of the international community the time to properly detect and deter and if necessary, disrupt any iranian effort to produce plutonium or the highly enriched uranium that would be necessary to make nuclear weapons. i think this is the best passport in this difficult situation. host: in turn, we alleviate some of the sanctions in iran, correct? guest: right. as iran is complying with key provisions of this agreement then it is yet to be seen exactly how quickly they can and will, but it could be as soon as six months, a year. those sanctions that have been put in place that have been approved by the u.n. security council and are now international sanctions will gradually be phased out and that will allow iran later access to the international financial sector, allow them to sell their oil, it will help the economy and use them back into the international economic community . they are not going to get the sanction relief until and unless they verifiably take the steps this agreement calls for. host: the israeli prime minister this morning, regiment netanyahu, -- benjamin netanyahu signaling the alarm bell that this will pose a threat to israel and the middle east in general. guest: benjamin netanyahu has been pushing for the kind of agreement that i just do not think has been possible for over one decade. he has been calling for the complete dismantlement of all of iran's nuclear infrastructure. that is simply not something that iranians or any iranian leader is going to agree to at this point in time. one decade ago, iran had about 300 centrifuge machines. today they have about 20,000. it has been, and it is, been very difficult to cut that number back. this agreement will cut that number back from about 20,000 to 25,000 operating centrifuges the most basic kind. that is a huge improvement and that will extend the theoretical breakout for about two months to three months, two about here. -- two months to three months now, to about one year. that is a marked improvement and enough time for israel and the united states to it respond to any irene noncompliance. -- iranian noncompliance. i'm not sure what israel would like the united states and our allies to do at this stage. i'd seems he is suggesting we walk away from the negotiations and put additional sanctions on iran, hoping iran's leaders will habitually agree to a deal that is better from our perspective. i just do not think that will happen. with iranians to do, if we walk away from the deal like that, they could double the number of central to just they are operating. 20,000 installed and they could restart construction of the iraq director -- great iraq route reactor. the risk of war over this situation will increase. even if we put additional sanctions in place from iran which would not have a strong effect until many months later. i think what he is proposing is not one that is sustainable or if i will. i do not think that many people on capitol hill to leave and that approach, even though the and -- understand israel's concern about any new clear capabilities and iran. i just don't see it as a strategy that is affected. host: paul is joining us from new york on the line of independents. daryl kimball serves as a ticket of director of arms position. good morning, paula. caller: good one. i will push the envelope on where this is going. as europe and america are negotiating these talks, israel and the arab neighbors who are sunnis and arabia, how come they are not invited into these talks? guest: that's a good question. the iranian nuclear program has been the subject of international concern for well over one decade and with the un's security council that took up this issue in 2006, so it has been -- it has the response ability of france britain russia, united states, and parts of germany to pursue the diplomatic option that reduces iran's capability and puts more inspections in place to detect any noncompliant activity. that is why those of the countries that are at the negotiating table. the city-arab states in the region are concerned about this agreement and part because they fear detente between the united states and iran following this nuclear deal. they are concerned that the united states will as we were before the 1979 revolution, commonplace ally of iran in the region. you have to remember, this is a nuclear deal. the p5+1 has made it clear that they are not discussing other issues, other relations with iran. this is solely to deal with iran's new good capabilities and to severely reduce them. the united states will need to assure our allies that we will support their security concerns in the region, there are of course other problems going on. iran is behind many of those problems. that is the nature of the deal and that is why the p5+1 are the ones negotiating this agreement with iranians. host: this morning, rachel also walled wrote with this headline on iran deal that the senate is one book away from a detailed approved majority to rescind what the president is trying to put in place. a key iran built one vote away from having the necessary senate support. the president, however, the details of the framework that was released last thursday with the political agreement with iran has added another new variable to the congressional debate that it could enable the white house to feel away some of the democratic supporters of the legislation, including virginia democrat mark warner who became the 66 senator to publicly support. let's go to kay joining us from california