who need imost. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to demcy. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live lines involving you to discuss -- discuss politics and public policy. coming up this morning, a look at the week ahead in congress with mike lillis, congressional reporter for "the hill." then doris meissner with the migration policy institute talks about the influx of migrants crossing the u.s. southern border and the characteristics of recent arrivals. ♪ host: good morning, monday, february 12, 2024.

former president donald trump commented about nato over the weekend. saturday, he suggested he would not defend alliance leaders that did not beat -- meet defense spending guidelines. leaders around the world say they will only -- those comments will only encourage russian aggression. we are getting your thoughts on that story and the u.s. commitment to nato. phone lines are split i political party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. ,independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text (202) 748-8003. include your name and where you are from. very good monday morning. this morning's papers here, nato

announces trump's comments undercutting the pact. new york times, nato waves isolation after trump outburst. those, from the former president made during a campaign rally in south carolina on saturday. here is about one minute of with the former president had to say. [video clip] fmr. pres. trump: same thing with nato, nato was busted until i came along. i set everybody is going to pay. they said if we don't pay, are you still going to protect us? i said absolutely not. they could not believe the answer. and you never saw more money poor in. the secretary-general, he was my biggest fan, he said all this presidents came in and all owed money and will not pay it, then i came in and gave a speech and said you got to pay up. a president from a big country

stood up and said if we don't pay and we are attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said, you did not pay, you are delinquent? he said, yes, say that happened. no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. you got to pay. host: that was on saturday in south carolina. headlines from a newspaper this morning, biden calls trump's nato remarks appalling and dangerous. a statement from president biden on those remarks, warning a second trump term would destroy america's relationship abroad. this is from the statement, if my opponent donald trump is able to be in power, he is making it clear as day that he will abandon our nato allies of fresh attacks and allow russia to do whatever the hell they want with them. he said, serving the commander-in-chief is the

ultimate responsibility and should weigh heavily on the person in office. his comments will give putin a green light to continue his brutal assault. it is appalling and dangerous. the president on the former president's comments. former president trump mentioning the secretary-general of the nato alliance, and a statement coming from him yesterday. nato remains ready and able to defend all allies, said the secretary-general. any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security including that of the united states and puts american and european soldiers at increased risk. regardless of who wins the election of the united states, they will remain a strong and committed nato ally, i expect. let's get your view on the nato

alliance and this story as it has developed since saturday when those comments came from the former president. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will start in iowa, robert, line for democrats. caller: good morning. the thing i would say is that i have two things to say. 1, trump talks about people not paying their bills -- he did not pay anyone, that is why he was going bankrupt in new york. number two, the reason why we need to be funding the ukraine is the fact that england, during world war ii, stood along against the nazis. d they not and they had fallen, then they would have come and more than likely took united states and america could have spent standing alone

against the nazis' journey. we need nato. that is our allies. they bled and died during world war ii. that is why i say we need to make sure we stay in nato. because he wants to get in with russia, north korea, and those other countries that are not our allies, never will be. host: robert in iowa. we showed you that map from the nato website, countries that are part of nato. ukraine is not currently a part of nato. but the caller mentioning the ongoing war in the ukraine and funding for ukraine much a topic of conversation, one of those rare weekend in times for the senate, and they both saturday and sunday, 18 republican senators joined democrats yesterday in voting to advance a national security bill that

contains funding for ukraine and israel, putting the bill on to pass the chamber this week. $60 billion in assistance in that bill would go to ukraine. house speaker says they will unlikely take up the legislation if it ultimately passes, setting up for other potential passes, trying to move that in the house. we will talk about that in our next segment. but now we're talking about former president donald trump's comments on his view of nato alliance. james out of pittsburgh, independent. go ahead. caller: how you doing? i always thought that nato was supposed to be something to protect us, to keep after world war ii. i studied world war ii, and how could you be so dumb as to let the ss minneapolis out there for five days? how could they be there in iwo

jima? there was a lot of slimy stuff in world war ii. host: but bring it back to 2024. caller: we're in the bed shape -- bad shape. we need a president that is going to step it up. we need to make a better future. host: when it comes to nato, it is article five of the nato treaty that says if one nato member country is attacked, each and every other member of the alliance will consider it an act of violence, as an armed attack against all members and will take action it deems necessary to assist the ally attacked. that is from the nato treaty. nato this year celebrating the 75th anniversary of its founding. 31 members at this point to my nato. getting your thoughts on nato and former president trump's comments. this is john in idaho.

go ahead. caller: yeah, nato needs to step up and pay their share. you know, the talkie puts out there -- the talk he puts out there got the job done less time and they started paying. everybody wants to be part of nato, but nobody wants to help pay. i think it was a good thing in a way because it brings everyone together, but people have to pay their share, and that is all he is saying. host: you're talking about that defense spending goal, that 2% goal? caller: no. the countries in nato need to pay their share. host: one of the expectations is that nato countries would spend 2% of their gdp on defense spending, and that is a point that former president donald trump was focused on when he was president, trying to get members

to pay up that 2% goal towards defense spending. at this point, 10 of the 31 members have achieved the 2% goal. those statistics released by nato last year. compared to 2014 before donald trump came in to his term as president, just three members met that 2% benchmark. back in 2014. 10% today. ron in kansas city, missouri, democrat. caller: yeah, go chiefs. i actually moved. but this is coming from a guy was six bankruptcy to match his deferments, and he is making it up. what leader of a country says, sir, sir, we are groveling for a few billion dollars.

i think china spends $100 million, russia does not even spend $100 million. this guy is out of his mind. he just makes stuff up at these rallies, and his cult, cult 45, just laugh it up. how do you answer to these people? i mean, nato -- he is encouraging russia to invade europe, and his cult seems to be fine with that. i find that just beyond my wildest imagination. the man is an abomination, an admitted molester of women. this is just true, sorry. i know you are about to cut me off. but how anybody can vote for this man is beyond my belief. but you have a great day, and go chiefs. host: ron in kansas city. republican line, holland, michigan, this is lee. caller: holy cow, john.

you're going to sit there like a deer in headlights and listen to that last guy just talk nonsense and hate. wow. you have this question, and it proves that you are a democrat society there on c-span. had to put trump in there, didn't you? trump's comments, and then you have idiots like that that call in just hate, hate, hate, trump, trump, trump. host: what do you think about nato? that is what we are talking about. caller: he did not have one intelligent thing to say, and you are sitting there listening. host: any thoughts on nato? caller: yes, yes, like the intelligent guy before me, the idiot -- host: all right. this is edward, paris, ohio, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was in the marine corps in

1970 and we had to go over to greece and turkey, got there in 16 hours. russia was trying to pull turkey out of nato. a big squabble happened on the border between the greeks and the turks. they went over as referee and split them up. and anyone concerned about russia -- we were concerned about russia, except for the fact that they were involved in disrupting the nato alliance. to make a long story short, operation deep express prevailed and stopped the conflict before it really got started. i would like to say something about donald trump. and him paying his bills. everybody remembers what he did in new jersey when he built his casino. he stiffed all his hard-working contractors out of their money. ended up going bankrupt, which

most of his stuff does. now no use for donald trump and his attacks on nato and his praise on russia. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: the former president making those comments while campaigning in south carolina over the weekend ahead of the upcoming republican primary in that state. the former south carolina governor nikki haley is his only opponent in the republican primary. she was asked about his comments about nato yesterday on "save the nation." this is nikki haley. [video clip] >> if elected, would you adhere on the premise that an attack on one is an attack on all? ms. haley: absolutely, nato has been a success story for the past 75 years. what bothers me about this, do not take the side of a thug who kills his opponents. do not take the side of someone who has gone in and invaded his country and half a people --

