buckeye broadband supports c-span aa public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on "washington journal," your calls and comments live. mike kong sewall and matthew dickerson -- mike konczal and matthew dickerson talk about upcoming government spending deadlines. and steph night on the details of the bipartisan immigration and border deal in the senate. -- stef kight on the details of the partisan immigration and border deal in the senate. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for february 6 the future of the bipartisan border security deal is in doubt and there will be a procedural vote tomorrow.

republicans expressed doubts about elements of the deal. house republicans reiterated their lack of support for the bill. we will ask you about what you think about the bipartisan border security bill and if you think the senate should pass it. if you support the bill, call and tell us why at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it and want to tell us why (202) 748-8001. ,perhaps you live in a border state and want to give you perspective on it, call (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. as always, you can post on facebook and on x. some of the major elements of the bill, a $118 billion total

package being floated. included in that, $60 million for ukraine aid, 20 billion dollars going to immigration enforcement -- $60 billion for ukraine aid, $20 billion going to immigration enforcement. border security in the bill, $10 billion, humanitarian aid for gaza and the west bank. $65 million for the combat operation. the border security act, $20 billion. it would force the departmt of homeland security to shutter the border of ossings top 5000 migrants. it would increase the threshold requirements for those migrants looking for asylum and detain or track all seekers, six months total. adding that ,0 working familyis for the next five

years, protecting children from aging out of the legal status, providing a pathway for permanent residency for afghan evacuees. text of the bill is available on our website, c-span.org. a procedural vote slated for tomorrow. questions on if this bill will pass. you can tell us what you think of this deal. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. ,if you live in a border state (202) 748-8002. , you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. the associated press reporting this morning that, in a dramatic turnaround, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell recommending to republican senators in a closed-door meeting that the vote against that first procedural vote wednesday. that is according to people

familiar with the meeting. this came hours after he urged collins on the senate for that it is now time for congress to take action. mitch mcconnell struggled to marshal his conference to support the package, the border enforcement policy and funding for ukraine, israel, and other allies or the "washington times" looks at some people that have spoken out, republicans particularly, including senator steve daines of montana, chair of the senate republican arm. john thain of south dakota, and joni ernst of iowa. pessimism about the bill's passing. john cornyn of texas says he has serious questions and concerns. senator lindsey graham of south carolina, a vocal proponent for the new order policy set a robust debate and amendment process would be needed.

that is what to expect in the lead up to that vote for this legislation this week. you can express your thoughts during the course of this hour. let's start with mel in oklahoma, a supporter of this legislation. tell us why. caller: i think it has been years they have been trying to come up with something. now they finally have, looks like it would be a good idea to support those efforts to pass this bill. we also were former democrats, and we changed our party affiliation in december to republican party so we could vote for nikki haley. if it is nikki haley and joe biden, we vote nikki haley. host: back to the legislation, you say it is a good deal. specifically why? caller: it sounds like they have got an idea that what kind of slow the immigration down and also kind of interview those

folks and find out what kind of people are getting in here. host: stan in oregon, an opposer of the legislation. caller: i was watching the meeting. some thoughts i would like to say about this appropriation of federal funds, it asked for -- host: are you there? caller: yes, pedro, thanks for taking my call. host: you have to stop paying attention to the television and tell us why you oppose the legislation. caller: because too many people are coming in. 5000 people a day are too many. there is anarchy coming, pedro. thank you. host: ok. dana in indianapolis, indiana, supporter of this legislation. caller: i support it because it

would help, mainly with ukraine. and i am all for controlling and sending the immigrants back if it is over 5000 or more a day. i think it is a great proposal. it is excellent. host: but why should i border security bill include money for ukraine, israel, and the like? why not keep it to border security. wouldn't that make it easier to pass? caller: actually, i think no, because i think they don't want to support immigrants or ukraine. i think the main part is that they don't want to support ukraine. host: ok, dana there in indianapolis. in the papers today, looking at 5000 unauthorized immigrants, that figure that has been talked about since the release of the text. "new york times" this morning, it would not allow 5000

unauthorized immigrants a day. they wrote that this is misleading. the legislation seeks to make it harder for people to claim asylum and expedite that process and with state and federal detention about city and provide funding for other border investment. it does not say 5000 immigrants are allowed to enter a day. instead, the bill uses that number to determine when they can more easily expel migrants, regardless whether they intend to seek asylum. we already have more than 5000 illegal crossings happening. this says, we are not allowing it, it is happening, and we then have to deal with it. the story adding, under current law, migrants across the border illegally are allowed to seek asylum, setting off a lengthy process. that would change under the passage of this legislation. you can find the text at the

legislation on our website at c-span.org. asking you if you support the bill that has been proposed are you oppose it. let's hear from chuck in farmington hills, michigan, on our oppose line. caller: thank you very much. as a marine corps combat veteran, we right now are under an invasion. the real truth of the matter is, is that, why don't we just go down to number one? not 5000, but one person. it is the only way that we will ever get control of anything. we have two democratic senators here in michigan who refuse to answer their telephones, and they have decided that, hey, the american people do not count. host: why do you think that one number is achievable? caller: well, because with

border security, if we had one person that came across that border legitimately, then we can handle it. look what has happened in new york state. they cannot handle it. host: ok. on our support line, this is paula, pensacola, florida. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i support the bill, but i do not think -- no matter how well written that bill is, the republicans are going to vote know about it because trump does not want it passed because he wants to use it to run on. host: can you elaborate on why you support it? caller: well, i support it because it is a more thorough --

i mean, i understand people are having problems down there and we do not have the room and they do come into the country and cause harm. as far as killings and such as that. i think if they had more help, if the democrats can try to get more help down there just to make the process easier and the republicans have been fighting them all right --all the way. host: you can continue on with your thoughts on the senate border bill and whether you support or oppose it. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8002.

one of the people speaking out on the show yesterday was one of the lead negotiators in the bill, senator jim langford, talked about the bill, the status of it, and why he thinks it is a good bill, and he went on to defend it on fox news. here is a portion of that interview from yesterday. [video clip] >> this is a 5000 authority saying, if you get to 5000, which we have been there every single dates of her seven in the last four months, then it completely closes the border done, departs everyone, and changes the paradigm with what is happening now, catching and releasing everyone, to actually catching and deporting everyone. it literally flips the script on it. people saying i do not want to do that at 5000, i want 3000. we can do 3000, but every day we are at 5000, does not matter. we need something that mandatorily reports everyone

rather than actually releases everyone. that is what this does. some think this is counting 5000 people in everyday and releasing them, that is observed -- absurd. we at ankle monitor's for people that are coming through, these groups a come through, so we can track any individual. all the things that we built into this to make this a much stronger system, gaps in the locket closed in this structure. host: senator jim langford, one of the lead negotiators on this bill. you may agree with him or not, call and tell us why or why not. some people texting this morning, saying -- this is 20 in florida saying, i oppose it becausth're too many loopholes for border enforcement and no certainty that anything will be done. we saw this before with another effort. that was tony. is is a viewer off of x,

saying it is not really a border al and is not secure the border. it is a ukraine dealith a sprinkle of order to try to fully voters. democrats just want money for ukraine, adding, wake up, people, before it is too late. joe is in nashville, who opposes this bill. good morning. caller: good morning, appreciate the forum. i do oppose the bill because they are not enforcing current immigration law. what makes us think they are going to enforce this new law? the law states right now that if you cross the border illegally, you shall be detained. not "will be," not "might be," but you shall be. now it has got catch and release. and this 5000 shuts down the border, the president can say no, we're not going to shut down

the border. so it is still in the president's hands. we had the same laws today that were in effect during the trump administration, and we did not have this mess. this is not about new laws, it is about enforcing current laws. just like you have the lawlessness in all the say cities, it is not because they do not have enough cops, it is because they're not keeping the people in jail. the cops are digging a hole, and the next that they fill it back in and they tell the cops to do the same thing every day. it is the same thing. as far as the ukraine money, that is more than the marine corps gets for a year. you know, we are paying their retirement, paying their social security. what about my social security? how come this is not a loan? all we need to give them as food and ammunition. that is it. host: let's hear from james in louisiana, a supporter of this bill. caller: i am supporting the bill

because a journey of 5000 miles starts with at least one step. the republicans and even democrats have said we have a crisis. i do not understand why we have a tendency to wait until we have a crisis to do something. if we need to do something urgent, at least this is going to tip, work with republicans to get this done. let them do it. if it fails, there will be consequences. but let's not do anything because it looks good or bad or whatever. that's tweak the laws we currently have, and i believe that is what this bill is attempting to do. but we need to do something. host: what is it about the bill that is a good first step? caller: one is -- i don't really believe that it is just a good step. the one good step is that we're doing something, that they are

working together, they are deliberating like the legislature is supposed to do. that is what i think is a good thing. they are communicating. host: james in louisiana giving us his thoughts this morning on the legislation. you have heard some of the republicans who have spoken out over concerns of it. the "new york times" highlights some on the democratic side with concerns, including senator alex padilla of california, who is hispanic, condemning the bill for failing to provide relief for dreamers and making it more difficult for migrants to be granted asylum. he limited that not a single member of the congressional hispanic caucus were included in negotiations. the story highlights senator richard durbin of illinois, the number two democrat for the senate, indicating that he was holding his nose while supporting the bill, in large part because the future and fate of europe was tied up in the mix. both the bipartisan agreement may help, but nothing short of

comprehensive reform will truly solve this problem. on the senate floor, he bemoaned the fact that the measures would provide no relief to so-called dreamers. again, more about those legislators who have spoken out against this border bill that was released earlier this week. a test vote set for tomorrow. this is from matt in maryland, who supports this effort. good morning. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i am with the congressman, kind of holding my nose with this. but it seems like we have to do something. and actually, everyone is marginalizing this as just bad, just -- just that, having to do something. but this is the most rigid bill at least this century. it is more than any republican has tried this century. so i do not understand what is the problem with mitch mcconnell

and mike johnson. i seriously believe this is about trump, that is what all this is about, why they are holding off on it. and a couple of them have said literally, why should we do this to benefit biden, because they think by some miracle this will get trump in office again. that is what it is to me, all about trump. thank you. host: another marylander, chris on our oppose line. caller: good morning. i am opposed to the bill just on the premise that we should not be grouping together the ukraine funding along with israel funding and call it a border bill. that said, i appreciate the fact that it is the most balanced, in my opinion, border proposal we have seen in decades, at the least. i just wish it would be separated so it could be debated on the merits. host: another supporter, we will

hear from ann in washington, d.c. caller: yes, look, this is a bipartisan bill. what i do not understand is, how does it go from a bipartisan bill to a no thank you bill? it is a strong bill. and i do not understand what former president trump said he has read this and does not like it. how did he get to read it before everybody else? this bill will help the united states, not just the border, but the united states. we have the new york city mayor screaming about the bill, our mayor in washington, d.c., screaming about help. i support the bill because it is a good first step. host: what makes it good? caller: it will send back those who do -- well, right now we have false hope. this bill does not give false hope. this bill says we have a

process, we going to put it in place, and if you follow the process, you may be able to come to the united states. right now, somebody is saying, come on down. that is false hope. and you will get a job, come on down. no, jobs are needed, for people to fill, but not for everybody, 10,000, 5000 a day. we cannot handle that. we just cannot handle it. and the word shall -- s-h-a-l-l, means it will be done. the guy who had a problem with that term, look it up. there is no wiggle room around the word shall. host: ok. anthony off of x, posting on that form, saying i thought it was the israel military dustrial bonanza. then he says wrong bill. sonia saying no e-verify,

disappointed in that, but overall supports it, says now is the time. you can make your thoughts on x at @cspanwj. on facebook, it is facebook.com/ c-span. a headline, gop might never get a border deal this good. they say the element of the argument perhaps most misunderstood among republicans is the border emergency authority would allow the president to turn away most asylum speakers of more than 5000 arrive daily, which has been the case every week but one in the past four months.this goes further than the title 42 authorities mr. trump and mr. biden invoked during the pandemic, restricting migrants turned away for reapplying. the editors say i'm at the deal falls apart, the situation at