on the democrats line. the morning. caller: good morning. i'm wondering what is the possibility of getting rid of all nuclear weapons? it seems to me with the situation today and so much violence going on, how easy it is for people to be able to get a nuclear weapon. host: it is -- guest: it is not easy to get a nuclear weapon, but there is certainly the ongoing risk that nuclear weapons might be used an additional countries could acquire them. the quest to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapons threat has been a long one. i think it is going to last many more decades. nuclear weapons are far less relevant to the security policies of the most nuclear countries -- nuclear armed countries. as i was saying before countries like india and pakistan find them to be in important part of their security strategy. the united states and russia have a very important role to play in reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have. both countries recognize that we have more nuclear weapons then needed to determine the use of nuclear weapons. the key going forward is going to be to limit the technologies that can be used to use -- to make nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment and the separation of plutonium from reactors, limiting the spread of missile technologies and missiles that can be used to deliver nuclear weapons, banning nuclear testing. there is a treaty that would ban all nuclear test explosions and most countries are abiding by that. and for the nuclear weapons states to continue to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their policy. that is the formula, and they will be bumped along the way and there will be additional problems that we will see, like iran in the future. so far, the committee has avoided the use of nuclear weapons against and it will be an ongoing struggle that u.s. leaders and we all will have to be pursuing. host: former ambassador and former secretary of state chris hale will be joined as tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal" to talk about what his accident iran talks. the deadline is the end of june. we'll get perspective from congress with congressman from northern virginia. don from houston, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. the question i have is this -- if -- as israel going to be brought to the table because they have nuclear weapons. all of this is meant to bring about -- the second part of this is how much is this going to cost taxpayers when we don't the means to do that? host: thank you, don. guest: about israel and nuclear weapons in the region, one strategy that has been talked about for years and there could be a start on is to bring together all of the countries in the middle east to a forum to discuss the steps along the way to create a zone-freak weapons of -- zone-free weapons of mass disruptions. the israelis have indicated in the last three years or four years that there would be willing to come together around the table to discuss that. there is now a very arduous negotiation going on about the shape of the table, the agenda for that type of discussion. the wmd-free some discussion is one way to bring israel into the discussion about how to pursue this. that will be long time coming. israel does not knowledge that they have nuclear weapons. if it did, that could create additional problems. the other question the caller had was about the expense of monitoring these types of steps, particularly that iran agreement. we have tremendous at the international atomic agency has a limited budget. this agreement is going to require that the iaea take on -- additional response abilities for a long period of time and congress should be looking at how the united states and other major countries can boost up iaea budget so it has the means to police this framework agreement in the years ahead. it will need our help. host: this is a photograph, courtesy of getty images from "the new york times" this morning. secretary carry -- secretary of state john kerry with the three key negotiators with the agreement in the from of for iran. he will go from wrong in bayside, new york. thank you for waiting period -- we will go toron in bayside new york. thank you for waiting period. caller: this is outrageous for me. it continues to go against us and every day against us in every part of the world that they could. these people are very evil regime. they are sitting on a sea of oil. the country is 600,000 square miles. you could hide a lot of things in the country that is bigger than alaska. it is incredibly naive. they are very evil and they want the bomb to intimidate their neighbors and to expand the middle east and to eventually use it on israel. guest: well, i think it is clear that iran is not a country that we have a good relationship with. iran has foreign policies that are contrary to our interest and allies in the region. they are not our friends. but that is not what diplomacy is about. diplomacy and solving these issues is about dealing with countries we are not friends with. wild reagan set out with the soviet union, the evil empire, so i think what we need to look at is iran in a better position with a nuclear weapons capability and with nuclear weapons given all the things the caller is concerned about? i would agree with many of them or are we in a better position week and our allies, if iran is contained, if the nuclear program is rolled back, if we have sanctions in place to verify if they're complying