half a million people have died or been wounded because of putin. i don't with russia every day. the last thing we ever want to do is side with russia. what we always need to remember is america needs to have friends. after september 10, we need of a lot of friends. we do want nato allies to pull their weight, but there are ways you can do that without sitting there telling russia have your way with these countries. that is not what we want. if you notice, russia has never invaded a nato country. they invaded georgia, moldova, and ukraine. they are actually very intimidated by nato. nato allows us to prevent war. we need to always focus on preventing more. host: that was nikki haley on "face the nation" yesterday. getting your comments this morning on nato, your view of nato, and former president donald trump's comments from over the weekend. mark in milwaukee, line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, i think nikki haley

just said it correctly, and what trump said was very irresponsible. it is hard to understand -- you try to understand other people's points of view, but there's getting to be a point that the republicans, if you do not agree with trump, are considered rhinos. so if he is offending everyone almost every other day, sooner or later the rinos will be more than the trumpsters. that is all i have to say. caller: my feeling about nato right now is that nato is pretty much obsolete. actually, nato is more symbolic now, in reality, in terms of their effectiveness. host: why is that? caller: i will give you one

example. nikki haley spoke about 75 years of success. 75 years of success for nato and success -- the u.s. is israel and gaza right now. nato at this point is not necessary for the united states to get ourselves out of the economic and financial mess that we are in. our borders are in horrible shape. nato's borders are pretty well protected. you cannot walk from one nato country to another and just walk over en masse like that. so when we say that it is important for the nato alliance, what about the american alliance? europe is europe. europe has been having wars amongst themselves for 3000 years. germany will be fighting the year after next. this is what goes on.

ukraine, there is a strange history with ukraine, russia, and a bunch of baltic states. it goes to catherine the great and beyond. we really cannot argue that. that would be like us arguing the history of the republic of texas and its fight with the u.s. for independence. texas even today claims independence and threatens to secede. host: a call from north carolina. you mentioned foreign aid spending and protecting our own borders. former president, donald trump had this on his social media page concerning foreign aid and how the united states conducts its foreign aid. this is what he had to say saturday afternoon. from this point forward, are you listening to me senate, no money in the form of foreign aid should be even to any country unless it is done as a loan, not just give away.

it can be loaned under extraordinarily good terms with no interest, but a loan nevertheless. the deal should show the u.s. is helping you as a nation, but if the country ever turns against us strikes it rich in the future, the loan will be paid off in the money returned to the united states. we should never give money anymore without the help of a payback or without strings attached. america will be stupid no longer. that was a post on saturday before that rally where his comments about nato got a whole lot more attention and have been the focused on several stories since then, including several front-page stories of major newspapers in the u.s. today. this is joy and savannah, republican. caller: yes, i do think they should pay. that is why serbia was bombed, because they pulled out of it with russia. and that is why russia was

there, because clinton was able to bomb them, and no one was there to protect them. we need to be paid. if you do not send your child, grandchild, or something to some foreign country to die, you need to be compensated for it -- think about your son and your grandson before you put that on trump. he is thinking about america and america first, remember. thank you, john. host: it is not compensation to the united states, it is getting these countries to meet the 2% defense spending goal. 2% of their own gdp that they are spending on defense, that has been the focus. caller: well, that is ok, if they are paying, john. you know, if they are paying for our protection and they are going to help our people, then that is fine. but we should not lose all our sons and grandsons to other countries. it is very hurtful, john. we have lost a lot. host: that is joy in savannah.

randy in michigan, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you in all the men and women that it takes to bring us this great program. you are doing a great service for the nation. i believe right now if we did not have a nato alliance, we would not have a united states of america. it would have been taken over. and the comments made by citizen trump that is running for the republican nomination for president shows just how much of a clear and present danger that individual is to this nation's sovereignty. thank you, john, for letting me speak my piece. you have a good day. host: to connecticut now, independent, kevin. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. boy, these people forgot about 9/11, you know, when nato helped us during 9/11. the republican leaders, they got

no bad bones, no freedom, no free will, because if they vote against trump, trump will sick the dogs on them and their families. trump is running the republican party and everything. when it comes to nato, you keep that stuff in nato, you do not bring it out into the public. trump does. trump is a more on. only thing to cares about is the next election. he don't care about vets, don't care about nato. host: don in california, republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for the call. i really appreciated. i am not a trump republican. republican party is not the party that i grew up in with my dad. i remember in the 1960's russia trying to invade -- remember, they invaded checklist of aki -- czechoslovakia. without nato, i do not know what

they would do. so thankful for nato. trump, we have to remember, he is a communist sympathizer. if you look at the fact in 1932 his father was arrested at a nazi rally. so you have to keep in mind, he is for dictatorship and power, and he wants to break up nato so putin can continue doing what's he wants to do. putin wants his countries back. he believes russia or the soviet union longs to all the balkan countries. but no, you have got to stop this guy now. c-span, you are just as bad. you are showing trump rallies, showing a trump rally with a convicted rapist, convicted criminal for fraud concerns, and i cannot believe republican's -- i remember in the 1960's, we would not vote anybody back in who lost an election.

this is just terrible. you do not keep voting back losers. trump has proven to be a loser. host: got your point. victoria in hartford, connecticut, democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. you know, i listen to you because i do believe you are the most fair and vallance dove the mainstream media -- and balanced of the mainstream media. what i find it preposterous for a man to have the audacity, this person brags about the fact that he never pays his bills, and he is going to tell other countries what they should do? he has 91 counts against him. what we should stop doing as a nation is giving him a platform. but you know, the republican party has imploded. as the former caller said, he is a clear and present danger, not just to america. we watched the republican

implode because of him. nato has been in effect for 75 years. we cannot, as a country, allowed this clear and present danger to make problems with all of our allies. thank you for taking my call, john. host: nato this week set to have a meeting of defense ministers thursday in brussels, and then the munich security conference, annual gathering of national security leaders come on friday. it is the 75th anniversary year of nato. having a conversation about nato in the wake of former president donald trump's remarks on saturday, which have drawn the attention, not just of folks here in the united states but folks around the world. the lead story in today's "new york times" looks at nato countries weighing out their

isolation after the trump outburst, focusing on individuals around the globe, including the president of the european council, which compromises europe's heads of governments, he wrote about the comments, calling them reckless statements and said they make more urgent europe's nascent efforts to develop a strategic autonomy and invest in its own defense. back here in the united states, comments from democratic members of congress yesterday about those statements on friday by the former president. this is the democratic senator saying while the senate worked this we can to advance a critical bipartisan national security priority to better protect our country and allies, trump actively undermines it by encouraging putin to attack nato allies. not only appalling, it is dangerous. a tweet, democrat from new

jersey and house, saying trump has admitted he would abandon nato allies for putin. his comments should worry everyone who cares about freedom and democracy. one more from a democrat, adam schiff, on sunday shows yesterday. he was asked about those comments. here is congressman schiff. [video clip] >> i guess we should not be surprised, you spent a good amount of time looking at donald trump and russia. how do you think vladimir putin heard remarks like the ones he made yesterday? mr. schiff: putin must be absolutely thrilled. if you look at it from putin's perspective, the war is not going well in ukraine for russia . russians keep coming back in body bags. nato is enlarging with two new nations joining nato. nato is strengthening. and along comes donald trump,

there to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for russia. and for the united states and our nato allies, it cannot come at a worse time. trump's republican party is holding up aid to ukraine. trump is the gift that won't stop giving to vladimir putin. he he thinks, i am sure donald trump thinks this makes him sound strong, but it just makes him look like an incredibly weak leader, weak in not bolstering alliances, in undermining security. we benefit from the nato alliance as much as not more than any other nation. for him to signal to our allies who cannot rely on america anymore, it cannot be more dangerous and destructive. host: democratic congressman adam schiff on msnbc yesterday. one more on former president donald trump's comments, this from the editorial board of the