the southern border will deteriorate, and combined with the fear across latin america that mr. trump might prevail in november, it could attract millions more migrants in the coming year. if the republicans really care about curbing a migrant search they claim harms the country rather than seeking political advantage, they would support this bill in droves. that is one take, one opinion, from the editors of the "washington post those quote on that -- "washington post" on that. john in maryland, oppose line. caller: good morning, my friend. how are you? i oppose the bill for this reason, for decades now, the government has not been able to handle, in a speedy manner, these hearings. and the folks that are coming through now will be processed any kind of way, put in the

queue, and the issue of when the hearings will be held will not be addressed. they need to throw the bill out and send a bill that would provide for fair and speedy hearings. they can do that very easily. there are a tremendous amount of graduates from law school who are out looking for work, young attorneys and older attorneys that become immigration judges, pretty well with a short notice. you could put immigration court centers in all the state capitals, perhaps major cities, and also in temporary trailers or offices right there on the border, and give the folks a fair, speedy hearing. host: some of the elements of the bill would not only add staffing on that end but also

would raise the level of what asylum means or at least who can apply for asylum and reset threshold or do you think those are worthy merits on their own? caller: no, because, when are they going to have the hearing? and what is going to happen with the folks? all that could be determined if you had a speedy hearing. and democrats and republicans have never addressed that issue. it is like we go to court today, and in this country, you are entitled to a fair, speedy trial to resolve whatever charges you have. immigration is not criminal, but certainly it is something that folks are entitled to have speedily. i just think that if you did that, number one, first of all, it might act as a deterrent because the folks knew they were going to come in without a basis, that might stem the flow

somewhat. you could also put them all along the border with temporary court rooms, staffing. the folks in the country, bring them back in with a summons, direct them to be back in for hearing for a particular date and in an immigration court that is near them. if they fail to appear, just like if you go to a court and failed to appear, the judge issues a bench warrant, and they are picked up and brought in and can make a decision as to whether you are entitled to a hearing or not. host: viewers, yesterday on this program, we had an expert talking about that immigration court process and answered your questions on how it works, how these new thresholds in the border bill could impact what is going on there. at c-span.org, you can see that interview that took place yesterday on this program. if you're interested in learning more. this is anthony in illinois, he

said if the border troll union is for it, so i might, he writes. it is reported this morning that the national border patrol council which represents more than 18,000 agents says the bill would drop border crossings nationwide and would allow our agents to get back at apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension. it is a significant statement of support from a group that endorsed trump in 2020 has completed -- has railed against joe biden's handling of the border. it adds that, while not perfect, it is a step in the right direction, far better than the current status quo. that is brandon judge, president of the council, saying this is why the council endorses the bill and hopes for quick passage. he has been on this program several times. if you want to see his interviews and things he has set over the years on the topic of immigration.

the senate border bill released this week and votes this week, your thoughts on it. radley in georgia supports it. -- bradley in georgia supports it. caller: i would like to say that i wish america -- really, republicans -- know that it has never been about the border. they do not care about the border. it is about republican party helping vladimir putin and s backstabbing ukraine. this is what it is all about. they don't care about the border. if you want to fix the border crisis, arrest people who hire these immigrants.i cannot believe people cannot see it. this is like a whole big joke, like they are playing chess and we're playing checkers, arguing about the border, tearing ourselves apart, when we are about to let ukraine get run over by russia. i cannot believe people cannot see this.

it is a scam. republicans do not care about the border. host: ok. kevin in indiana, on our oppose line. caller: good morning. yes, i opposed this, in spite of people like your caller from maryland previously raising, i think, some points of merit. the problem i see with this legislation is that i have problems with the republican congress as a whole throughout speaker johnson's tenure and their undying, unwavering loyalty to donald trump, who opposes this type of legislation and who did certainly make efforts to bring immigration reform in a perverse sort of way. i believe there is a great deal of success to be seen through failure of this congress.

and i would just encourage congress to do the following, don't pass legislation that would bring immigration reform, don't pass legislation to bring aid to israel, and don't pass legislation to bring further support of ukraine and its efforts against russia. i think if they can do that all the way up until november, and i look forward to sweet campaign ads being run by the opposition on this case, i think it will be a sweet story of success and failure by the maga people. host: a call from florida on our support line. caller: good morning, pedro. i absolutely support this bill, 100%, because, as my mother always said, half a loaf of bread is better than nothing. right now they do not even have a half a loaf. i encourage every republican to get a hold of their

representatives in support of this bill. they are all complaining that nothing is being done, but they do not want -- it is all for trump. host: as far as your support, what do you find appealing about the bill? caller: 5000 today, where they sit before a judge, increasing patrol along the border, and the union part. i think those people no more than anybody else. so that is what i support. host: ok. that is marilyn in florida. looking at the border and other things, particularly when it comes to funding for ukraine and israel and the like. you can call us if you wish. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you live in a border state and want to give that perspective (202) 748-8002. , text us at (202) 748-8003.

here is the editorial today from the "washington examiner," looking at the bill, saying it is a lot of fury signifying nothing, nothing that is other than a legislative sleight-of-hand to make washington look like it is fixing the problem when it is letting it continue or making it worse your the most significant part is the competition of the policy of the catch and release of illegal immigrants at the border. biden is obliged under current law to detain all immigrants who illegally cross into the united states, abusing authority on a massive scale to ignore that obligation. most immigrants are released after arrested the new legislation preserves mr. biden 's authority to release as many immigrants in the country as he is ours, it creates a new legal authority to catch and release as many immigrants into the country as they want, specifically the legislation

creates a noncustodial removal proceeding that empowers secretary of homeland security mayorkas to let any immigrant into the country for 90 days if he or she indicates an intention to apply, and then they are shunted into immigration and customs enforcement, an alternative to detention program, which means they're giving a cell phone to check in periodically or are fitted with an ankle bracelet. more there if you want to read the thoughts of the additur's of the "washington examiner." homeland security secretary mayorkas, he will be front and center around noon today as the house returns to question whether or not to impeach him for his handling of the u.s. southern border. he faces two articles of impeachment, first is the willful and systematic refusal to apply with the law, second is a breh of public trust. there will be two hours of general debate on the resolution before a final vote later today.

if a simple majority votes in favor, he will be the second cabinet member in u.s. history to be impeached you can see that starting around noon today on our main channel c-span. you can follow along on our app, c-span now, and our website, c-span.org. and you can pay attention for an effort by speaker johnson to pass a standalone israel support bill that you probably heard about over the last couple of days. mark in annapolis, maryland, on our oppose line. caller: hey, good morning. i support border patrol, for sure. i support these bills. but on a stimulant basis after i have read them, and to be diluted impact with a bunch of different issues is pretty tough for people to make assessments on. and the enforcement, or lack thereof, of current immigration law is a significant, ongoing,

multi-decade problem. i have been on and around the borders going back 10, 15 years ago, and there were plenty of problems than that were also not enforced in 2011, 2012, 2013 era. the border is not just the southern border, it extends to the borders of cities, borders of counties, and the borders of states. host: what about this specific legislation gives you pause? caller: the lack of specificity on individual issues. ukraine needs to be stood up on its own merits. funding for additional border security protection also needs to be stood up on its own basis, so that the issues are clear and focused and cannot be diluted with other sideshows and the lack of enforcement of current law is a significant issue. deputization of legal immigration and immigration

enforcement needs to be deputized, needs to be extended to local law enforcement. they need federal powers in local offices to deal with what is now a local issue. and that is throughout the entire country. host: carl is next in chicago, support line. caller: can you hear me, pedro? host: i can. caller: yes, i support it, but then i also oppose it. this is not really the issue. last year, they wanted to do funding for israel and ukraine, and republicans would not do that. they said we have to include immigration. ok. now they are including immigration. well, we cannot do it now because -- we can't do that. now we want to actually have it just on israel. host: you called in on our

support line. why do you support it? caller: i said i support it, but i can't oppose it also. host: but tell us why you support it. caller: hold on, please. the point is, pedro, republicans do not want to legislate period in this country. that is all this is about, they do not want to legislate. host: since you called on the support line, i am trying to get you, like everyone else, to say why you supported. caller: legislate. why you want to try to trap people? that is all they are doing. host: ron on our oppose line, he is in illinois. caller: first of all, you said -- you read an existing lot they are ignoring completely about letting immigrants into the country. the matter how many laws we pass, if they are not going to abide by them, why does this

deal even matter? there is also a presidential overwrite in this bill and a minimum of 1400 immigrants allowed in at each border crossing, which is 30 of them. do the math, that is more than 5000. we could pass all the bills in the world, but if they are not going to abide by the law that is written right now, there ignoring it, then what would new laws enacted be? all of these republicans -- or these democrats, republicans have been saying over the last four years, three years, that it is a border crisis, and mayorkas and the boys have been saying it is fine, fine, fine, and all of a set of now, because this bipartisan, which has a presidential override, this bipartisan bill that they are talking about, all of the sudden now it is a crisis. it was not a crisis for the last three years?

the sad thing is these democratic voters in these poor neighborhoods are the ones getting dumped on the most. the funds normally going to their kids or to different programs in their neighborhood are now being reallocated to these migrants. i do not see the upward -- uproar there. and we have some of the kids that show up to school in one day -- host: got your point. let's hear from linda in florida, who supports this. caller: yes, i support this bill because -- don't throw out the good for the perfect. it is a good bill. it was crafted by langford, conservative republican, and many democrats, for months. it is an excellent bill to support border control, and the only reason that suddenly -- suddenly, there is opposition to it, is because, unfortunately,

trump, who has no legitimate legal reason to be involved, has put out the fact that he does not want to support ukraine. he wants putin to take over ukraine. host: but why do you support the bill specifically? what is it about it? caller: for one thing, we need to end this crisis, and the border control supports this. it is obviously been worked on for months. it is just the best bill that has come along in probably a generation. host: ok. that is linda in florida. you can continue on with your thoughts on the phone lines. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. a text from florida, carol in panama city, says do support

it personally as it is just a republicanish list, but republicans will not vote for it because y do donald trump would have a hissy fit. border is an issue in every election cycle. it is wh ty cry about. this is fro conrad on facebook, i don't expect anything. not trying to be harsh on the border a by tying ito ukraine for more money, when it all should be spent on u.s. domestic social situations. some people picking up on the money supported for ukraine, israel, and others within the bill. that text of the bill is at our website, c-span.org. later on in this program, about 9:20 or so, we will be joined by reporter who has worked through the elements of the bill, and he can add to your questions about it, what it contains and what it does not contain, and its

likelihood of passage through congress. dave in georgia on our oppose line, go ahead. caller: i am a first-time caller. these immigrants coming in, i mean, the thing is, there is no confidence in mayorkas. that is the main thing. we have no trust. he lies. how are we going to believe that he is going to follow the instructions, as written? i do not believe him at all. he is corrupt. it is totally political. they are trying to change the culture of the world. i just do not believe them at all. host: what about the bill itself do you oppose? caller: just so many loopholes in the bill. just there is a lot of incentives to draw immigrants to the u.s. you know? like work permits, visas, and stuff like that.

they do not even help the children. they do not even count the children. host: nicole's next from michigan, support line. caller: hello. thank you so much. the reason that i support this bill is because i feel like it is a good example of how extreme elements of our government can compromise if they try. host: ok. that is nickel in michigan. it is that by person effort -- it is a bipartisan effort with this legislation, and a democratic negotiator was msnbc, senator chris murphy of connecticut, about the status of the bill and his message to house republicans about the bill. here is part of his interview from yesterday. [video clip] >> there is a clear choice for republicans, fix the border or keep chaos at the border because

it helps donald trump. that is the choice in front of republicans today would have a breakthrough landmark bipartisan compromise that will help the president better manage the border, that will help fix very broken asylum system. but it will also likely mean that there are fewer scenes of chaos this summer and fall on the border, and donald trump wants those scenes of chaos. he wants there to be disorder at the border because he think that helps them politically. that is the choice republicans are going to have to make. and i think we can mount a public campaign, pressure in this country, because regular americans do not care about the politics of this issue. want leaders to come together, put politics aside, and solve big problems like the border. hopefully senators from the republican party will hear that message in the coming days. host: on that asylum portion,

reporting this morning that the deal would stiffen standards for claiming asylum but then shift decisions away from immigration court into asylum officers who are seen as more favorable to migrants. and it expands work permits for those who clear initial asylum hurdles and creates a pathway to citizenship for two -- for those tens of thousands of afghans who were airlifted out of their country during the u.s. troop withdrawal. other papers picking up that reporting, as well. let's hear from kathy in georgia on our oppose line. caller: good morning to you. listen, i simply oppose the dominator, dictator way of running, by backing out of. there was a bill that was made that was bipartisanly agreed, but those deceivers denied when

they realized the dominator, dictator trump wanted to run. they decided not to vote for. host: what about the bill itself do you oppose? caller: i oppose the bill in the sense because of the bill itself. i do not oppose -- i will say on that, i may not be on the right line. host: then i will stop you there. we try to get people on the best line that best represents them. a call from texas, a border state, good morning. caller: yeah, i am on a border state, and i think people on a daily basis where i work, they're probably about 20 to 30 people coming in looking for jobs, they don't speak english, they're kind of lost, they look scared.