with the agreement in the future? that is the real choice before us and we cannot always deal with countries that we are friends with. we have to deal with countries that we oppose, countries that one might say are evil. this agreement is historic in the sense that it can change the situation in this region for the better for many years to come. host: prior to his work with the arms control association, our guest was affiliated with the position for social response ability. former is executive director of the coalition to reduce nuclear dangers. daryl kimball is here and anthony is next from mount sinai, new york. democrats alike, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. i have a request from c-span and a question for mr. kimball. mr. kimball, your expertise goes well beyond arms control and i would ask you to be honest with the american people -- the three engineers that design the mark one reactor which is a popular design, resigned and protested incrementing the reactors. at this present time, we have three melted down course that i believe have been released into the atmosphere because they cannot locate the chromium or whatever the elixir -- it is on the rectory, from what i understand. -- it is almost like mercury from what i understand. it is in the ocean out and my understanding of reading in the 1970's, there can be no one not done because what it will do to the genome and environment that the fragile -- to our fragile planet called earth. this science experiment from the nuclear industry, from what i understand, they have get to implement any way of storing this stuff long-term. you cannot do it has been put off the thing. from what i understand and if you can comment on this, the caliber corporation has designed a way of making a cement slurry where after they are done fracking wealth, they inject the nuclear waste into the earth's crust with cement. finally, for c-span, in 2010, the student can winners were proponents of nuclear power, claiming it was safe and we should have it all over the place. not even one year later, we have three melted down nuclear reactors off the coast of california. all the seals are dying, the or go wales dying, the ocean is being destroyed by a nuclear power. here we are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, worried about what the iranians will do. host: we will get a response. guest: nuclear power is a different topic for different c-span program, but clearly those countries that have nuclear power reactors or other kinds of nuclear reactors have a responsibility to make sure the safety margins are as tight as possible. one of the things, going back to the iran agreement that could be very important, iran has one operating nuclear energy reactor. it has been built over the years with the help of various countries, germany and then russia. that is a reactor that many nuclear safety experts have concerned about because it was built near fault lines engineering might not be sound. one of the possibilities with this agreement is that the russians will be able to help the iranians ensure that that facility is being operated more safely. this agreement could eventually bring iran closer to the nuclear safety regimes that other countries are observing. the caller has concerns about nuclear energy that many people share, and that is a separate discussion. there is an aspect of this agreement that could improve very marginally for iran's nuclear safety information. host: this map courtesy of bbc built from woodland, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: mr. kimball you and many others are saying that iran is a breakout time for them to get a nuclear bomb or get ready for. we are going to negotiate for three months and push them back. i am a bit confused. how are we going to push them back one year after they have reached that point? guest: that is a good question. let's talk a little bit about what iran's program looks like and where it stands today. iran has two uranium enrichment facilities. the larger one and a smaller one. currently, they have 20,000 installed centrifuges, 10,000 of which are operating. they have a stockpile of some 8000 kilograms of uranium that could be, if operated using that uranium, they could produce weapons grade that is 90% u235 uranium gas and enough for one nuclear bomb within about two to three months. right now, the iranians are observing the interim agreement that was struck in november of 2013. they are not expanding the number of centrifuges, they are reducing the amount of uranium stockpile. the progress of their program has been halted and this new framework agreement that was struck a few days ago would roll it back even further. instead of 10,000 operating centrifuges, they would have about 5000. they would have a stockpile instead of 1000 -- 8000 kilograms of uranium, about 300. if you do the nuclear engineering math that equates to a breakout time of about 12 months. it would theoretically take iran enough to produce enough weapons grade uranium to produce one nuclear weapon. having sufficient amount of uranium gas for a nuclear weapon is not a nuclear arsenal. it has to be fashioned into a nuclear device. it has to be put on a delivery system, so iran would still be many months, if not years, away from having a workable nuclear weapon. this deal would create quite a large margin for us to respond to any iranian noncompliance with the agreement and to disrupt any weapons effort. plus, it would have the additional inspections