"wall street journal," usually conservative views laid out there, this is what the board writes, donald trump says many provocative things, often intentionally, to rile up opponents. his comments saturday, that he once told a leader of the nato allies that he would invite putin to eight, is the reason many americans will not vote for him again, even against a mentally declining president biden. those comments will please vladimir putin. coming up on 7:30 this morning, and asking you about these comments that are getting a lot of attention, both here in washington and around the country and around the world. former president donald trump at a campaign rally in south carolina on saturday. for your comments and your views of the nato alliance, you can call in on phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

about a half-hour left in this opening segment of the "washington journal." here is about one minute of the president's comments, the former president's comments, from saturday. [video clip] fmr. pres. trump: i got nato to pay up. nato was busted until i came along. i said everybody is going to pay, they said, well, if we don't pay, are you still going to protect us? i said absolutely not. they cannot believe the answer. you never saw more money poor in. the secretary general -- i do not know if he is anymore, but he was my biggest fan. he said all these presidents came in to make a speech and leave, and that was it. and they all owed money and will not pay it. i came in, made a speech, said you got to pay up, and they asked that question, a big president stood up and said if we don't pay and we are attacked by russia, would you protect us? i said you didn't pay, you are delinquent? he said, yes, let's say that happened.

no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. you got to pay. host: former president donald trump on democrats, (202) saturday. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. on the line for independents, this is arnett in alabama. caller: as a navy veteran who served from 1980 to 1995, i must say that we are in nato because of russian aggression. some of my time was spent in nato, some in the persian gulf, some in the indo pacific region. and thanks to the american people, i want to thank them for allowing me to serve you guys and get rid of the aggressors against the freedom loving people of this world. i would also like to know from these people calling in, why

does the united states maintain a very powerful nuclear deterrent? it is against the communist trying to destroy our well life and all freedom loving people in this world. host: you said we have more threats today than when you were serving, to the freedom loving people of the world, as you describe them? are the threats bigger or worse today than they were during your time? caller: i feel they are worse during this time. i see the communist chinese have become, what, the seventh greatest superpower after the russians collapse. an ica research in -- and i see a reserve in russia. the thing that gets me the most about all this is that there is a segment of american society that seems to be communist, too, that praises communists who were out there killing people intentionally to put them under

their boot heels. and here in america, i have been given a choice as far as when i go into the ballot booth in november. to me, i am a god-fearing man, and this is a biblical choice. i have to sit here and watch one person who has things against them and watch another person who has got things against him in the make this pond to use choice of which one of the should be in charge of this country, and one of them, i can tell you right now, is definitely not the person that i will be out voting for to be in the office of the president. they do not exhibit what i see as a president. there is no george washington, no theodore roosevelt, no franklin roosevelt, no dwight eisenhower, no martin van buren. there is none of these other

presidents i can see in the leadership of this man who goes after dictators -- he loves dictators. why would i want to be in a communist country under putin, under kim jong-un? why would i want to live in russia? why would i want to live in china? i want to live in this freedom loving country here where i can enjoy what i enjoy. my family has been here since before the inception of the state of alabama. matter-of-fact, they were included before the territory, because they were here before the war, revolutionary war. we been here a long time. and it behooves me when we got people who have not been here through turmoils of the country and come here and seek to

destroy it and say how about this country is -- host: that call from alabama. talking about china, some comments mentioned china, the house of representatives is losing one of its most active voices when it comes to china, the issue of china and u.s. competition with china. mike gallagher, republican from wisconsin, four-term lawmaker who chairs the committee at helping the u.s. compete against china, has said he will not run for reelection. the 39-year-old former marine corps intelligence officer has split with the party on some high-profile issues, most recently when he voted against impeaching home and security secretary ellie hunter mayorkas. his decision -- secretary alejandra mayorkas. others are retiring or running for another job, at 49, almost 50 members, stepping away from their seats in some way, shape, or form. terence in new jersey,

republican, you are next. caller: yes, hi, i am going to talk about the border just for a minute. i worked immigration for 15 years. all i can say is there are hordes of people coming across, and they do not look at all like the people in the lazarus, what is talked about in the poem at the base of the statue of liberty, talking about them able to stand on their own two feet and being a humble servant. these people coming across the border, first of all, they look well-organized, well fed, well-dressed, carrying cell phones, organized by enemies of the united states. and to some limit, they are coming here for criminal reasons, to harm this country, but the majority are coming here for the simple reason my grandfather skimming here,

they're working -- looking for work. they want a job. host: we will talk a lot more about the order in our 9:00 a.m. eastern our. doris meissner of the migration policy institute will talk about those issues. but come back to nato for me, staying on that topic this hour. caller: nato is a very important ally, and trump is an f'ing more on, to talk like that. host: let's work on our language. a call from boston, democrat. caller: hi, americans do not do history very well. in 1919, the secretary of state promised gorbachev that in the year -- the reunification of germany, nato would not defend

-- gorbachev kept his promise. but the words are packed -- warsaw pact when it collapsed, was we could buy nato, until nato was up on the borders of russia. it appears that nato wants to do to russia what it did to yugoslavia, wants to break it down to its component promises. you have a computer in front of you. type in record of conversation between gorbachev and james baker, it will take you to the national security archives. on page six and nine, it will confirm everything i have to say . perhaps you would like to do that. you can find out what i am saying is correct. thanks, and have a nice day. host: here in d.c., william,

independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have never called in before. i live in washington, d.c. i will define what i am. i am a former marine who assisted in the nixon white house. what i have to say, there is a quote in alcoholics anonymous, be careful what you say in print and voice. that is what i am going to do. we have a situation in this town . when president trump was elected, there were 500,000 votes for hillary and 3700 for him. nobody in this town had an idea that there was a possibility

that a cretin like that would get into the white house. right? for whatever else he is, he is a pitbull. unfortunately, right now we need a pitbull. we do not need, unfortunately, what president biden is going through. he is a great guy, i met him up in delaware once. right now, we are in a real problem, and we need somebody who can do the running. unfortunately, that happens to be trump. host: what does a pitbull do for our allies around the world, for something like nato, article five, this alliance that has been around for 75 years? why do we need a pitbull when it comes to that? caller: first of all, they ought to double the amount of money that the nato allies put in there. we are stretched to the end.

we have old aircraft carriers, right, and they are not putting in the money they should. are you saying some the? host: i am listening to you. go ahead and finish your comments. caller: nato allies do not put the money into their own defense that they should, and it has gotten to the point where they are breaking our backs, and it is unfortunate that it has gone to this point. but they have to pony up the same way we do. about the wars, aristotle said nobody has ever seen the end of wars, that is the honest to god's truth. thank you very much. i'm sorry, i started to get a little bit excited. you guys do a great service, and keep up the good work. host: william, sounds like you have been watching c-span for a while. why was this the first time you

called in, this topic? caller: i was sitting here -- i woke up early, i have something to do this morning, and i said, listen, i used to watch you guys late at night when i was doing paperwork. and i saw this and the nato thing -- let me put it this way, towards the nato helping us, in 1962 when jack kennedy gave the missile speech, i was standing on john paul jones hill in guantanamo bay. i was in the first battalion marines, and up and down the coast you could see a destroyer or aircraft carrier every three miles. castro understood that. but none of our buddies in europe were involved in that we were. we saved the world. we did it or not them. we did it. we have been doing the brunt of

the legwork since then. host: how do you read vladimir putin? what is it going to take for him to understand? caller: oh, he is a dirt bag. he was kgb. i have a friend who served in the marine security battalion, the guards all over the world. he had to go to every embassy in the world where there were marines. host: and do what, william? caller: to check out the marines. in moscow, there was a kgb woman in the security area. he said the russians were bouncing so many microwaves of the outside of the embassy, you could hang a steak out the window and broil it. no. we are playing hardball with some bad people, and that is the

reason why trump is here. they do not know what to expect out of him, and neither do we. we should put a muzzle on him so he can keep his mouth shut, then he would be a great president, but we can't. on the other hand of the coin, certain situations are under control -- out of control. of all the years i've been in washington, d.c., somebody says politics, and they start running in the other direction. host: just coming back to paying their fair share, the concern here about nato members, what they pay and how they pay it. "usa today" breaks this down, coming back to that 2% number. nato nations agreed in 2014 to aim to spend at least 2% of their annual gross domestic product on defense. that was falling russia's annexation of crimea. and also taking steps to meet guidelines for that 2% spending within a decade.