and i watch all the stuff on tv where they have got razor wire and people are getting caught up in the razor wire and stuff, and republicans and the democrats got together and set up this deal that the border protectors same to really like. and then you have got this congress that does not want to put anything through because they are trying to make it look bad for biden and good for trump. and once trump said that he did not want this border deal, i thought it was hysterical when -- i think it was -- was it mccarthy? who was it that said he was working on it and said that trump had sent out something on his little site saying that he was against it, he wanted it to be a mess so it looked good on him. host: you describe your situation there on the border,

so what do you think about the effort itself then now that it has been released? caller: i'm sorry? host: what do you think of the bill as a border state resident? caller: i think it is a great bill. if we can get something to slow this down, do have some kind of asylum process behind this border. because when i watch it, i do not know what is going on in the rest of the states, but i know texas really leans on every night showing us huge amounts of people coming across the border. well, if there are huge amounts of people coming across the border, and from where i am, when they do get over here, they do not know what to do, they are lost and confused, this is not working. this is not working for anyone. host: why do you think this legislation would make things work? caller: because the two groups that are opposite, the republicans and the democrats, once they start working together

-- i mean, they are smart people. and what they can do is start with this. the deal is is this does not mean that we develop this and set this up for the border and say we will never touch this bill again. what they can do is set this in place, slow the bleed. and then while they are slowing it down, keep working on what they're going to do with this problem. host: ok. you said you live in the colony, texas. where is that in relation to the border? caller: it does not seem as far as it used to. i mean, it seems a lot closer than it used to same. the thing is, we get so many people coming through this town. host: ok, thanks for that perspective. in minnesota, eugene, hello. caller: yeah, how we doing? host: fine, you are on.

caller: so i support the bill. and i support the bill because it is a start to a bleeding problem in this country. i think that it will put the democrats and the republicans on a path where we can start working together. the stories are real. i have been on both sides in this country, and the stories are real. the immigrants are scared of our government, just like our citizens are scared. but it is time we get together, guys, and it is time we start making the right decisions. i could go on and on and on, but my biggest point here is let's get a starting ground. i think with that bill, we can do that. and from there, we can build. host: that is eugene in minnesota. if you want to keep calling on the lines, (202) 748-8000 if you

support this bill. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. we heard from one border state resident. that line is (202) 748-8002. roger in alabama opposes the bill. caller: thanks for taking my call. the bill and the law says that 99% of people coming over the border, no matter what biden says, they automatically have a right to come into this country just by saying they are scared to go home. i was in the national guard when the boat lift from cuba started, and i had to guard those people, and that was a grease fire. they cleared out their insane asylums, the prisons, people who had and curable diseases, and they sent them here. an israeli doing the same thing. we are not getting the best of the best.

-- venezuela doing the same thing. we are not getting the best of the best. anything in that bill, does not matter. 99% of people that walk up to the border, all they have to do is say they are scared to go home and they're automatically released into the country. and the supreme court has already told biden he has to follow the laws on the books, and he is not doing it. so why would anybody think he would do it now? host: let's hear from bill in tennessee, our support line. caller: yes, i definitely support this bill because it has been way too long since we have done anything to address anything on this. and the last thing i can remember since reagan was in was twice he gave amnesty -- once he gave amnesty to the immigrants when they were here and then h.

bush did, too, and that is just a drop in the bucket. all they did was say we're going to absorb these 1000 or 3000 people, however many at the time, and we did not do anything to help reform the process of getting here. and the world -- host: if everything you said -- with everything you said, what changes with this bill? caller: well, i am going to support it because it is a step in one direction that we have not stepped in in four years, and we need to do it. that border situation down there is a stupid mess, and they need to do something to at least get some legislation passed to try to regulate the people that come in this country. host: ok. this is another call from the

line of those who live in the border. from texas, deborah, hello. caller: yes, i support the bill, mainly because it is just doing something to help the border. it is not doing everything, not doing anything to help with the 11 million that were already here. but it definitely is helping -- it is doing something. and trump getting involved in it is ridiculous, and if the speaker in the house does not put it on the floor, i think it is going to be a crying shame. but the sad thing is it does not address those that are already here. but it also isn't addressed -- we need to address the ukraine situation and the israeli

situation. we need to pass it. host: deborah and texas, she mentioned the house speaker, mike johnson, and this statement came from the house rep. mcclain: leadership about the -- the house republican leade about the senate bill. among its many flaws, it expands work auttionfor illegal aliens wailing to include critical asylum reform. even worse, allowing illegals to be leased from physical custody d endorse the biden catch and release policy. the so-called shutdown authority is anything but, riddled with loopholes with too much discretion authority, and alejandro mayorkas has phe would exploit every measure possible to keep the border open. in consideration of the senate bill and its current form is a waste of time. it is dead, and that is in all caps. we encourage the u.s. senate to

reject it. that is from speaker johnson's office from this week. let's hear from lee in missouri on our support line. caller: i think one of the obvious things is helping trump if the border remains a mess. but something else to consider is the gop looks at the long haul. if we have thousands and thousands of new citizens that eventually will gain the right to vote, who are they going to vote for? are they going to vote for democrats or vote for republicans? history shows that the republicans do not support the poor. democrats are more likely to. and we all know how the gop feels about voters with their voter suppression and their gerrymandering. so i think they are looking at the long haul, if these people are going to end up voting for democrats, and they do not want anyone to vote democrat. i think that is the major reason why the gop has always

historically been against any border reform at all. host: on our oppose line, this is harold in pennsylvania. caller: yes, hello. i oppose it because i do not understand how they do not vote for it when the house voted on it, hr702 or something like that, which is more stricter, restricting the people coming in, leading up to 2 million a year is ridiculous. what about everybody in our country now that is suffering? i just do not agree that -- i do not think that mayorkas or any of the democrats really care about us regular americans, the ones that are suffering day to day dealing with this stuff. host: again, when it comes to this bill, look out for it to have a vote this week. tomorrow, we will take a look at

it on the senate side. as we told you before, when it comes to l.a. hundred mayorkas, homeland security secretary, look for that impeachment vote effort in the house -- when it comes to alejandra mayorkas, homeland security secretary, look for that impeachment vote on c-span and c-span now. and with that israel bill released by house republican leadership, look for that to play out this week, too, on capitol hill, amongst other things taking place. brad in ohio, support line. caller: good morning, pedro. it is just amazing to me that the people that call in, they can't even answer your question completely when you ask them, why do you support the bill or why do you oppose it? and that is the most remarkable thing that a lot of these voters, they do not understand things they just jump on one side or just jump on another side. i support the bill because it

does exactly what it needs to do. it gives money to the border patrol people. i just read the national border council supports the bill because they know it helps them do their job. it helps to give more money for these people so they can go through the court process legally. it keeps them from being spread out in the country and not being able to work or have jobs. and of course it is a big mess when you have a whole bunch of people that are just scattered around and not able to do anything. i also support the bill because it gives the president legal authority to make decisions. those decisions that trump made, they were just executive orders which can we challenged in court. now it gives legal authority to control certain measures at the border when it is needed.

that is why i support the bill. and people need to understand, they need to read and do research before they make political decisions. it would help this country. host: ok, let's hear from bob in wisconsin on our oppose line. caller: good morning. i oppose it because, for one, they are still letting illegal immigrants over the border, up to 5000 a day? biden administration has been breaking the law since he has taken office. over 10 million illegal aliens in three years. that is the size of the city of new york. and also, in this bill, it is just not about our border, it is billions of dollars to ukraine. it is millions of dollars to all the sanctuary cities. new york alone is getting $53

million. this is undoable, a sustainable. host: concord, north carolina honor support line. caller: i'm not supporting the bill. we have laws in place already for our border. that should be enacted. host: i will stop you there because you called on the wrong line. our third texan today, this is linda, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: as a texan, there's a misconception about illegals coming across. we have a population of hispanics here of about 41%, 11 million hispanics. all the politics involved with the border, i'm supporting the

border patrol because they are the experts. that's where i stand. that's the reason why i support this bill. host: ok, linda in texas amongst met -- at least three texans recalled and many others taking a look at this senate border deal. later in the program around 9:20 a.m., our guests joining us will walk through details of the bill and tell us where it stands politically. make sure to join us for that if you're interested in learning more about that. we will turn our attention to another topic, the u.s. economy especially on many minds this election year. joining us to talk about this is mikeconzell of the roosevelt institute. later in the program, seth knight of the news outlet axios

covers immigration and will walk through the border bill and will take your questions on it. those segments are coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪

announcer: if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this time table makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> in the weeks that lie ahead, the famous and influential men and women will occupy those seeds and will have a lot to say about the society in which we live today and the solutions for the ills of our time. >> saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern, american history tv will air free to choose featuring milton friedman.

he coproduced the series with his wife and fellow, mr. rose friedman and it first aired on public television in 1980. they also read of vest selling companion book of the same name it takes is two locations important to the u.s. and the world economy. they advocate free-market principles and limited government intervention in the economy and in social policy. other topics include welfare, education, equality and worker protection and inflation. watch free to choose, saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on american histor tv on c-span2. announcer: c-span now is a mobile app showing you what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play.

download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on the economy and related matters with two guests joining us, matthew dickerson with economic policy innovation center and serves as their budget policy director and mike conzel with the roosevelt institute. to both of you, thank you so much for giving us your time. from your various positions you take especially looking at the economy at large, how would you describe the current state of the economy? guest: i think the labor market

is quite strong with about 3 million jobs created last year given that unemployment has been below 4% for two years which is remarkable. we had two quarters of really solid growth come about 4%, pre-remarkable given how far along this business cycle has been. inflation has been a huge challenge as it has been for most countries over the last three years. over the last six or seven months, it come close to the fed target. financial markets are now anticipating when the fed will start moving to a less restrictive state between march and the summer. all in all, the economy has landed in a solid place given the challenges of the pain in the past three years. host: this is the headline from the new york times -- your take on what the economy looks like considering these numbers. guest: some of the recent headline numbers have been good and we should celebrate that. what are the underlying parts

that made up those headlines? are they sustainable? people are still concerned about the direction of the economy. if you look at the polls, people say the country is still on the wrong track. although year over year, headline inflation is coming down and cooling off and that's a good thing but unfortunately, real wages are not keeping up with the rising prices. since january of 2021, real wages are down about 4%. that's making the typical worker $2200 less well off than they were in 2021. we've seen lots of headline job growth but a lot of that is subsidized by taxpayers and about 20% of the job growth in 2023 was state and local government officials. a lot of that's been subsidized by the federal government through transfers to the state government. over the long run, that will not be sustainable. host: what numbers or metrics do

you have to look for to cease attainability? guest: we want to see real rates growth area the things you want to do is see people's take-home pay rise rice -- rise faster than prices over time. the way to do that is to get government out of the way for the most part, letting people innovate in the economy from the bottom up. host: what do you think about the question of some of those metrics? guest: the question has been a real challenge for everyday people and real wages fell in 2022. they been growing last year and wages are still growing around 4% while wages have come down switch much closer to 2019 numbers. people have poor sentiment of the economy over the last several years. it's a huge turnaround the last couple of months and one of the biggest increase in decades. employment is broad. i think it's hard to slice the employment numbers that make them look bad.