available to detect -- help detect any secret program iran could be pursuing. it has pursued secret facilities in the past. host: delano from missouri is next. democrat, good morning. caller: q i-4 c-span. -- thank you to c-span. china -- couldn't they have nuclear weapons in their within 24 to 20 -- 24 to 36 hours of iran really wanted? i think rush has 18,000 nuclear weapons ready in reserve and china, i don't know how many they have. another thing, i wanted to get on the -- host: stay on the line and we follow up with you but let's talk about the first question because it is important. guest: the russians and the chinese have nuclear weapons but they are members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which prohibits any nuclear ons country from transferring nuclear weapons into another. it is not in russia's interest or china's interest to give another country nuclear weapons. russia and china have been an active part of this negotiations in switzerland for the last two years and much longer. they are very much supportive of this agreement to roll back iran's nuclear program. it is not possible for iran to dial-up and order from the russians or chinese to get nuclear weapons. they are very much a part of this agreement. they very much supported and they will help enforce it. russia has had a relationship with iran on the civil nuclear program. they are supplying the fuel for this one reactor i mentioned before the bushehr reactor. that is hopeful because of fresh is supplying the fuel for iran's electricity to produce a nuclear reactor, iran does not have a practical need for enriching iranian for nuclear fuel. that has been an important part of this formula for the p5+1. russia's cooperation has come in handy. host: let's follow up with a caller from missouri. delano? caller: isn't there at four country agreement with those three parties? guest: before country agreement? i am not clear on the question. host: let's move on to herb in hilton, massachusetts. good morning. caller: at what point does israel's paranoia join up with southeast paranoia? because they are all surrounded by enemies. so if they all join and allow israel to use the airfields to attack iran guest:. israel and saudi arabia are concerned about the possibility of this agreement for different reasons. the saudis are concerned about and approach between the united states and iranians. this is a nuclear deal and we will not become overnight friends with iranians on all the different complex issues in the middle east. in fact, we will continue to have severe differences over human rights, the war in yemen, the war in syria, etc. israel i think, will continue to express frustration about this. there prime minister is going to call for the negotiation of a better deal. i don't think the better deal can be negotiated on the horizon. i think there will continue to be the possibility that israel could reserve the right, will reserve the right, to militarily strike iran if iran gets to the point that it is actually pursuing nuclear weapons. i think, in the long run, the israeli security establishment will recognize that this agreement is in israel's interest because it holds back iran's nuclear capabilities. without this agreement iran would not be two months to three months from a so-called breakout point, but it would be weeks away. if the prime minister of israel doesn't succeed in trying to scuttle this agreement, that is the situation that israel would be in. that is one reason why i am confused about the direction prime minister then yahoo! is trying to take us in. -- prime minister netanyahu is taking us in. host: daryl kimball from the arms association, our next call is john from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: find, to live. caller: i'm just calling and this is how i feel about the whole thing. the united states needs to start minding their own business and taking care of their own country. it is ridiculous. we are still over there in the middle east, we are still sending in troops over there. i mean, we need to take care of ourselves. we have our own problems in our own country and i am tired of this country trying to be a world superhero. host: mr. kimball. guest: i think for people like you, who are concerned about the united states overextending itself overseas diplomatically or militarily, this agreement is actually good news because of this reduces the risk that the united states and allies are facing. by making sure that iran cannot pursue nuclear weapons for over decades. i think this agreement will avoid further u.s. engagement especially militarily, in the event that iran would have an unconstrained nuclear program. host: james makes this point on the twitter page. you can't negotiate agreements with no liars who openly advocate death to your country. -- with known liars who openly advocate death to your country. host: let's go to minnesota, you are next. caller: good morning. i have a question about who is the decision maker in iran? where is -- when the ayatollah come out on stage on this hope it -- on this whole deal? it seems to me like we are not talking to the decision-maker. guest: that is a good question. the leadership structure in iran is pretty ok. the supreme leader is called the supreme leader for a reason. he is the person who was calling the shots. it does appear that he has been providing strong backing to the president and iranian foreign minister for the negotiation of this agreement. the supreme