at that time, only three countries, including the u.s., were meeting that standard. by the end of this year, the number is specter to rise to 11, according to a report released late last year -- the number is expected to rise to 11. looking at 2023 spending and expenditures by nato nations. you can read more of that report on nato's website. doug in illinois, republican. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i believe that trump is right. they took the whole conversation out of context. at least trump knows what a secretary of defense is. i am offended by all these

democrats coming on and blasting on trump. without him, war all over the place, chaos all over the place. is that their plan, because of it is, no thank you. host: he mentioned defense secretary's. defense secretary lloyd austin back at national military medical center with a bladder issue. it is less than a month after his secret stay at the hospital sparked outrage for failure of notifying a president. he is 70 years old and was taken to walter reed by his security detail at about 2:20 p.m. yesterday, according to an air force major. apparently, the medical issue was not immediately clear, but the defense secretary back in the hospital. pristina is next in georgia, democrat. caller: hi, good morning.

i think we do need the nato alliance. it is very important. back when trump was in office, he tried his best to get us away from nato. this is not anything new, so the republicans, we living in some times that are very, very -- we need to watch what we do, what we say, this man does not like democracy. i have heard so many callers over months and months saying we do not have democracy. i think you need to ask the people from cuba, from russia, ask the people from north korea what it is meant to have democracy. you have no freedoms. and to keep defending this man over and over and over, it comes out of his mouth. he says he wants to be a dictator. he says he wanted to lynch

general lily. he has said a lot of things, and in regards to -- i wish you guys would start listening to fox news. fox news had to pay almost $1 million for telling lies about the election was stolen. and one of the reasons republicans can't see the truth is because their hearts are hardened. if you are really christians, you understand what is going on now. you all -- you only talk against foreigners. you talk against people. trump right now is building a coalition to make this country into dictators here at it came out of his mouth. this is not the democrats. democrats, we don't hate people. i listen to you guys who call, it is always about hate, hate, they just hate us. host: this is joyce in portland,

oregon, independent. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: i can. caller: ok. nato alliance at the end of world war ii, they put the nato in. we needed the nato in because of russian aggression. and then soviet union collapsed and gorbachev got out. and then here come putin. putin wants to take back every country that they lost. none of these people want to be under his control. this is just crazy. and if these people in washington, d.c., these freedom caucus folks, don't want to give this money to ukraine, we will be on the stage of world war iii. i hear all these people talking about how they need to do this and do that and do this and do that, but if you do not want your children to go to world work iii -- world war iii, do

not vote for trump. because trump made an ally with putin to get rid of nato so he could run over europe. do we want another war, like world war iii? this is ludicrous. host: that is joyce in portland, oregon. nato founded in 1949, celebrating its 75th anniversary. started with 12 members, now at 31 members in the nato alliance. cj is next in wisconsin, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a little bit of fox news has been number one for 20 less years because they take both sides of an issue -- for the last 20 years because they take both sides of an issue. president trump did not want out of nato, he wanted countries to pay their fair share, and he got them to do that. it is through strength -- well, we have shown we are pretty weak

through afghanistan, 13 soldiers died. now we have soldiers dying all over the world due to this president, our current president, joe biden. russian never invaded while trump was president. afghanistan, he listened to his military advisor and did not go to zero. and that is the reason that he kept a force there. nato countries needed the truth. united states have been paying for countries beyond what we could afford. and now we have a border we need to take care of, our border first, and there is only one party that can. the court is fighting to keep texas from being able to protect the rest of the country. there is one party and president fighting against the border wall. in the president, on day one, signed executive orders to stop that. so he ended stay in mexico, and

he reinstated catch and release. so this president, president biden, is the reason that we are in such disarray around the world. and president trump believed in peace through strength. and right now, our enemies do not fear us, and our allies don't trust us. and that is due to this president biden. so yes, president trump, none of this would have happened under him. he maybe doesn't say the cleanest things all the time, but i tell you what, nato countries are paying their fair share. thank you, president trump. host: less than 10 minutes left in this first segment of "washington journal." girdwood, maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, we need nato

because it is a very important part of civilization, keeping civilization a life. also remember that when we talk about the border, just to sidestep a little bit -- i will go back to nato quickly -- the governor of texas has sent the people up to the black areas, washington, d.c., new york. he did not send them to nebraska or oklahoma. he is doing it in a racist way. and to talk about the country is better off where the border is causing problems, well, why don't you stop the governor of texas from sending the migrants to black cities? that is my comment on that. on the nato thing, trump doesn't care about nato. trump cares about trump. we hear all these republicans talking about, oh, we had

disappeared remember, afghanistan war was going on when trump was president. he did not stop it. also, the china issue, trump didn't stop china from doing anything. he wanted to praise korea and went there. he did not care about the united states people. he only cares about anglo-saxon arian people in this country, that's it. host: to our next call from the naval academy in annapolis, maryland. caller: thanks. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i am calling because i planned and irresponsible message that didn't sound so extreme, but the problem i have

a trump and i think other people have with trump's that i listened to the remark and do not take it seriously because it seems absurd. you played it a second time and i realize, oh, my god, this guy is serious. a a couple points i want to make him all the bellyaching about nato, it is ironic that the eastern european countries, the ones that are standing up to putin, whom trump seems to like, the once standing up to him are the ones paying over 2%. they are lining up and are standing up to putin. and trump is screaming about nato. so i do not really understand that. one other quick point, this whole thing about nato caused the ukraine war is ridiculous. first of all, the core powers of nato, france, u.s., u.k., and germany could not get the durable promises from the rest of the conference. the newly independent countries

moved west, and people so what russia did in georgia and chechnya in the 1990's. they realize this is a belligerent culture, and these people need protection. they're coming to us, and who are we to turn it away? host: on those countries that are now paying 2% of their gdp towards their own defense spending, and that was the goal, as we noted, that nato countries agreed to after russia's invasion of crimea in the 2014, at this point there are 11 projected by the end of the year, 10 currently paying over 2%. you mentioned the countries that are doing that of the 31 members. i was going to give the names of those countries paying over 2% of the gdp on defense spending. poland, united states, greece, estonia, lithuania, poland, romania, hungary, latvia, united

kingdom, the slova republic, and that is it. the rest of the member spending less than 2%. just wanted to get those country names for you. go ahead and finish your comment. caller: yeah, 11 countries, but a lot of those 11 countries, czech republic, i guess there check bounced, har-de-har-har. the other countries are newly independent and abutting russia and the first to get attacked if russia let the tanks roll, they are pulling their weight. it is kind of ironic to me because trump is always complaining about nato, and yet the people who are on the front lines of nato are paying up. i wish people would appreciate that. host: to point out one more from the chart, poland, a country that was paying less than 2% in

2014, now is the country that spends the most as a percentage of gdp on defense spending, almost 4%. united states is about 3.5%. of course, the u.s. gdp is a lot larger than poland, so it is a lot more money. caller: it is important to put it in context of gdp, relative to the country's capacity to produce. yeah, poland's -- glad you said that, that is great news for me. poland is wonderful, and i hope that ukraine wins and moves east -- i mean, moves west, like the other newly independent republics did. i think it is terribly to say that. i think it is very irresponsible of people to try to blame nato for it. host: two more calls. joseph in virginia, also a military town.

line for republicans. caller: thank you, my first time calling. a lot of americans do not know the news, but these countries serving with us in iraq and afghanistan over 20 years. i have been with polish special operations people, people from italy, and they have been risking their lives. even though their departments of defense are not as rich as ours, their servicemember's are serving right alongside of us since november 12. host: are you still active? caller: no, i have been retired since 2013. host: what do you make of those comments from the former president? caller: it is really a disservice because the american people don't know, do not see our partners -- those people, the polish, the italians, the french, the germans, when they are in iraq and afghanistan,

their population is asking, why are we dallying there if that is an american war? american people are not seeing that either. it is a disservice to those folks who are alongside of us. that is an important message to get out. host: and you are a republican? caller: yes, sir. i am a conservative, but i am old school, george sr., bush, conservative. host: what does that mean for your vote? caller: [laughs] it is going to be interesting. hopefully nikki haley can hold out. some of the "rinos" come around. that is not going to be a hard choice. when general matus retired -- i read these things, when the secretary of state retired from the administration, those are

the kind of notes i take when it comes to the leadership. then i'm worried about who will come into power, mike pence, is he going to vote for him, and he sat next to him in the white house, and will he hire host: up next another busy week ahead and later on, the migration policy institute will join us to discuss the influx of migrants crossing the u.s. southern border. we will be right back. ♪ >> 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.