the government share of employment is actually less than 2019 and there's been a great upscaling in our workforce. there are fewer -- there is more people working in higher wage jobs and goods producing jobs and professional services, record numbers of job growth. record numbers of business starts in terms of innovation. the challenges have been global and they've been real but i think we're finally getting on the other site of them and hopefully everyday people can start to feel less stressed and more comfort from the economy. host: the biden administration is taking a credit for some of these turnarounds in the economy, particularly now that it's campaign season. how much credit should they take? guest: i think the american rescue when making sure we stabilize household balance sheets and we did not have huge layoffs are cast in problems put us on a path for solid growth. you compared to the u.k. and canada and australia, no one would rather have their economy than ours. inflation challenges have been

global, not just in european countries. by putting us on this stable path for you get through the reopening and the pandemic problems, we are on track to have one of the best growth records this year, you look at cbo projections for employment and its higher than it was pre-covid which is pretty wild to think about. by making some strong investments, by seeing true supply chains and other critical albums by doing strategic and smart uses of the strategic petroleum reserve help counter the global energy crisis. there is a lot to be proud of and combating inflation. host: same question. how much credit should the administration get for this? guest: i think the biden administration should take a lot of credit for high prices. we've seen the biden

administration work with congress often on a bipartisan basis to massively increase spending. if you look at the cbo projections were how much the federal government will spend in 2023 before biden came into office and you look at the actual 2023 results, we actually spent about $1 trillion more than what was projected before biden started on his policies. that was the fuel that was the inflationary fire the caused the rising prices that hurt families so much. we should be concerned about the workforce compared to pre-pandemic. we are missing about 2.6 million workers in the economy. prime age workers have rejoined the labor force for the most part and that's something that's good that we should celebrate. something that is concerning to me is that younger workers, people who should be starting of

their careers, their employment population ratio is about 2.1%. those are people at the beginning of their careers or not being attached to the labor force now and that will set them back the rest of their careers eventually. host: if you want to add your thoughts, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. prices that people look at when they go to the grocery store, these are viable things. what do you think about those assessments if you look at those things purely? guest: some of the biggest prices, health, energy, food has had a lot of turmoil the last few years. the market is had some problems in 2019 compounded going into the pandemic and compounded by huge shifts and people working from home.

maybe you have a quarter of the people working from home and that wasn't there before so it was a huge demand and structural shift on housing. the breadbasket of ukraine and what russia has produced, it set global prices into turmoil. those are starting to normalize. they are starting, the housing market has cooled off quite a bit since the fed raking -- the fed rate hiking camping started. food prices are now more in line with pre-pandemic growth rates. that involves a lot of policy and a lot of markets. it gives them a chance to innovate to come through this huge shock we went through. obviously, it's been a tough time for consumers in many ways but hopefully now that things have normalized a little bit more, there's a chance for us to get to more stable growth pattern. host: new numbers are coming out from the congressional budget office tomorrow. it's hard to say what they will say but what are you looking for in the release of these numbers as you look at the state of the economy?

guest: you are right, the cbo's coming out with the new baseline projection for the next 10 years tomorrow. the director previewed some of the numbers at a testimony last week before the house budget committee. one of the headlines that will be coming out about that is that the fiscal responsibility act help reduce the deficits relative to the previous baseline they came out with last summer. unfortunately, that's not going to totally tell the total picture. we are going to see potentially up to 300 billion dollars in higher deficits this year based on policies congress is considering right now that's not going to be incorporated into the cbo numbers coming out tomorrow. the johnson-schumer deal to increase spending above the fiscal responsibility levels that are signed into law, we've

got the tax deal that just past the house recently and of course, the 118 billion dollars supplemental appropriations bill under consideration in the senate. that could extrapolate that over 10 years and that could add between one and $1.5 trillion that will not be incorporated in the cbo numbers. we also think they will show that prices will be growing faster than the economy over 10 years and that's not sustainable over the long term so congress will have to deal with that particularly the drivers of the deficit and overspending. host: what do you think about those warning signs? guest: we see the 10 year down over the past year having recovered quite a bit. given the deficit situation, there are long-term and fiscal challenges. the amount of revenue the government collects is down compared to where it was in the 90's and down compared to the

levels everyday people expect. they need to fund social security and we need to look at revenue going forward over the next 10 or 20 years. these are things policymakers take seriously in the decade ahead. host: jerome powell commented on the deficit issues this past week. he talked about his concerns over those things so let me play you what he had to say. [video clip] >> how do you assess the national debt? >> we mostly try very hard not to comment on fiscal policy and instruct congress on how to do their job when actually they have oversight over others. >> is the national debt a danger to your economy? >> in the long run, the u.s. is on an unsustainable fiscal path. that just means the debt is growing faster than the economy. >> i have the since this worries you very much. >> over the long run, course it

does. effectively, we are borrowing from future generations. it's time for us to get back to putting the priority on fiscal sustainability and sooner is better than later. host: with the idea putting us back on track, what to think about those comments and the idea of tackling sustainability? guest: you want to think of 10-20 years with the actual level of revenue we raise in the amount of spending and they are in line with growth. this is not the problem, there are more structural and fundamental things given the level of taxation we will have in society and the level of taxation i think is too low relative to past generations and the commitments we made into low relative to everyday people expect. it's lower than pure country so if you look at it that way, that's what you want to think about over the next decade. it will not be about this or that budget deal.

you must look at more fundamental levels. guest: i agree with chairman powell. it's good to see him start talking about the need for fiscal responsibility. unfortunately in 2021, he also comments on fiscal policy with additional fiscal stimulus. that helped drive inflation. i think it's important that congress helps the federal reserve control inflation by not continuing to bed to the deficit. i think it's right what mike said that we do have to be thinking about the growth ascending and matching that with their local taxation over time. driving spending that grows faster than the economy over time, you will never be able to match that with revenue. the only way to get back to fiscal responsibility is to control the growth and make sure that it does not grow faster than the economy.

host: tell us about your organization. guest: we are a relatively new policy organization made up of former congressional and administration officials. we want to look at the big challenges that are going to be facing the country in the next 5-10 years, namely we know that the federal government is not on a fiscally sustainable track. we know people are facing challenges for innovation and how to deal with the evolving economy. we want to work with policymakers to come up with innovative solutions so we can have a more prosperous and better future for families. host: tell us about the roosevelt instrument -- roosevelt institute. guest: we define progressive policy to create a more democratic situation. host: zack and washington, d.c.,

democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm pretty surprised about the pessimism about how our economy is doing and what it means two years running of unemployment less than 3% -- 4%, our economy is growing and we look at the stock market and it's been hitting record numbers. his pessimism i find interesting. i'd like to ask him how he feels about the trump administration, particularly about spending and in relation to inflation. what does he think about the cares act and how does he feel about the trump tax cut and trump promising to do more tax cuts if he's reelected and what

is he think that will do to the economy? host: go ahead. guest: i would say many of the headline numbers on the economy have been positive. i think that's good and we should celebrate that. i don't think the underlying details about the economy are as good as some of the headline numbers may suggest. we see strong demand in the economy for more workers. the bureau of labor to statistics says there is 9 million job openings in the country. that's more than there are people who are considered to be unemployed. fortunately, there are many people outside labor force that are choosing to not work or even look for work. that is not good for families. we want people to be in the workforce. they can have a more prosperous future for themselves and their families. the caller made a good point about overspending during lots of administrations. i think that us certainly

contributing to the sustainability of our fiscal future. continuing to spend faster than the economy grows is not sustainable. we will have a big inflection point in 2025 with major fiscal cliff coming. we have the tax cuts mostly expiring and phasing out and there will be a massive tax height -- hike against many american families. we will see the ending of the spending caps. we will see the end of statutory pay-as-you-go. congress is going to have to work together and they should take this opportunity to look at the tax code again and make it work better for the american people but also put spending on a better path forward. guest: labor force participation rate is higher than the cbo thought it would be in 2019 which is pretty wild.

thinking we finally got inflation in line, the last thing i would want to do is a major tax cut with spending offsets that president trump, candidate president trump is proposing. i'm a fan of smart, innovative industrial policy targeted toward restoring and national security concerns, 10% across-the-board tariff is not strategic and smart. it will just increase inflation and cost. people don't need it. the policies are shockingly bad coming from the campaign trail on the republican side. i am very nervous for everyday people if those policies are put in place. host: the biden administration plans to -- does the biden administration plan to carry over any of the trump administration tax cuts? guest: i don't know but there is a plan not to increase tax cuts. it's tough to know what the political environment will be

next year in terms of the executive branch and congress. anything could be in play with taxes next year but i agree with my guess that 2025 will be an important time to decide some important things on spending. host: tom joins us from south carolina, hello. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about the border budget bill that they supposedly have upper voting. i think this kind of ties in with what these gentlemen are discussing a little bit. i looked at the numbers the legislature had set aside for each particular expenditure. they said one of the things was

it would tie into five thousand crossovers per day for a week before they would shut the border down. i put my little pencil to it and i just guess that each one of those 5000 per day, that's 35,000 per week. each one of those, i'm just guessing, let's say it costs us $500. if you run the numbers before you know it, our budget is shot. it's like over a year, it's over a million dollars we would be spending to let these 5000 come across the border. i'm wondering what these two gentlemen had to say about that. i know it's not what they were talking about but i tied it in with the previous subject. host: thank you but i don't know

if there are parallels to be drawn with border policy but take a shot. guest: i don't know enough about immigration policy to answer that question. the budget deal is unfolding on an hour-by-hour basis. i would note that for many years, republicans had called for new enforcement laws for the border and both conservatives and progressives are upset about parts of the bill which means there is a real bipartisan job to be done. right now, unemployment has been below 4% for two years in labor force participation has been quite low but it's leveled out. we want to bring in more immigrants in a reasonable way to help innovate and build new businesses, work hard and build this economy. there is a real challenge right now at the border and with immigration laws but with a broader point of view, we want to welcome more immigrants to expand this economy further.

guest: unfortunately, we have seen chaos at the border. the american people are concerned about that for lots of reasons including national security. i think it's important we have an orderly immigration system and that's not what we have now and that's what people are demanding. i'm not an expert in border or immigration policy but a lot of people seem concerned that this bill would not address the problem. it is tied to deficit spending, 100 $18 billion on top of the spending currently in the budget and they are not considering how to prioritize within the money we are spending. that would be very concerning to me to continue to double down and keep spending like there is no tomorrow. host: this is ronald in rockford, illinois -- guest: that's the really

important point. net interest costs are one of the biggest categories of federal spending in the current budget. it's one of the fastest-growing categories in the budget over the long term. that's potentially very concerning. we are paying more for money that's already been spent. currently, the federal government is turning over debt that was issued at lower interest rates and now they are issuing debt at higher interest rates. that's going to add more cost the american taxpayers over the long term. guest: that is correct, rates are very high and restrictive to bring down economic activity. there is some debate about where rates should level out in the so-called natural rate of interest. more generally, where the fed will land on interest rates. it picked up relative to where it was in late 20 10 and that will have a real impact on the federal budget host: let's go to

john in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. there's been a lot of congressional hearings on immigration and nothing but outrage. now we find out after having three years of chaos that we are going to spend over $100 billion which will be more with the ensuing years. why don't you guys just follow the laws and do what we were supposed to do. the way you solve the problem is spending more money which is ridiculous. i live in a small community. they graduate about 100 kids a year. we now have about 15 kids that showed up in our school system that do not speak english. we cannot afford english as a second language. host: let me stop you there because i think it falls outside the purview of the conversation. independent line is next. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentlemen have a perspective there i can write to when it

comes to the national debt -- that i can relate to any comes of national debt and budget. there is one view i would like to mention that doesn't get enough attention i think. that is the actual interest we pay on the debt and what effect that has on services in this country. i'm speaking from my perspective as a person who recently got onto social security. i took the full term to age 66. as i look at what's being offered to me, i was surprised when i consider what might older siblings received versus what my parents received. i'm seeing that the whole program has been abused due to the fact that we've got to make up for the interest somehow, the

interest payments. you pay interest come you don't get any return on that like a credit card. i'm concerned about the interest on the national debt and i would like to see more attention paid to that. people don't understand the impact of growing at $34 trillion national debt and what that means. it means something. people say we owe it to ourselves and it's no big deal but it does mean something and it's a big deal. that's the point i'm trying to make. i wish your guests would comment on that. host: thank you very much. we talked about interests and the impact on what he's saying. social security is always a discussion point when it comes to matters of the economy. guest: over the long run, if interest rates remain high, net interest could build into the budget but right now, social security is paid on a separate track. there is not a conflict there

over the long-term of revenues are not raised. there could be an issue down the road for broader government services. guest: i think that is exactly right, over the medium and long-term, rising interest costs could crowd out other things in the federal budget and forced lawmakers to prioritize paying our debt or paying for services benefits promised. that's not a choice we -- current members of congress and should force futures of members of congress to do. host: one thing we so recently on capitol hill was the formation of the debt and deficit commission. legislators are taking a look at this issue. what do you think about the creation of it and what impact could this commission have? guest: i think it's important to have that conversation. i'm excited the house budget committee was able to form a committee but it hasn't brought dez been brought to the full floor of the house and it hasn't been a commitment to pass it in the senate yet but i think

bringing members together de-politicized environment would be a good thing. one thing that's included in this bill is a national awareness campaign where they put it into communities around the country to bring constituents in and talk about the impact of arising debt and the impact it has on the country. host: what do you think ultimately the impact could be? guest: i would guess probably nothing. it will be interesting to see what happens. we went through this in 2010 but this will not be decided by this or that earmark or an individual spending bill. you're either going to bring up the level of revenue which conservatives are against her bring down spending in a big way which conservatives, donald trump is promise not to touch. candidate nikki haley has suggested that, doing poorly in the polls.