leader sat down -- set down several redlines that his negotiators had to respect and follow. i think we will be hearing more from the supreme leader in the coming days, but the signs so far is that the supreme leader of iran does support the outcome and is holding back those in iran who would criticize president -- the president at this time. the dynamics in iran are complex, but this is an agreement that would not have been negotiated without the tacit support of iran's supreme leader. host: historically, what has been iran's relationship with iaea? guest: they have had a troubled relationship. we have to remember back in 2003, the united states and the community -- and the russian community identified the iranian original facility which iran had not declared to the international atomic energy agency. after that happened, the iaea was presented with information from the u.s. and other iaea member states about activities that iran had engaged in before 2003, that had potential military dimensions. illegal activities in other words, that could help the country develop a nuclear explosive device. the iaea is still investigating iran's potential military dimension activities. iran has provided some but not enough information come about past activities. one of the issues that this agreement is designed to clarify is that those activities have ceased and will not continue in the future. iran is only going to receive the sanction relief promised in this agreement is the iaea investigation is cleared up and they provide enough information for the iaea to determine that no weapons related activities are being pursued by iran. host: we have a one minute left. make western from john in oregon. keep it brief, please go ahead. caller: i was thinking recently that i would like to see mr. obama and the leader of iran talk. the previous caller brought up the talks with iran and what about our relationship with japan and germany? remember our history with them. host: thank you for the call. there have been some speculation that this president would travel to iran before the end of the term. guest: i'm not sure this would happen, but one thing is clear. for the first time since the 1979 revolution, the united states in iran leaders are talking to each other on a regular basis. just two years ago, it would have been unfathomable that this would have been happening. now it is sort of ordinary behavior. this agreement is historic and a number of ways, particularly because it can, and i think it will do, as does not get in the way, prevent iran from acquiring the abilities they could use to make nuclear weapons for well over one decade. host: daryl kimball, thank you for being with us. of course, we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time and for clock for those of you on the west coast. ambassador christopher hill who served as the assistant secretary of state between 2005 in the bush administration. he will be talking about what is next with the iranian nuclear agreement. democratic lawmaker don buyer from northern virginia to talk about congress's reaction to this iran nuclear deal. philip material who is the research director for good jobs first as we focus on your money, the grants and tax credits since 2000 and what this means for employment around the country. that is all tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time for c-span's "washington journal." "newsmakers" is coming up next. you are for joining us on this sunday. have a very happy easter. ♪ am i here on c-span, "newsmakers" is up next with family research council president, tony perkins. then i and conversation on social meia and free speech. greta: this week on "newsmakers" -- tony perkins from the family research council joins us from baton rouge. in studio, we have paul finger and

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Montana , Kazakhstan , Alabama , Australia , Bayside , New York , Syria , Point Plaza , Florida , Bahrain , Connecticut , Mexico , Arizona , Egypt , Netherlands , Massachusetts , Iowa , Libya , Chicago , Illinois , Miami , Japan , Germany , Missouri , Indiana , Virginia , Georgia , Oregon , As Iran , Az Arbayjan E Sharqi , Iran , Michigan , Pakistan , Iraq , New Jersey , Sweden , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , North Korea , Laguardia Airport , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Brooklyn Heights , Vermont , Alaska , Turkey , China , Minnesota , California , Arab League , Al Qahirah , Russia , Washington , Woman , Ukraine , India , South Korea , Switzerland , Greece , Bushehr , Rochester , South Africa , Oakland , Kentucky , Rhode Island , Suez Canal , As Suways , Lebanon , Jordan , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Cairo , Maine , Kenya , Tennessee , Kingsport , Nebraska , South Dakota , Danville , Houston , Texas , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Yemen , North Dakota , Italy , Utah , Americans , America , Saudi , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , French , Israeli , Russians , American , Chinese , Russian , Egyptian , Saudis , Britain , Soviet , Marco Rubio , Cyrus Avery , Dana Mi , Joe Biden , Bob Menendez , Los Angeles , Asa Hutchinson , Anthony Foxx , Chris Hale , Hillary Clinton Brooklyn , Mike Allen , Julie Adams , John Kerry , Abraham Lincoln , Daryl Kimball , Jack Spitzer , Jesus Christ , Las Vegas , Eric Trager , Michael Vincent , Michael Gordon , Tony Perkins , Benjamin Netanyahu , Mohamed Morsi , John Mccain , Hillary Clinton ,