>> c-spanshop.org is our online store. browse through our latest collection. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. bookshelf podcast, you can sear all of airpods casts. listen to c-span's book shall podcast feed today. you can find it in all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video o or wherever you

get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.org /podcastss. "washington journal" continues. host: on mondays when congress is in session, we like to take a look at the week ahead in washington. this week we are talking with mike willis. we are coming off a rear weekend session in the senate, they consider the foreign aid package for folks who switched over from the super bowl when the senate was still in session. what happens next? guest: good morning. so much for a quiet weekend. charles schumer told the republicans that we are going to pass this bill come hell or high water. it might be super bowl sunday but we will still do our work. they have already voted three times on his bill in the last week including sunday evening as

you mentioned. this inches the ball forward a little bit. they still got a long ways to go and are working on how to get a deal with the amendments. the republicans want to amend this with border language and they haven't worked that out. there is expected to be another vote tonight at about 8:30 p.m. that will in should forward again and start another 60 hour clock. we are looking at the desk the early this could pass would be early wednesday morning. this is congress of my not happen that quickly and could before -- pushed further. yesterday's vote was interesting because it was 67-27 and mitch mcconnell is pushing it forward with ukraine aid come the legacy issue for him and he's in old-school conservative institutionalists and he remembers the republican party that was very muscular on foreign policy. he sees the united states as being the global leader on things like this especially

given vladimir putin's aggression in this case. he brought along 18 republicans. bernie sanders is an independent but he voted with the democrats. he voted against it to protest israel given all the debts in gaza for the democrats were largely united. now it just inching along we will see how they work this out. we expect this to pass ultimately this week we just don't know exactly when. host: for folks trying to follow this, why is this one getting so many votes on it for folks were used to of vote on final passage so why is this inching along? guest: because it's a very obscure body and has obscure rules. without an agreement from all 100 senators to move quickly on bills, one member can hold it up in this case rand paul from

kentucky. there is an iron he to that because rand paul is one of mcconnell's loudest critics. it creates interesting state politics but if you don't have 100, they can force the issue. there are procedural tactics they can use in their trying to get amendments. there is the filibuster they have to get over and these clocks are usually 30 hours in between votes and that can take a long time to get these things done. we think it will be this week. there is only so much they can do to hold it up. they can delay but they cannot block. ÷(as long as they can bring enoh republicans to get over the threshold. host: we are talking about a $95 billion bill but that could change on the final passage, $60 billion in aid for ukraine.

let's play this out and say the senate passes this. if they have 67 votes yesterday, is looking like that, what happens when that's -- when this gets sent to the house and is this thing going to get a vote in the house? guest: that's the million-dollar question. for all the difficulties they are having in the senate, the house is an even tougher body to move this thing through. that's for a couple of reasons but mostly because of donald trump. he opposes this thing and he opposed it with -- when the border language was a task and that didn't get through the senate last week. he still opposes it now that the border language is out of it. he doesn't think united states is spinning a lot of money overseas, particular given the debt and the border crisis here at home. he is by far the most popular person in this party and what he says matters and people who criticize him do it at their own peril because there are primaries.

it's a simple political calculation they are making. speaker mike johnson is only four months into the job. by all accounts, he is managing pretty well that he has some someone blocks last week was one of them. he is faced with an extremely tough decision here assuming the senate passes this bill. if he puts it on the floor, there are explicit threats that there will be a motion to vacate which of the technical term for what brought down his predecessor kevin mccarthy. it means we will kick you have the speakership in marjorie taylor greene is already said if you bring this bill to the floor and we don't like it, i will bring that motion to vacate. that raises the question of whether it would pass. emma crest not help kevin mccarthy and they voted unanimously against him. it only took a handful of republicans to remove mccarthy. we aren't sure if they would do the same thing with mike johnson but several democrats we talked to have said the ks is just a

little bit too much and mike johnson has proven himself as someone who will negotiate with biden and schumer and pass responsible spending bills and keep the government open. it marjorie taylor greene brings the motion to vacate, we will help to keep mike johnson power. there are already voices saying that. we don't know if there would be enough of them. a lot of balls in the air if johnson brings the bill to the floor. would he not bring it to the floor? there is a procedure for bringing a bill to the floor around the wishes of the gop leader and it's called a discharge petition. it means if he gets 218 signatures on this petition come you force a vote on to the lord even if the majority leaders don't want it. mike johnson might not want to bring it to the florida the democrats find enough for the discharge position, then we

would think it would pass. they would be enough centrist republicans and democrats would join that push. a couple of different scenarios there we don't know which one will happen. even yesterday, thom tillis said the discharge position might be the best way to do this. another republican senator supported this package and said we are talking to house republicans about it. if they do go the discharge prison -- petition rep, on a bill like this, you would have 100% of the house democrats signing on to 212 house democrats now and they would only need a handful of republican signatures. in this case, we think there will be a number of liberal house democrats will join bernie sanders in opposing this package to protest the israel military aid because of the civilian casualties in gaza. we don't think they would sign the discharge petition. we don't know how many there are.

it's not 212 democrats and you would need more republicans so it just becomes a very tricky math problem. it would insulate speaker johnson from any accusations from the right if the brought the bill to the floor against the wishes of donald trump. host: a veteran reporter on capitol hill this morning as we look at the week ahead. you can join the conversation by calling on the republican line (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. outside of the senate foreign aid bill and what may happen in the house, what else should we be watching for? guest: the other big thing is mike johnson had a tough week last week because he brought two bills to the floor on tuesday back to back. both of them failed area the

first one was the impeachment of the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. it was expected to pass and i thought they had the votes and then there were three republican defections. that was just enough to sink it. it was largely because they didn't expect all the democrats would be there. al green showed up from his hospital bed in dramatic fashion tuesday night. steve scalise was undergoing some medical treatment back home was not there so they didn't have the advantage of that vote. scalise will be back this week so they will vote again on impeaching mayorkas on tuesday. if everyone is there, that is expected to pass because skill these will put it over the edge. all eyes will just be on the ukraine package in the senate, expected to pass and what does mike johnson do? it will be quite a week and on

top of that, not in the capital but related to the capital, you have the special election in new york's third district to replace george santos. he was expelled in december over ethics violations. now they are in the fight of their lives to both parties, to fill that seat because last week's votes are just highlighting how important it is to have -- it's how important these seats are given the majority of the republicans. a lot of money being spent up there. tom suozzi has held that seat in the past. he quit to run for governor unsuccessfully but now he's back. it's a district that has changed in the past couple of years. biden wanted by eight points in 2020 but since then, you got inflation problems and you have the busing of migrants up to new

york city. that has change the math dramatically. it's a real and that grace. it's going to be a nailbiter. all odds will be on new york three tuesday night and that will dictate even more than the mayorkas impeachment which is sort of meaningless, it's a political message but mayorkas is not going to get convicted. he's not going anywhere. that's a lesser -- of lesser significance as to who will replace george santos and that will dictate the debate over immigration and the debate over inflation and biden and whether or not he is too old etc. that will drive the debate in washington for quite a few weeks. host: nothing like a slow news week for a congressional reporter. at the hill.com. it's a great place to go to for

all of your congressional reporting. this is john in odenton, maryland, independent. caller: yes, i think the right thing is to push the foreign age pot package because ukraine really needs that. they are getting clobbered by russia right now. the republicans don't seem to understand that putin will be one step away into poland if we don't pass the aid package. they are too busy dancing around. i read that mike gallagher is not going to run for his congressional seat in wisconsin. with their razor thin majority, they will lose the house and democrats will keep the senate. i think it's looking good. what is your opinion about that? guest: those are great