unless conservatives get on board with one thing or another, it's hard to see how you will get from a to b. host: sponsors of it put out this statement is that alarmist or a reality? guest: those things will come to pass but what are we going to do about it? will we raise revenues enough to hit our social security obligation or change the funding revenue or cut social security in a certain way. money goes in and money goes out we have to make the decision on that.

president biden and president obama put forth plans to address this. the question i genuinely don't know how they will answer that question. it's been a question with us for a while. they probably will not solve it on this condition. host: is there a palpable way to make these changes? guest: i think so. if you look at social security and medicare, they been around for decades. social security is been around for nearly 100 years now. unfortunately, the way the system was created then is not sustainable today. we don't have enough workers supporting the growing number of retirees. we have about 10,000 baby boomers going into retirement per day. lawmakers should be trying to think outside the box of how we modernize these programs to get better results for seniors and taxpayers. host: from wendy in maryland, democrats line, you are on. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

i'm listening to the conversation about fiscal responsibility and the economy. let's start with the economy. i saw mathew nitpicking the data. he has a right to do that but i'm almost confident that if a republican president had these numbers, they would be putting billboards up and talking about how wonderful and great this economy is. they would not be nitpicking the data. that's a fact. they would be cartwheeling all over the place. fiscal responsibility, i greet with that. -- i agree with that but it only comes up when the democrats are in power. i don't hear them talking about spending when there is a republican spending like crazy. i have an issue with paying taxes to the government and the government tells me i'm not going to invest in you.

why are we paying taxes? the problem is that there is not a lot of people who can contribute to the treasury. corporations are not doing their part. our billionaires are not doing their part. i'm not going to pay my taxes for the government to say i'm not investing back into you. they are just going to stop spending? what happens to the country then when spending is cut off? i think we need to look at our tax policy and be honest with that situation. i think there could be more contribution to the treasury to help us out in that respect. host: thank you very much. let's stick to that last point, sticking to the tax policy. guest: i think the current tax system is not there either. we have lots of people who pay lots of taxes and we have a progressive tax code and most of the taxes are paid by high income people.

we have a relatively high corporate tax rate that's borne by workers with higher prices. that's a system that doesn't work very well. there is so many tax expenditures, and carveouts and special interest loopholes that i think we should be looking to close them and make a fairer system of taxation where people are able to understand what it is they owe and pay with ao in a sustainable way. host: jamie dinan at our recent forum said he made the case for higher taxes among the wealthy to pay for lower income people. what do you think about that process? guest: we currently have a system where people want to voluntarily contribute to the federal treasury and they can do so. they can pay more in taxes. they can write a check to the

treasury. people just don't voluntarily do that. that seems to be a market signal of what people actually want to invest their money in. host: same question --guest: the first point is we don't even have to hypothetical that donald trump is taking credit for the stock market. he thinks because he won in new hampshire that's the reason the stock market is booming. republicans are already trying to take credit for this. i don't think financial analyst generally agree with that. on the question of taxation, we already cut corporate taxes in 2017. i don't think any caller or listener is remembering the giant wave of investment or giant wave of wage gains from people in 2018 or 2019. that largely went to shareholders and corporate executives and did not have any kind of massive investment boom we would've associated if the

arguments for the trump corporate tax cuts played out. instead, we have much less revenue to fund things like services that people need and investments we need to make in our future and our community. re-examining corporate taxes won't exactly happen next year because president trump make sure to protect those things making every day people vulnerable in the political cycle but it is absolutely something we need to re-examine. host: one thing playing out on the pages of the washington post but in the house, they are considering changes possibly to state and local taxes and how that might affect the high income families to the degree you can talk about it or comment on it. guest: the deductions are quite progressive. i think they often benefit a lot of higher income people who don't need help in this economy. if they are not in place, you will have capital flight people

and hasn't played out. it's an argument i'm sympathetic to because given our federal nature, it's important for states and municipalities to innovate and make sure they have taxpayer support but in general, i find this less than impressive. guest: i agree, the state and local tax deduction is one of those loopholes and carveouts for certain people and it disproportionately benefits very high income people live in high tax states and ends up being of federal subsidy for high tax jurisdictions. i don't think that something the federal government should be doing. host: let's hear from richard in michigan, republican line. caller: hi, my question is, can the government just produce coins to cover this and if so, wouldn't that help with the interest we are incurring on the debt?

host: i remember the creation of the trillion dollar coin to take care of this. guest: we live through the experience of the federal government monetizing the debt. we seem rising prices and lower real wages for people. during the priest terrace first few years of the pandemic, the federal reserve but the equivalent of more than half of the new debt that was issued. they did so with newly printed money to put into the economy. that's not something we are going to want to see in the united states. guest: this came up with the concept of the debt ceiling. host: sherry in washington state, independent line, good morning. caller: hi, good morning, gentlemen. thank you for having me on. i would like to say this emphatically, whoever controls our debt controls us.

i know we can't tax and spend our way out of debt. also, i believe we need more government control and accountability for the spending. i think we are so big that the general population doesn't realize exactly where every penny goes and i think we need more transparency. i do believe our government tries and i do believe when this country was first founded, we were following along the line of pamphlets that were distributed by adam smith, the professor from edinburgh, scotland for the wealth of nations that says many jobs may like work. a multitude of small businesses can carry the nation but when we

have these big businesses, they can put a strangle hold on us. i believe we are overtaxed and i believe we have overregulation and i believe that is leading to the strangulation of our small businesses. thank you, gentlemen for listening to me. host: thank you, caller. guest: the national debt as such is an economic tool. i would not say the size of our national debt impacts our democracy for ability to govern ourselves. we can make different choices with the debt and different choices with our economy. we generally won't pay off the debt, few countries do. you grow out of it and that's why chair powell mentioned the issue of growth versus the rate of growth. these are valid things to be concerned about. fundamentally, we are able to address these problems if we choose to. host: do we have the ability to

make changes to grow out of debt? guest: if you go back to 20 10, the biggest worry was the growth of government health care spending, but tickly medicare. that's what would give us hundreds of percentages of gdp in debt. in the aftermath of the affordable care act, medicare spending went down quite dramatically. costs were controlled which was the point of the affordable care act and that has largely gone away in his significantly less urgent problem that was in 2010. while there are fundamental issues with spending, there is a lot of things we could be doing for maintaining health care costs, expanding regulation and deregulation. there are very smart investments we could be making to help grow which would allow us to pay the level of debt much more effectively. guest: the caller's point about transparency in the budget process is important. the entire congressional budget

process is totally outdated. the last time that so-called discretionary spending was a majority federal spending, the spending that 95% of congress is fighting over, that was 1974 when the modern budget process was created. since then, autopilot has grown to about 70 per -- 70% of spending. those of the programs that are the drivers of the unsustainability of our budget and congress should be thinking about how we can focus more on those in less on these short-term, small spending fights that congress spent a lot of time on. host: your previous career includes being a senior policy advisor and capitol hill on the house budget committee and work on the 2020 were budget commission. what do you see as far as what's playing out as far as the ability to meet these deadlines that are pending about maybe not funding the federal budget and

what has to be done to resolve that? guest: the current federal fiscal year started october 1 and they're still trying to fight over how we will spend the rest of this year's budget. we are way behind schedule. we will be behind schedule for the upcoming fiscal year. yesterday was supposed to be the kickoff for that budget process and it was a statutory deadline for present biden to submit his budget request to congress. unfortunately, yesterday came and went and i don't think there was any comment about the president and the deadline. host: concerns about the deadline and capitol hill? impact on the economy and things like the credit worthiness of the united states and the like? guest: potential default is what impacts that and we gotten beyond that. it's grossly irresponsible with the way conservatives took us so close to that deadline.

it affects every days -- everyday people's checking accounts and 401(k)s. the economy continues to chug along at a strong rate so i hope congress gets its act in order but i'm not sure if everyone else will wait for it. host: changes in michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, sir. i heard the guy say earlier that social security, there wasn't enough workers to support the retirees. what they don't include is all the legal immigrants they get social security, medicare, medicaid and food assistance. that doesn't help the retirees that paid in forever to get social security. host: you are breaking up so i will leave it there. anything from that? let's go to huntsville, texas, republican line, you are next.

caller: howdy, i appreciate it. i just walked in the house and you guys were talking about social security and reminded me of back in the early 90's, they were talking about how social security on that particular year , i won't say brought in $83 billion more than was paid out on social security benefits. also, they were talking about how you had a bunch of lowlifes taking money out of social otr things they wanted to fund and the government. i think is just horrendously awful that such things are happening and people know nothing about it. they claimed there was $83 billion more brought in then was

paid out on and if it's on that particular year. another thing, they have to expose the con being put in america maybe back in the mid-90's. usa today ran five separate issues funded by cato i believe in one of them commented about how taxes at that time had over $6 trillion surplus. from what i recall, legislation was making a big mistake that year about the horrendous deficit. they were trying to con folks into voluntary -- voluntary higher taxation when according to usa today, it showed texas at over $6 trillion surplus.

i guess that's about all i wanted to throw in. host: thank you, caller. guest: unfortunately, social security is paying out much more in benefits today than it is bringing in and tax revenue. that is because of the baby boomers moving into retirement. because the trust fund is being spent down because they are spending more than has been brought in in taxes, the social security trustees, the trust fund will be depleted by 2033. congress is going to have to address the sustainability of social security system. it still works much the same way the way it was originally designed only to tax rates have been increased a dozen times so that will not be sustainable for the future of the program. host: i didn't ask you about the big changes to social security

and medicare, if there's something you can agree with? guest: we have brought down costs and medicare and medicaid quite a bit. on social security, it's a matter of there are hard problems like industrial policy in such an social security is money coming and going out so we need to decide is a country -- i would like to see more money coming in but many people have different agreements on that but it's important to be clear about what will happen with that. a lot of people including her callers really depend on this. host: one more call from jacksonville, florida, independent line. caller: i appreciate you all time today. i'm 70 years old and it was back in the late 70's that george bush called the republican plan for new economics and howard baker called a riverboat gamble. do you think if we had listened to them and not taken the

riverboat gamble, we would have the debt we have today? thank you for your time. guest: president bill clinton did balance the budget and that led to president george w. bush having huge tax cuts twice. there is a political dynamism where democrats try to balance the budget and the republicans use that opportunity to cut taxes further. it's a real problem politically for democrats but more generally for the economy to have a sustainable tax base to fund the things we need. were not asking that everyone get an oceanview house but we are asking for provisions for people and we think that's important. guest: we have seen congress under both parties and both presence of both parties spend, spend, spend. they double down on spending more than we bring in and that's not sustainable and that's

happened but that cannot continue for the future. host: when it comes to the u.s. economy, what signs do you look for over than a couple of months? guest: i think we will be looking at interest rates on the debt, we will look at how much congress will be spending and whether they take the next few months to control spending and set us up for success in 2025 and what they will be planning to do about the re-imposition of the debt limit which is currently suspended and what they will do about spending tax increases on american families and what they will be doing to control spending for the future. host: same question to you. guest: i'm watching the rate at which people are quitting their jobs which i think is more accurate then the headline unemployment rate. it's slowing down a little bit. if they continue to fall, we might see more weakness in the labor market so we're watching that closely and making sure we

make progress on inflation. we want to make sure that continues to stay low and stay broadly concerned. smart financial analyst say that risk is balanced and the risk of inflation is pretty low. i think it will be a good year for growth. host: with the roosevelt institute at roosevelt institute.org. matthew dickason with the economic policy innovation center. , thanks for the conversation. in just a little while, we will have stefg kit withe us to talk to you and answer your questions about the senate border bill that was introduced earlier this week up for a vote. you can call on that the before that, we will take around of open forum and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. go ahead and call in and we will start open forum when

"washington journal" continues. ♪ >> on thursday, the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments in the case of former president donald trump's eligibility to be on the 2024 colorado ballot. the color of supreme court ruled that former president trump was ineligible from running for office because he violated the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution and supported an insurrection on january 6. watch our live covere from the court beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern unwashed in journal with expert analysis previewing the case and at 10 a.m. eastern, it's our coverage of the u.s. supreme words oral argument. at 8 p.m. eastern, we will recap the day's events and take your calls. watch live coverage of the u.s. supreme court oral argument beginng thursday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal"

on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-spanshop.org is our online store number browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. announcer: friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of providing a one-stop shop to discover where the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪

"washington journal" continues.. host: it's open forum and the numbers to participate is (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8001 democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. you can post your thoughts on the various social media sites. it's facebook.com/c-span and on x. roberto is in new jersey, democrats line, go ahead. caller: i have two comments. i couldn't get in on the last speaker. i would have liked to have asked two questions.

why can't social security [indiscernible] as they want and pay more taxes? second question is why can't immigrants pay into a system of social security and income tax that's only for them where they would be responsible for the benefits they get? they might start a political movement to reduce the federal debt since they would ping it for it-- they would be paying fr directly instead of others who've work for social security. host: thomas, ohio, republican line. caller: i remember when both parties were traveling from

social security and putting it into the general fund so that they have money to buy different things. like whatever the party felt like they needed. i have voted both republican and democrat. i am a registered republican right now. it bothers me because they keep talking about how low social security is. social security would be able to support people for a long time if they stop robbing it. host: pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning. a few comments about the social security -- why don't they just take the cap of the social security and in addition take a dollar more persons paper we --

pay per week? as far as the border goes, why farn't -- aren't the republicans helping with the border? if both sides worked together, they would get more accomplished on the debt, why not float bonds like they used to. have people buy bonds. that would help with the economy and the debt. [indiscernible] --host: call in on the lines and send a text if you wish to participate. the thing to look out for today's janet yellen testifying on capitol hill and what is being described as a vulnerabilities the u.s. finance system. this will be before the house financial services committee at 10:00 on c-span3. that mean today on the house

side, the house will consider whether to impeach alejandro mayorkas for his handling of the southern border. two articles of impeachment he is facing -- the first is willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law and the second is the breach of public trust. that will start around noon today. watch for it on our main channel. later on this afternoon, look as far as saudi arabia's divestment fund executive consulting groups will testify on their work on behalf of the investments fund and other foreign clients on the topic of forgn influence of the u.s. c-span3 is how you can watch that. mark in alabama, democrats line. caller: wanted to make a comment about the supreme court making a decision about donald trump's

eligibility to remain. i supreme court has no business doing anything as far as political decisions go when it comes to the states. stated of supposed to be involve their own destiny. the supreme court should have nothing to do with it. host: if it is issued on the 14th amendment, which is constitutional, why not have the court look into it? caller: it is the 14th amendment, but it is a political situation. what donald trump has done to the supreme court, there is no way they are going to backup the states to feel like she is an insurrectionist. i consider him to be a trademark -- a traitor. i do not understand how he can continue to be on the role for the vote. host: the take on the supreme

court and the 14th amendment, arguments will take place on thursday. you can hear audio on c-span and follow along. from manchester, california, republican line, this is john. hello. caller: good morning. i watch you guys every morning. what really gets me is people call in about trump's insurrection but the bottom line is i would like every voter to look in the mirror and why you keep voting for the same people in the senate and in the congress that are destroying our country? host: you being impacted by the rain and storms? caller: kind of. we got hit pretty good, but not

like southern california, which is nothing but a cesspool down there. host: what major city are you by? caller: the major city would be mount shasta or redding, california. we are 40 miles south of the oregon border. host: that is john from california. this is from fierce telecomm.com, saying that the federal communications commission revealed it will begin taking steps this week to wind down the affordability conductivity program, as funding for the program dries up and congress drags its feet. the researcher told them the loss of the program code undermine the equity access and deployment program and cause chaos for participating internet service providers as they work

to roll out new low income offerings. acp provides eligible households with a $30 per month subsidy toward fixed or mobile broadband service. with $4 million less in the bank, the projected end date is less than four months away. in a letter to congress on monday, the chairwoman said the agency has no choice but to wind down procedures. that is something you will seek layout perhaps this week in congress. rick, iowa, democrats line. rick, hello? one more time for rick. ok. john, massachusetts, independent line. caller: i wanted to make a few points. i was told that the border is

not open and they will only let 5000 in a day. they say we need workers and that is why we are taking them, but since 1973, we have killed 65 million babies, most african-american, which is what margaret sanger intended, which is disgusting. president biden says he is jewish, black, trance. now he is not being trans. everybody keeps thank donald trump is a racist, but he was given a civil trial. does that make oj a murderer? he was convicted in a civil trial. host: that is john in massachusetts. the bbc is saying king charles has been diagnosed with cancer according to buckingham palace. no specifics on what type but it will impact his duties as king

if you go to the washington post, this is a story following up, saying that boeing plans to rework dozens of jets after mistral holes were discovered in the sun. in a memo to employees, boeing commercial airplane's she says this does not oppose -- impose any immediate safety issues and will not affect operations but he believes they will have to rework about 50 undelivered claims and says that while this issue could delay some near-term delivery, this is the only course of action given our commitment to delivering perfect airplanes every time. let's hear from carol in west virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to know how many people read what is in these bills. it is a 300 page bill on the

border, but it is more foreign aid than anything else. the democrats that helped come up with the bill plainly stated on x that the border will never be closed. the president already has the authority, every president for the last four or five has had the authority to close the border at any time without any input from congress. also, i do not understand why we cannot -- i do not have a problem with foreign aid, but care of our own borders. we could cut funds, not all, but we could cut back on funds until we get our own house in order.

we can afford everybody else free stuff, but we have people being kicked out of their apartment building so illegals can live there. we have kids being kicked out of school so illegals can stay. it is all backwards. host: carol in west virginia, part of our open forum. the pentagon spokesman provided an update taking a look at authorized strikes against groups in the region that you have been hearing about over the last several days. you can see the full press conference at c-span.org. here is a bit from pat reiter yesterday. >> there have been three attacks by iranian proxy forces in syria since friday. you say that the assessment is that the stripes on friday night

had good effects. how can you say that when there is three more attacks? what will the response be? are troops at those bases allowed to leave the base and pursue those who are firing rockets into drums at the bases? >> on your last comment, our forces will always maintain the right of self-defense. if they need to defend themselves, they will. you have seen as do that. in terms of attacks in iraq and syria since we took the stripes on friday, i am only tracking does coincidence. there was one on saturday, for breaker that was two brackets that were fired with no injuries or damage reported. and i am aware of one on yesterday, february 4, a one-way attack drowned that -- wrong

that landed several commenters from mss green village. no reported damage to those facilities. the strikes that we on friday were in response to the attacks on u.s. forces in jordan. we will take necessary action to defend our forces. >> i there was a third strike. >> i think the one you are referring to is the latter one that i highlighted. i am aware of those reports of democratic forces killed in the strike but i would have to refer you to them. >> but not on the base where u.s. forces were? >> it was in the vicinity of green village. host: full press conferences is available on the website. these statements take place as secretary blinken is back for his fifth trip in the region.

washington post reporting that he carried a complicated message on the trip, even as the u.s. targeted militia in syria and iraq. he ultimately seeks de-escalation against iranian aligned groups -- "the u.s. will not escalate the conflict." the official told reporters -- the story going on to say that if cessation of hostilities could be achieved and if amounts could be removed from power, secretary likened will need -- secretary blinken will need air of allies to help put in place a new government structure. that will require a multibillion-dollar construction effort, reforms to the palestinian authority, including an injection of younger leaders. and an agreed-upon path to a palestinian state, a

normalization of relations between israel and saudi arabia. from california, this is carol, democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to let people know that more stations would take up the vote of all the -- if more people would get to see the votes on all of those channels so that they could find out more about what is going on on the vote in congress, the votes from congress are always -- democrats always note for the people's interest. the republicans vote for the wealthy top percent. host: that question to you as to how you are being affected by the storms in california? caller: i am in the desert.

we only have a little drizzle. host: carolyn california. let's hear from rebecca in arkansas. republican line. caller: i wanted to say one of the ways that they could probably save the government from ending in four months is to stop giving illegal immigrants cell phones. why do they need them? that has got to cost millions. host: rebecca in arkansas. the wall street journal reporting when it to political news that nikki haley has applied for secret service protection because of increasing threats she has received as donald trump's last major opponent for the nomination. she confirmed the application monday with the wall street journal, "we have had multiple

issues. it is not going to stop me from doing what i need to do. a request has an sent to federal officials and we are thinking about how more campaign security would affect travel." her campaign did not respond to a query seeking additional details about the threats she has received. there is the wall street journal if you want to read it there. let's hear from matthew in new york, democrats line. caller: i enjoy your show. i like to hear other people's opinions, but i think people need to read the immigration bill before they say these crazy things like the lady saying it is more money for the immigrants. no. i heard one thing.

i do not know if it is true or if i misunderstood. they said it will be up to the border -- the bill also has -- after 5000 people who come in illegally, if it becomes too much, they can close the border. i do not know if that is true. do not know if you can tell me or not. two, biden can close the border, but he needs money to do it. congress is not giving him the money. people are forgetting that. it takes money to close the border because they need border agents to secure it. that is all i wanted to say. host: richard, california, republican line. caller: i had a statement to make.

it is what, $60 billion or $80 million for ukraine in this bill. what i never see on tv is how much the ukrainians are fighting. when the vietnam war was going on, we were seeing all kinds of war footage every day. i am getting no feedback on what the individual citizen in ukraine if they are fighting and dying for their own country. i understand there is a news blackout. is that true in ukraine? host: i could not tell you as far as that is concerned, but as far as where you are in california, i am interested in how you have been impacted by the storms. caller: i have lived in this one section. we do not get the weather that

you do in other parts of the country, but i think it is the most wind i have had since i lived in this section for the last 20 years. several people were killed by trees or limbs falling on them. host: the live in the southern part of the state, the northern part? caller: near sacramento. one other thing is with ukraine and russia and china, i would like to see joe biden disclose exactly how much money he received from these countries through his son. i think he has got skin in the game. i would like to see him make a

statement as to his involvement. thank you. host: clinic comes to those dollar figures for other countries -- when it comes to those dollar figures for other countries in that order security and foreign-made bill, 60 billion dollars is slated for aid to ukraine. $20 million set aside for immigration enforcement. when it comes to aid for israel, $14 billion a month, $10 million for humanitarian aid in gaza and the west bank. again, if you want to read legislation of the bill that was put out, you can go to our website at c-span.org in order to get a sense of what is being asked for an related. -- and provided. senators being asked to take procedural vote this week. watch and stay close to c-span2.