questions. you basically made the case that president biden and mitch mcconnell have been making witches that the united states has a global obligation to help protect our allies khmer democratic allies abroad from putin's aggression. encountering russia but also china and the influence they are exerting in the south pacific. you basically made the case for passing this bill. that case is not resonating with a lot of republicans. there are many dozens of house republicans who want this bill and support this bill and a lot of them are on the armed services committee and a lot of them are on the foreign affairs committee. mike johnson has said he supports the aid for israel and supports the humanitarian aid and supports the humanitarian aid in aid for ukraine. they have also said they want to tied to the border and with

trump hanging over their shoulders saying don't pass anything until i'm back in the white house, it's a very tough political calculation for them to make. we don't know how this will end but you articulated the case for the bill, the case against the bill is why send a bunch of money to protect ukraine's borders when we can protect our own. you will hear that from republicans this week or opposed to this thing. then there is the additional issue of deficit spending. we've got a $33 trillion debt so why are we piling more money onto that and saddling our kids with that debt burden? let's find offsets or other changes in the budget that would cover that. there will be a fierce opposition and we just have to wait and see how this thing works out, particularly in the house because the senate looks like it's on its way to passing it.

host: the caller mentioned mike gallagher not seeking reelection. it's only his fourth term any something of a rising star and chair of the select committee on the chinese communist party. your thoughts on his retirement but also he is now the 49th member who is -- was either retiring or running for a job outside of congress. is that unusually large number in the february before election? guest: that's a great question. the answer is no. a few cycles ago, it was higher with these things go in cycles. these people up and up there for a long time and they're looking for something else to do. are we going to be in the majority year? he might want to stick around and be a quiet voice in a minority that has no power on capitol hill. maybe they can be more influential outside the building. the ks of recent years i think has scared a lot of people away.

we haven't talked to mike gallagher since he made that announcement in the second part of last week. it's worth mentioning that gallagher was one of the three republicans who voted against that mayorkas impeachment last tuesday. the expectation was that he would be in the primary because of that. he's in wisconsin which is a very purple state. trump for sure would have supported his primary opponent who would have emerged and so maybe he just saw the writing on the wall that he had made a career ending vote. he said it did it on principle. he said mayorkas did not commit any crimes, he was just doing the administration policy and he doesn't want this -- to set that precedent going forward. we don't know specifically why mike gallagher is gone but i should mention also that kevin mccarthy was removed and a lot of his allies are leaving also.

they just see the chaos in the house and if one person has the power to remove the speaker and there were three weeks when we didn't have a speaker, no one was happy on capitol hill and they came appear to get things done and they can't get things done, you just get frustrated and say i'm out of here. as to the numbers, it's not significantly higher or lower than we seen in years past. it's kind of cyclical but that could change. the numbers could go up much more than we can say this trend is specific to the chaos appear with donald trump or whatever the reason. people are kind of across-the-board and why they are leaving. host: this is bob in missouri, republican. caller: hi, how are you doing? how are you doing? i am republican.

i am for ukraine and the war. host: anything else you want to add? caller: yeah, do you think the last senate made a mistake of turning down the border deal? host: the border deal? guest: a lot of people would say that not only democrats. immigration, is tough to find a tougher issue to tackle on capitol hill. the last time they did it in a comprehensive way was in the 1980's. it was ronald reagan and since then, they have tried and failed and tried and failed over and over again. it is just a tough issue for both parties, honestly. there are a lot of liberals who oppose the border deal because they thought it was too tough on migrants and a lot of conservatives would oppose it because they thought it was too lenient on migrants.

is there a middle ground there? is there a centrist middle that could pass a bill and get 60 votes in the senate? a lot of people think -- this is an issue that will be hard on joe biden. the border crisis is not a good look for him. it's one of his top vulnerabilities now that inflation has come down. recent polls have said it's his top vulnerabilities surpassing inflation. if you are a cynic, you would say republican shutdown the bill because they wanted to maintain the opposition in terms of not reelecting joe biden. donald trump says don't vote on this, why would you help my opponent in the election? mitch mcconnell is saying we don't have a chance like this very often. we negotiated this and we got some things we like but not everything. in a divided government, you

never get everything you want. let's take a win but then there are only four senate republicans who voted for that after trump came out against it. macconnell was not one of them so he saw the writing on the wall also. it's just a really tough issue especially in an election year and especially with trump making it the number one issue. a lot of different factors in a lot of different reasons why that bill failed. years from now, they might look back and say why did we do that? why did we have more people voting for that? that's our last chance to get a comprehensive or close to comprehensive immigration reform. those chances don't come along often and maybe we will come to regret it. host: santa barbara, california, jennifer, line for democrats. caller: my first comment is i find it appalling that trump has so much for in the political

scheme when he's running for president but he's not actually in washington, d.c. is not in any kind of office. the representatives seem to care so much about his opinion and marjorie taylor greene just stomps out any kind of progress. they are not getting anything accomplished. i feel in the senate there was a lot of work done to both sides of the party for the border bill and ukraine and these things that are really important to international security basically. it's all being stalled by these people that are putting their feet in the sand. maybe you could speak to that. thank you so much for taking my call. guest: great question.

if you take the 30,000 foot view of this, this is not a new issue , the names you mentioned our new even going back to 2016. trump was an explosive force in washington obviously. there is just a fundamental difference between the two parties about the role in government in public life. this is not a new thing. ronald reagan in his inaugural speech said that government is not the solution to problems, government is the problem. now the tea party came along and kind of supercharge that idea and now there is the freedom caucusing capitol hill that has supercharge that idea. it's an issue of perspective. it sounds like you think the government should be doing a little more to help people in their daily lives. if you asked the freedom caucus,

they would say the government would only screw up if they tried to help. it would not be a solution and they would exacerbate the problem in the best way for government to help -- the economy, foreign policy, education, health care is to get out of the way. deregulate, get out of the way and past fewer lows -- laws and that would be the solution. it's an issue of perspective and there is zero agreement on that. we don't anticipate there will be agreement anytime soon. what you do see is the potential of them swinging back and forth between which of those perspectives has more power on capitol hill. for example, when one party has control of both chambers of congress on the white house, then you get things done like president obama passing the health care bill or president trump passing his tax reform bill.

those are kind of few and far between. they are just slinging barbs across the isle and doing small stuff. going back to the immigration bill, that was another anomaly appear. it was a bipartisan negotiation and they have a chance to get something done. it's a great question and we will not solve that problem on this show and we will not solve it in this congress and we are probably not can just not going to solve it in our lifetime. it's just a difference between the two parties. host: we have stories in today's paper. former president trump commented about nato. the nato secretary-general firing back as job -- at joe biden as well. who are you interested in talking to them capitol hill when it comes to those comments about whether the united states would article -- honor it's article five commitment under a second trump administration? guest: obviously, mike johnson

is the one you want to talk to first and foremost. he is a very strong donald trump supporter and has been for a long time. he is not shy about that. he has been reluctant to break with him on any policy issue including the border most recently. this is one of those things where you will have -- he will get an ear full from those committees i mentioned. he will get an ear full from the mike gallagher's of the world and get in your full from the armed services committee which is extremely influential, the foreign affairs committee, you are going to hear from a lot of people were going to push back probably gently on this because they don't want to show too much daylight between them and their presumptive presidential nominee. i think this is one of those issues where they can break with

trump without too much political backlash. it is consistent with their positions for many decades in the past. it's not a black-and-white issue either. there is some nuance to it. trump is saying that under nato guidelines, every country supposed to dedicate 2% of gdp to military spending. a lot of nato members do not do that so trump is saying that those who don't fulfill their commitment are leaning too heavily on the united states and all the burden is on the u.s. taxpayers. why would we come to the rescue of people like that, of countries not doing their job here. you will get a lot of republicans who will agree with that. we already heard that yesterday in the senate. this is a policy issue, a foreign policy issue so if you focus on the committees that have jurisdiction over that issue, that's where the uproar will come from on the republican side and democrats will going --