not only about noon today the impeachment procedures for the homeland security alejandro mayorkas, also you might see a stand-alone bill when it comes to aid for israel. that you can follow on our main channel on c-span. janet, louisiana, democrats line. caller: first, put trump in jail. he is as guilty as sin. i love england, sorry charles is sick with cancer. we have places to put immigrants throughout our country. advice to everyone -- do not buy anything cannot afford. do not get pregnant unless you can raise a child. thank you. host: jeff mann then -- jeff is in montana. republican line. caller: hello. the lady is misguided but i will

not pick on her. the border wall is critical. anybody who does not admit that has no idea what they are talking about. i am a retired military officer and i would like people to think about what a of thinking about lately the young men and women going back all the way to the beginning of the country but as of recently, we have lost men and women overseas that are there defending this 40 -- this border and our country. that is what we tell them. when they returned and there is no border, and anybody can tell me that there is no border, when we allow that to happen, we have lost all of our country. we are losing our military. for us veterans, this is tough on us. using one of us. we are -- you are losing more of

us and we are committed to the site every day. host: a couple of comments about donald trump -- [inaudible] especially the supreme court. they do not take care of it, there money to be no supreme court. we are going to put him away for good. we will put this clown way. [indiscernible] people think he is some kind of god. see it every time he goes to court. host: gary in irving, texas, independent line. caller: good morning. that guy just made my point. [indiscernible]

i we have a unit party versus the rest of us. the republican party and the democratic party are not for people in the middle class. you can tell that by the 25% inflation. host: more from that senate border deal that was reached when it comes to specifically border issues. $20 billion like we showed you from border investments. but also it would force the departmentf homeland security to shutter daily -- illegal crossings 5000 average. it also says unaomnied minors out of mexico and canada would not count. would increase thresholds for migrants obtaining asylum and expedite the process for six months total.

it would add about 50,000 working families visas -- protecting legal foreign workers children from aging out of the legal status and is part of the bill that was released, it would provide a pathway to permanent residency for afghan evacuees. plenty there. you can go to our website to read about it. north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to let you all know that donald trump is 77 and our president is four years older. i wish they would quit saying that our president is old, because he is not. he is still young. another thing -- people got it wrong about the student loans.

they just said the republicans run away with that. what they are saying is that our president will put $10,000 toward your student loan. he never said anything about the president paying off a student loan. of course, the republicans do not go against it. [indiscernible] paying $10,000 toward what you. that is the way it was supposed to be. now he is that even in. that is wrong. host: alicia, columbia, maryland, independent line. caller: hello, pedro. the union did $54 billion to ukraine recently.

that gives them quite a bit of money. why did biden do that? why did biden give all our hard earned money to other people? he did not or in, -- did not earn that. host: gay in orange, texas, republican line. hi. caller: one question -- why instead of a new bill being passed can biden not go back and reversed the presidential order he signed the first day of office that trump had put in? things were working fine at the

border, better than now. i cannot explain why they cannot go back to that. host: another texan, from temple, texas. democrats line. caller: good morning. you know it is bad because in california now, train you can get rid of but might you cannot. -- but mud you cannot. the earthquakes will be coming. i know you people think that -- but we are living in the last days. get ready, get your families together, get yourself together, and pray. host: republican line, ohio, jeff. caller: biden suing texas to

take them barricades during massive foreign invasion that he created by reversing trump's policies at the border that were working, that will tell you everything you need to know. thank you. host: jeff in ohio finishing off this round of open forums. if you are interested in learning more about the senate bill released this week taking a look at border issues, joining us next to answer your questions is stef kight of axios who reports on immigration is here to take your questions. that is next on "washington journal." ♪

>> for c-span's voices 2024, we are asking voters across the country what issue is most important to you in this election and why? >> immigration. >> i think that homelessness needs to be addressed. >> share your voice by going to c-span.org/campaign2024. record a 32nd video telling us your issue and why. -- a 30 second video telling us your issue and why. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and others. on q&a, hear wide-ranging

conversations with authors were making happen. book notes plus episodes for our weekly, hour-long conversations that ray given the feature authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcasts takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction publishing industry. find all of our podcasts by downloading the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed by a republic thrives. get informed rate from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased of the nation's capital to wherever you are, because the opening in that matters the most is your own.

this is what democracy looks like, c-span: powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us to talk about senate legislation on the border stef kight with axios. to texas, why is there so much republican resistance? c-span.org 2 --guest: two sides -- the politics and the policy. former president trump has been aggressively opposed to any border deal, really. that political pressure is real. we have seen house republicans come out strongly against this deal. speaker jensen has been saying that this bill would be dead on arrival. he has kept with that language and been joined by other republican leadership in the house, but we have also started

to see senate republicans express concern about this bill and an unwillingness to fully get behind it. this is both because of former president trump and the reality that many republicans in the senate maybe would be willing to vote for the package but if it is going to die in the house, some are unwilling to stick their next out. -- necks out. they are focused on the emergency actions part of the package. this is if you have seen people talking about the 5000 birth, this is what it is related to. after its daily border crossings over the course of the week, when they reach 5000 a day, the federal government would be forced to shut down the border in between the legal ports of and to a. this would force border officials to turn back migrants

to illegally cross the border without chance of a silent. right now, it does not matter how you cross the border. you have a right to seek asylum. how republicans view this is the bill allows 5000 people a day to be let into the country. the term "let in" -- many of the 5000 that would be counted would still be turned back for other reasons. [indiscernible] how -- host: how easily could they achieve that 5000 figure? guest: very quickly. if this had been in place, the border would not have been open for the past four months. i think there have only been seven days in the past four months that have not been beyond 5000. there have been moments in this crisis where we have seen border crossings surpassed 11,000 in a

single day. this would have been in place for a long period of time. republicans think that threshold should be lowered. host: one at the points of this bill was to define asylum and who gets it. how does it change the current process when it comes to asking for asylum? guest: this would expedite the asylum process. right now, people come across the border and are given an initial test where they express fear of returning back to their home country. it is called credible fear. the vast majority of migrants are able to surpassed this initial test. it is easy to get through. they are then put into a backlog asylum system. it often takes years before they have a final decision, which means that anyone crossing the border legally or illegally are

guaranteed a few years in the u.s. with a work permit because the process takes so long. this bill condenses the process to around six months. that is the goal. there would be three months to pass an initial screening, which would be tougher than it is now. then they are going to expedite the full process within another three months. six months total. the idea would be to more quickly deport people who do not reach the full standard of asylum. host: will at all take place in front of an immigration judge? guest: it seems the bill would move the process away from immigration court and toward uscis asylum officers housed under dhs. that is something that democrats have said should be done for a long time to expedite the process.

it would also limit some of the ways asylum-seekers have to keep appealing any decision. it would limit the number of times they could appeal, which would expedite the process. host: if you want to ask our guest questions about the senate bill, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. $20 billion, break that down. guest: order to impose all these policies, you need a lot at the border. right now, they are incredibly strange. the look at key immigration agencies, they are out of line. ices in particular. they really do not have money and it is a -- ice is a critical

part of the immigration process. people think rains, arresting people, but they are in charge of transporting migrants from the border to other destinations, charged with detaining people with criminal histories, as well as other people. they have wanted to get alternative tracking programs and also remove able once they are -- people once they are found to have no reason to legally stay in the u.s. these funds would expand shelter and detention space, expand the availability of deportation. things that cost money to make sure the immigration can meet the large numbers of people coming across the border. host: if for some reason that procedural vote does not happen, what happens to the bill itself? guest: that is a key question. it already seems to be on life support. republicans say they want to

amend parts of the bill that they think should be fixed, but it is hard to see any momentum building. this is a bipartisan bill. any changes republicans might make could cost them democrats. we have already heard from the dr, menendez, bernie sanders who have said they do not intend to support the bill. the democrats can only lose so many people. only so many changes can be made to the bill before it is just going to be lost with the other side of the aisle. host: and what with the house to? guest: that is the other thing. that is a key point to senate republicans' thinking on this. why would we vote for something that speaker johnson has said he would not ring up for a vote in -- ring up for a vote in the house? guest: it is hard to see them

amending the package far enough to appease house republicans. and we are in an election year where both chambers are looking at thin margins. the border is the number one issue. voters are saying this is more important than the economies some polls have found. everyone is trying to navigate a political movement on an issue that is nuanced and complicated. host: stef kight reporting from axios on this border bill. first call from john in virginia, democrats line. caller: i would like to know if the people coming across the border seeking asylum because their country is in time while, why aren't we seeing people dragged out of their houses,

murdered, stabbed? i do not understand. we do not see footage or anything showing that these people are being mutilated where they are coming from. guest: you look at some of the main countries of origin where many are coming from and there is certainly severe political instability, economic instability. there is gang violence in several of these south and central american countries. you hear from people who have made these journeys. there are certainly people who are coming to the u.s.-mexico border in desperate situations who have faced persecution, whether it is from criminals in their home country or the government. there are people who are seeking

a better life for economic reasons. that is not one of the reasons to meet the asylum requirement necessarily. that is where things get tricky. a lot of people have the initial step toward asylum easily but the majority to not get approved for asylum itself. that is part of what this legislation is trying to target but it is a complicated issue. whether it is political persecution or economic desperation, people do not leave their home countries for nothing. they do not make these long journeys for nothing. host: oregon, republican light. -- line. caller: my question is if biden is supposed to enforce the border on his own, where is the funding going to come from?

whatever has to be done needs funding. republicans are saying biden can do it on his own. are they prepared to fund whatever programs he needs? guest: that is a good question, a question democrats are asking to republicans. it goes to the beginning of talks around this emergency funding package. it was the white house that initially asked for significant money to invest in dhs, along the border in their ability to kick it into their own hands. that was when the republicans said, no, not without border policy changes. could biden use some of the legal means that former president trump used to crackdown on the border?

sure, but too faced legal challenges for what he tried to do on the border. so there is a legal risk there. and anything biden does would require significant funding. host: a viewer says the proposed l has exclusions for unaccompanied minor children. what would we do with them? guest: already, the way the system works is there is a separate process for kids that come across the border without their parents. under 18, they do not go to ice detention centers. they are funneled through resettlement that has shelters in place by various nonprofit groups who have worked with the government. that is where kids are placed. they are connected with sponsors often already in the u.s. and eventually released. there is already a separate

process for unaccompanied minors. that would continue under this legislation. host: jonah, virginia, independent line. caller: seems like the guest has already admitted that donald trump was facing a lot of opposition and that these people are coming from very bad countries. i want to ask her issue not aware that donald trump tried to make a deal to extend amnesty for children who were brought here by their parents illegally, referred to as daca? but the democrats would make that deal. he wanted that along the lines of giving that are having more money to secure the border. guest: that is absolutely

correct. there have been multiple times over the years to come to some agreement to pass legislation to address immigration and the border under trump. there were discussions around combining long-term protection for dreamers or people brought to the u.s. as children illegally but have now and here a long time. his democrats number one hurt he. trump was negotiating with democrats to see if he could combine that with order security. the key sticking point was money for the border wall right now, the daca population has never been on the table in these negotiations, which is remarkable to see how much democrats have moved on this issue because of pressure on the u.s.-mexico border and the fact that this is part of a broader package that also includes

funding for ukraine and israel. host: on x, wheless than 20% is spent on the order and the rest on foreign policy and defense, why is called a border bill? guest: to the first point, that is part of what makes these negotiations so complicated. that has been the focus of the conversation, because of key policy changes, but the fact that we already have many republicans who are hesitant to back additional aid for you train -- fort ukraine is part of the reason why we have seen the white house and democrats be willing to concede so much on the border. this is their willingness to give a bit too republican on the order in order to secure funding for ukraine. you have to put this into the broader perspective. that has been part of why we

have seen the border part of this bill move in the direction it has moved. when it comes to what president biden and mayorkas are able to do right now, are there some extreme emergency measures that they could take right now, yes? under two, they could not use the emergency measures whenever they want. there is a minimum threshold of 4000 encounters a day at the border, which would enable the president to decide to use his authority. that it would be 4000 to 5000. there is a bit of a lower threshold if president biden would want to enforce that earlier than the 5000, but he has said if he signs it into law, he would evoke emergency mechanisms right away. we would have had this in place for the last four months because of the numbers. host: in the house, a vote today

to consider whether to impeach alejandro mayorkas. how likely is it to happen you -- happen? guest: it seems likely that republicans will impeach him. this is something they have been talking about for a long time. it has been driven by the freedom caucus. they are wanting to pin the border issue on him and move forward. this would be the first time a cabinet number has been impeached in nearly 150 years. there are a few holdouts. one congressman has said he will not vote for impeachment. there are a couple others who have not fully indicated how they plan to vote, so there is a chance but with the house -- with the house margin as them as they are that this is not get

through, but it seems unlikely that leadership would ring it to a floor vote if it was going to fail. many republicans who were initially hesitant have said they feel comfortable voting to impeachment orchids. i would say it would probably pass the house but there are a few people to watch. host: what is the appetite in the senate to follow through? guest: not a lot. it was under democratic control. he is likely to be acquitted. there are a handful of senate republicans who are gung ho and who believe that mayorkas should be impeached and removed. others have expressed hesitancy. it was last week that john thin -- thune said he is more focused on winning elections rather than removing the dhs secretary. some republicans say they would rather be doing other things.