will be going after trump this week on that. it won't be a partisan fight. this is another headache for mike johnson. he doesn't want to have to react to everything donald trump says, but in this case, he has to. host: do you have time for one more call before you go? guest: of course. host: thanks for hanging on the line, democrat, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call today. it seems like the last motion to vacate last year was pretty chaotic and the house gop conference wasn't prepared for the amount of conflict that came from it. it seems like the threat is still looming. should we expect the a future possible motion to vacate as chaotic or is the house more prepared for this to be different than last time? guest: i don't think anybody is more prepared for it. that was the first time it had

ever happened. it came out of nowhere and there is just -- how could you prepare for it? the only way they could prepare for it is mike johnson's allies are talking with a bunch of democrats and saying if you will help if you keep mike johnson in power, we will have some kind of power-sharing agreement and you will have more voiceover legislation, etc. he would not be in it good position there and would have to reach across the aisle and would probably not be elected speaker again next year or minority leader if the house would vote against it but it would be chaotic. it would divide both parties. who would sign up for marjorie taylor greene to go after the speaker? that was the guy they wanted and you can't get more conservative than mike johnson? who would replace him?

on the democratic side, it would be a top decision for hot hakeem jeffries. he would have to say we don't agree with mike johnson on anything but we need some democrats to vote to keep them in power. i think this would be short and it would be tough on the democratic side as well but they could probably -- there is an of centrist guys a don't want that chaos to happen. the numbers might be high enough to save him. it would be chaotic. three weeks without a speaker last time. would it be that long? i don't know, but it would be something. it would be something that's historical. if it happens twice in the same congress, that's really something. host: we will let you get your work week started. mike willis, congressional reporter with the hilt newspaper. always appreciate your time. guest: thank you, anytime. host: coming up in about 45

minutes, a focus on the u.s. southern border and we will be joined by dorothy meisner of the migration policy institute but until then, it's open forum. any public or political issue want to talk about, the phone lines are yours and the numbers are on your screen. start calling in and we will get to those calls after the break. ♪ >> what issue is most important to you in this election? >> the most important issue is immigration. >> economics and the deficit. >> i think homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website, c-span.org/campaign 2024, select

the record your voice to have an recorded 32nd video telling us your issue and why. c-span's voice is 2024, be a part of the conversation. ♪ >> friday nights, watch c-span 2024 campaign trail, weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters on poll numbers, fundraising dating campaign as. watch c-span's 2020 per campaign trail friday nights at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or downloads a podcast at c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪

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: it's our open form in any public policy or political issue want to talk about, democrats can call in at (202) 748-8001,

republicans (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002.here is the schedule on capitol hill. the senate is in at noon eastern and you can watch that on c-span gavel-to-gavel in the house returns at noon tomorrow. the gavel-to-gavel coverage will be here on c-span. it starts at 11:30 a.m. eastern and you can join us for a look at artificial intelligence and the challenges of governing ai that's hosted by the internet education foundation. you can watch live at 11:30 a.m. here on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. with that, your phone calls, open form, james in new jersey, independent. were you waiting in the last segment as well? caller: yes, i was but i didn't get in.

host: what's the one thing you want to talk about? caller: i've been involved in politics for a long time. it's fascinated me. i've kept up with it. as far as putin, all the nato countries and the weapons at the kremlin are one centimeter off. a centimeter is a metric measurement. all nato countries have aimed their weapons at the kremlin. that would get his attention. host: that's james in new jersey.

this is brian■j in lincoln, nebraska, republican. caller: i'm commenting on the recent report on biden about his congenitive4. we had ronald reagan and he was probably in office a little longer than he should have been. i cannot vote for joe biden. we cannot have another ronald reagan. that was a catastrophe to the united states. 6 million amnesty illegals he let in, the bombing of the kurds with the chemical weapons, we helped iraq develop. we cannot have that. another comment on the illegals coming up through the border. until we get the people who hire them, it's never going to stop.

we've had this problem for decades and centuries, maybe not centuries. until we get the people who employ these people, it's never going to change. thank you. host: this is the headline in today's washington times on joe biden and his mental states. you mentioned ronald reagan and his daughter patty davis has a guest essay in today's new york times and the headline you can find it on the new york times website. patty davis is the author of the new book, dear mom and dad, letter about family memory and

the america we once knew. this is dennis in lehigh acres, florida, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching this when they had the vote for impeaching mayorkas on the first vote they had which was where he lost confidence with the world. he lost the first vote. i don't understand why they say he wasn't impeach. lewinsky got $60 billion from the eu for support. we don't need to send in anymore money because is not our deal. it's a big scam and that's all i have to say. host: you are talking about the vote on the rule for the impeachment and the impeachment vote that eventually republicans end up losing because there were three republicans that broke ranks? caller: no, on the very first

vote, all the republicans, there is enough to beat him and they one. the first impeachment should have gone through and they denied it or whatever they did. the first one is on the competence of the idiot mayorkas. host: i think you're talking about the rule vote. caller: the first article, he lost and they had the vote to impeach him and the next day, dotty would be impeach and then he said he wasn't then the eu gave what's his name, they gave him $60 billion so we are done sending money over there to the fake putin guy. you know what i'm talking about? host: this is paul in iowa, good morning. caller: hi, i've heard a lot of talk about nato and comments that trump made about nato. at this point, i'm more

concerned about the u.s. we've heard about the infiltration of workers there were in the attack on israel on october 6. the you and wasn't the authority of condemning israel and basically praising hamas. to me, the you and is a worthless organization. they should be disbanded. they are the ones who are not paying their bills. if it wasn't for the u.s., there wouldn't be nato. that's my comment right now. thank you. host: shreveport, louisiana, democrat, you are next. caller: good morning. i'm just calling about the way the immigration bill went down. i live in louisiana around the border from texas. it's a campaign issue.

i'm seeing all the campaign ads from louisiana and all of them discuss the border, that's the main thing they are talking about and what biden is not doing. they spent billions and billions of dollars with these ads and what these guys will sign, they are saying we wasted too much money don't sign our bill. it was the republicans that -- the country will suffer from not signing that bill, that's all. host: florida, republican, you are next. caller: that's me? host: that's you. caller: now listen, i will tell all of you all something. if everybody knows where the problem lies at.

they say they know so much about politics but it's about joe biden. what they need to do immediately , not tomorrow or the next day or next week in november is impeach joe biden right now. don't give no more breaks. the man can't remember his son's death. what the heck is he doing running the united states? impeach him immediately. get donald trump in their because donald trump is a businessman. get donald trump and there were he can straighten this mess out. host: that's lawrence in florida. tiffany is in virginia, independent. caller: i'm calling about the border. i want everybody to remember

th it was joe biden in the debates saying search the book -- surge the border, welcome, come in. that's all i have to say except for one more thing. all those executive orders he signed, they should not even be in place because he doesn't remember what he signed. they should be rescinded and go back to the border like it was when trump was president. this is getting out of control. it's not the republicans fault. joe biden stood there at the podium and said welcome, come in and surge the border. have a great day. host: ohio, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say for the people that are watching to look up on your site the time that

jim clybourn, it was the south carolina, the first primary you all had something where he talked about everything that had happened under president biden. i will admit, i've never voted for biden but everything jim clybourn had to say refresh my memory. i hadn't remembered everything that had gotten done since biden was president. it's very impressive. i want to go back and i tried to see if you guys would play it again but since you haven't, i will go online because i came in in the middle of it. it was amazing all that has gotten done since president biden has been in office. host: maybe are you -- maybe you are referring to the february 2

remarks that jim clyburn gave at a campaign event in south carolina? caller: yes, he really introduce president biden if i remember correctly. before president biden got up to speak, i think it was a dinner, come to think of it. host: the best way to find it is go to our website and use the search bar and surge jim clyburn and you can go to 708 videos of jim clyburn that are available in our video library and it's sorted by date and you can find it there. it's a fantastic resource for viewers for jim clyburn's videos or any member of congress, presidents, individuals in the public eye. check out the c-span video archive, hundreds of thousands of hours of video archives. this is indiana, republican, good morning. caller: how are you doing, sir?