there are a lot of things the senate needs to get done. they do not want to spend time on an impeachment trial, but they will have to do something if the impeachment goes through in the house. host: kim, florida, democrats line. caller: this would be an excellent use for ai. the vetting process, the application process, giving them an id, a temporary work permit, some way of getting the paperwork followed through. they could have the ability to upload their documents from their country. ai could turn right into their home languages the whole up asian process. -- the whole application process. that it would go in front of a judge. i feel sorry for the immigrants coming across. they travel for months to get across the border. as much as i hate the stance that texas has made transferring

people across the country, they've got a point. these people traveled from months to get to the u.s. and then they park in texas. they are getting overrun there. we could filter them into the rest of the country once they are vetted it would make less impact in texas. they would not be so overrun. guest: the ai suggestion is interesting. customs and border protection's have begun using ai and some of their work among the border. they are in the early stages of figuring out how to use ai to track down drug smuggling and migrants crossing the border illegally. the government is in the early stages of figuring out how to utilize ai. often when it comes to paperwork, the government can fall behind it is not always up-to-date on technology but i do think using ai to address immigration challenges is something to be watching. host: gina, mississippi,

republican mine. -- line. caller: how would any of these people qualify for asylum unless they lived in canada or mexico? asylum law says you have to go to the country next to yours. how are any of these people even considered? guest: no. anyone who crosses into the u.s. has the opportunity for apply for asylum. there has been movement recently, started under former president trump and i am as opposed policies along these lines that would force people who cross multiple countries into the -- to get to the u.s. to first apply for protection in a country that they pass through. this is been a key debate and how to address the number of

people coming into the u.s. some have argued that if they are truly in need of immediate protection that they should try to get that in another country that they pass through before they get to the u.s. biden implemented restrictions along those lines that would automatically reject some people who cross the border illegally without having pursued protection in other countries. host: one of the elements in the package, 50,000 working family visas. explain. guest: there is a huge need for legal pathways into the u.s. democrats often argue that part of the reason we see so many people illegally pressing the border is there are so few legal pathways into the u.s. the bees caps have not been expended enough to meet the number of people looking to immigrate into the u.s.. and the u.s. needs workers.

many states and localities are in desperate need of workers. people argue there needs to be a balance about stricter enforcement along the border but also providing people with more pathways into the u.s. this includes legal, permanent visas for family numbers of people in the u.s. and high skilled workers, which the u.s. needs. host: tennessee, randall, republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for letting me on. it is a shame that we see congressional leaders [indiscernible] already said this bill is that an arrival but republicans [indiscernible] we are watching every step of their movement and knowing they

are holding progress up for this country. [indiscernible] be dealt with in a bipartisan way. guest: it has been interesting to see the way republicans have moved the goalpost. republicans were the ones who initially demand that any ukraine aid be complying to border policy changes. that was republicans demanding that. that was what kicked off four months of senate negotiations for them to come together with some kind of a deal. now it does feel that republicans are moving the goalpost and saying actually nothing will be good enough for us, especially hearing what we heard 4s -- house speaker johnson saying any illegal border crossings allowed is too

much. even hearing former president trump, who is now saying that the border and security package did not -- should not be combined with ukraine aid, which is the opposite of what we were hearing from republicans not too long ago. host: the house, are there some house republicans who might buy into what is being offered? guest: if there are, they have been quiet. we have mostly heard from republicans in the house who are opposed to this package. i am sure there would be some water it willing to discuss this package, but when leadership is saying we will not get up for a vote, it is unlikely that they would be loudly advocating for it. congressman crenshaw did make remarks last week saying we need to actually look at what this bill does before we pass judgment, but that is the extent of what we have seen from republicans defending this package. host: new jersey, maria, independent line.

caller: regarding the border, joe biden is responsible. i remember like it was yesterday as soon as he became president, i think he was down by the border, he said, "you have a new president now. you can all come over." that is what they are doing. i never saw some much regard for these illegals. never have they shown that for the american citizens. we have children in this country that are hungry, but we support these illegals. look what they are doing. they are in the stores robbing, knocking on doors, now they are

beating up our officers and getting away with it. guest: i do not remember that particular moment from president biden. he certainly did not go down to the border until later in his administration. but there are so many reasons for why people decide to migrate the u.s. border. when we look at the demographics and numbers that we have seen over the past few years, it is hard to boil this down to any one thing. certainly the transition from prop's harsh -- donald trump's harsh rhetoric and policies to biden more humane focus on order policy may have -- on border policy may have motivated some people to try to go now. it's so much bigger than that. you look at everything going on throughout the western hemisphere, the push factors why people decide to leave their

home countries. you even look at the fact we have seen people coming from so much further all over the world to the border. this is really a historic worldwide movement of people. this is a refugee crisis. unprecedented migration throughout the world we have seen. part of that is what we are seeing at the u.s.-mexico border. host: from rose just about to go to a republican press conference of g.o.p. leadership. hear from rose in illinois, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. listen, nobody gives an indication how these migrants are operating. nobody talks about it, clearly. especially you, you are a journalist. you are not telling us how these facilities are generated by the american and international ultraleftists. the leftist assembles the caravans and sustains them through their tract through the united states. they benefit from soup kitchens,

first aid centers, overnight shelters with beds, and medical care for facilities, including therapeutic counseling. the migrants even get free calling cards and phone apps that provide immediate access to lawyers and sympathetic journalists like you. in case of detention or encounters with law enforcement. i'd like to know why you don't look at that side of it and see what the leftist is trying to d- host: you made that point. i'll leave it there. the guest can respond. guest: myself and the many edges lent journalists -- excellent journalists of this issue have covered every aspect of what the migration aspect looks like. i would encourage look at some of the great journalists that work out there that does walkthrough what the process looks like for people from the moment they decide to leave their home country until they are here in the u.s. of course every my grant's experience is different. there is no one universal migration story. much depends on where your home country is and that will

determine how your journey looks and what it looks like once you get to the u.s. and enforcement you need here. host: one more call. james in georgia. democrats line, go ahead. tkoeup did you say james? host: yes, sir. caller: i was just wondering, maybe some people think this might be hard. what would happen if you sent these people back on the same place they came across. back to the entry port of the united states and you sent them back the same day. would that be considered too harsh? these people know you cannot walk across the border and move into another country as you came to the united states, move to another state. you can't do that. i'm wondering about that sending them back the same day would that be considered too harsh. guest: for many years we had

covid-era policies that did enable the u.s. government to remove people almost immediately. sometimes within the same day. by restricting their ability to seek asylum. this was the basis of part of the emergency part of this package we have been talking about today that's in the senate. while in some ways this was effective and allowed border patrol to be able to quickly turn 350e78 back -- people back without going through the full asylum process, it also had some issues. we saw the number of people attempting to cross the border repeatedly increase. some of the reason that we see such high numbers in the data for people crossing into the u.s. illegally, especially during the years of 2021, 2022 is that people were going across the border multiple times. they returned the same day and we wait around a little bit and cross again. even that was not fully effective at slowing down the numbers. the reality is there are legal protections for people to seek

asylum and protecting that is important. host: back to where we started. here's your latest headline from the story you posted yesterday. senate g.o.p. floats tactical retreat onboarder deal. tell us what you're watching for today. guest: emwatching closely to see whether there is any change in the direction things seem to be going since last night. senate republicans met for about an hour and a half last night discussing this border deal. and they emerged essentially pretty much in unison saying they need more time. they are saying they want more time to read the bill text. they think wednesday is too soon to casing a procedural vote. they want to be guaranteed that they can make amendments to the bill. all movement seems to be pointing towards a failed procedural vote on wednesday, even senator james lankford from oklahoma, who has been the lead republican tphoerbor on this bill -- negotiator on this bill, wouldn't tell report he whether he plans to vote to move his own bill forward. saying he's listening to his

conference and people's concerns and weighing the best next step. host: steph reports for axios on immigration and related matters. find her work at axios.com. appreciate your time. that's it for our program today. another edition of "washington journal" takes place at 7:00 tomorrow morning. as we told you in just a few minutes from now g.o.p. leaders are expected to hold a press conference to talk about many things to watch out for -- on capitol hill. follow along on c-span's 1 and 2, our website, and c-span website and app. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org]

>> we are live on capitol hill this morning waiting for republican leaders to give an update on the house legislative agenda. on the floor today members are expected to debate whether to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas for high crimes and misdemeanors. we could also hear questions about the senate border security and foreign aid bill and other news of the day with reporters on capitol hill. live coverage here on c-span. this should start in just a moment.

host: the border security aspects, $20 billion in border investments. it would force the department of homeland security to shutter the border if daily legal crossings top 5,000 migrants on average, or 8k.500 in a single day. it would increase initial

threshold requirements for those migrants claiming asylum and require all asylum speakers to be tracked expanded to six months total t would add about 50,000 work and family visas a year for the next five years. protecting legal foreign workers children from aging out of the legal status. and provides a pathway to permanent residency for afghan evacuees. that's some of the elements. text of the bill if you want to read it for yourself and work through it available at our website at c-span.org. a procedural vote slated for tomorrow. questions on if this vote will pass that. in the meantime you can tell us what you think of the deal that was released this week. if you support it, 202-748-8,000. why if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. border state, 202-748-8001. text us at 202-748-8003.

the associated press reporting this morning dramatic turn around senate leader mcconnell recommend they vote against the first procedural vote wednesday according to people familiar with the meeting. it came just hours after the kentucky republican urged colleagues on the senate floor it's time for congress to take action. mr. mcconnell struggled to ph-rb shall his conference to support the package of that $118 billion. a border enforcement policy and funding for ukraine, israel, and other allies. the "washington times" takes a look at some of the element people who have spoken out. republicans particularly who have spoken out against the bill since its release including senator danes of montana. chair of the senate republican campaign arm. minority whip john thune of south dakota and senator joni ernst of iowa. expect pessimism. senator john cornyn of texas

advisor to republican leadership says he has serious questions and concerns. senator lindsey graham of south carolina, vocal opponent for the new border policy said, a robust gate and amendment process will be need. that's what to expected in the leadup for the test vote of this legislation. you can express your thoughts as well during the course of this hour. let's start with mel in oklahoma. supporter of the legislation. mel, good morning. tell us why. caller: good morning. i think it's been years they have been trying to come up with something. now they finally have. it looks like it would be a good idea to support james lankford in their efforts to pass this bill. we also were former democrats and we changed to our party affiliation in december to republican party so we could vote for nikki haley. if it's nikki haley and vote biden. host: back to the senate legislation.

you say it's a good deal. specifically, why? caller: because james lankford covered all those points on the news shows i have been watching. it sounds like they have an idea that will slow the immigration down and also kind of interview those folks and find out what kind of people are getting in here. host: stan in oregon. opposer of the legislation, good morning. caller: i oppose and little facts right here i'd like to say about this appropriation of -- misappropriation of federal funds. host: are you there? caller: yes. i was reading your lips because it's off. pedro, thanks for taking my call. there's -- host: caller you have to stop paying attention to the television and tell us why you oppose the legislation. caller: because there's too many people coming in.