host: all right. caller: it's really funny, we are supporting ukraine. ukraine is just using us. i've watched everything but anyway, president putin said as long as you guys keep supporting ukraine, we're just going to keep on fighting. if we stop, maybe things will get better. other than that, we've got a rich country. it's one of the most wasteful countries in the world. biden and all the democrats, how come they hate christian people? when they stand in front of everybody and say we don't want to kill babies come a lot of

them are going to jail for it. the ones that rape women and stuff -- host: on your first comment, what did you think of tucker carlson interviewing vladimir putin? caller: he kind of cut him off a little bit. putin is not a dumb man. you have to understand one thing about it, is nothing wrong with joe. that's a big cover up so he don't go to jail. they've got so much on him, you be surprised how much he will hang with the rest of them. host: this is bill in ohio, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i don't want to be negative but i am concerned about mr. biden's age. we all know who chuck norris is. he made a living out of getting kicked in the head and he still is sharp as attack. the man knows exactly where he

is and what he's doing. i'm just saying, i need another choice. i will not vote for him, i cannot do it area i questioned dr. jill's motives, why would she do that to him? if kamala harris is so great, she can run her accomplishments. the job will be given to her one way or another. that's what i'm afraid of. thank you. host: here's a tweet from president biden yesterday ahead of the super bowl. here's that video from yesterday. >> super bowl sunday, you like to be surrounded by a snack or 20 watching the big game.

when buying for snacks for the game, you might've noticed one thing, a bag of chips is smaller and they are still charging just as much. what makes me the most angry is that these things have shrunk in size and not price. shrink inflation is a ripoff. some companies are trying to pull a fast one by shrinking the product little by little and hoping you won't notice. give me a break. the american public is tired of being played for suckers. i'm calling on companies to put a stop to this. let's make sure businesses do the right thing now. ♪ host: a video from the white house yesterday released at of the super bowl some -- on super bowl sunday. this is robert out of cincinnati, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very concerned about the president, the former president

trump stating that they want to get out of nato. nato has been, um a part of trying to keep russia in check. had it not been for nato, i think russia would have been able to try to take over all of ukraine and tried to take poland over, too. he stands up kissing the flag but when it was his time to go into the military, he had bone spurs. donald trump is the work thing to ever service in the united states. he should continue with his golf carts and building his towers

are what have you. i'm definitely against donald trump trying to run again for the president of these united states. thank you. host: to gail in georgia, republican, good morning. caller: hi, i would like to say that there is so much talking going on but they need to get out and get something done now, not wait and get biden added their input put trump in there to straighten everything out. before it's too late as i don't believe it's going to go until election day. the state would not be able to go that long without somebody stepping in. i would like to say that biden took this away from trump in 2020 because they had already

said trump one and then they came back and said biden one. host: this is john in florida, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a quick point about donald trump with nato. here is an analogy for you -- if you go to the bank and you take out a loan for an automobile and you don't pay it, the bank comes and re-possesses your vehicle. for services not rendered or not paid for. he is right in saying we need to have nato members pay their fair share in order for our protection. that's the only point i wanted to make, thank you. host: 31 nato countries at this point, there are 10 who are

paying the 2% of gdp for defense spending. that's in the debate over paying their fair share when it comes to nato. that's the context that donald trump brings it up making those comments about nato in south carolina on saturday, getting a lot of attention since then ahead of the south carolina republican primary coming up. this is open forum, just about 15 minutes left in open forum. we will put the numbers on the screen as we hear from sharon in florida, democrat, go ahead. caller: good morning at thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that listening to some of the callers, it's apparent one of the things we are struggling with right now in this country is misinformation. people have their opinions and that's fine but opinions are not facts. anyway, as far as the common

that ex-president twice impeached disgraced ex-president made about directing russia to attack a nato country that hasn't paid is similar to him directing the proud boys and oath keepers to attack the capitol when he didn't win. put that in your head. the thing about biden's age, people forget that he is a stutterer and when he speaks, anybody that knows anything about stuttering, people have to speak in measured sentences when they speak to gather their thoughts before they put it out. he's got a lot of experience and has gotten a lot done. just the lowering of instant alone has helped millions of americans. i just want to put that out there and have a good morning. host: you're not concerned about age 81 or if he wins reelection, age 85 at the end of his second

term? caller: a dictator coming in like trump and him being an ally with putin and xi and north korea, i would -- that's much more concerning to me. biden has a good administration and is got the experience and from all accounts, he's physically fit. he rides bicycles, i think he's has mental acuity. he just appears sometimes a little feeble and i believe a lot of that is just a speech pattern. anyway. that's my thought. host: this is kathy also in florida, republican. caller: hi, i west of video and it was the tucker carlson and it was general and the united states are starting all these you wars in ukraine.

this nolan, she is behind all of this. there wouldn't be all this going on in ukraine if it wasn't for her and the warmongers are doing this. they took it off of youtube already, it was on over the weekend and now it's gone. i'm assuming it got taken down. the news, the whole time trump was in office, the news talked only about russia. they are training american mines to hate russia. they just want everybody to say let's attack russia. host: what you think of russia? caller: i think they are a strong country and i think the killing should stop. it's the same thing trump is talking about, he wants the killing to stop. host: this is will out of l.a.,

democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that donald trump is clearly in vladimir putin's pocket. and that mia pruden's pocket. the comments he made about nato, that right there lets you know that if he gets back in, world war iii will start. i would rather depend on joe biden then donald trump's stupidity. as far as joe biden's mental acuity, both of them are old, but joe biden, i believe he has it together a lot more than donald trump does. but that is my comment, that donald trump is a danger. if he gets back in and does what he says about nato, that is in

itself will start world war iii. host: joe biden is 81 years old. in the wake of donald trump's comments about nato. he often says things intentionally to ride up opponents, but his comments on saturday, that he said he would invite vladimir putin to invade is the reason many americans will not vote for him again richard is in michigan. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that trump should be back in office. the country is in bad shape. the president right now has destroyed this country.

he put everybody in danger. gang members are coming in and destroying our country. so there you go. he is running this country. congress is at fault as well. host: that was philip in michigan. richard is a republican. you are right around where camp david is, right? caller: that is right. i wanted to bring up about three different points. thank you for taking my call. president biden's press conference last week was wearable. -- horrible. the sound, the cameras, the impromptu questions were

completely mismanaged. in the media, you know those things can really decide things. host: what should they have done or not done? caller: if anything, the sound. the way he was projecting was terrible. it was weak and incoherent at times because the microphone was not picking him up well. that is just bad business on their and. i think he should have made a statement and it should have been done differently. it should have been well-controlled. his staff should have made sure that he had a good microphone to talk into. it came across as much more confident in his voice, but he

sounded pretty weak and that one. host: you can watch the press conference entirely on our website. good morning. caller: hello. i wanted to make a couple of points. a lot of people are always talking about donald trump being a businessman and they want him back in office because of gas and food prices. since he is a businessman and he owns hotels, donald trump, prices are different than 2024 prices. he is not going to go back to what people paid back then to suit nobody. as for his friends, he has a lot of business friends and those prices are still going to be.

they are making more in 2024. let that sink in. his friends are not going to lose profit center benefit donald trump or the american people. people need to get over it. as for the gentleman who made that comment about joe biden and his memory, about his news conference on friday, you are younger than him and i could have sworn the news conference was thursday. host: that is right. when it comes to donald trump, the washington post has a column entitled the trump trials, keeping track of the various trials. more than 90 charges. taking a look at the week ahead, a couple paragraphs on what is

happening. not one but two hearings. the justice is expected to say whether he will go ahead with a march 25th start date for the trial that he falsified business records regarding payments to an adult actress -- film actress. in atlanta, different job will grapple with allegations that a romantic relationship was improper and 10 -- tainted the charging of donald trump and others over there effort to overturn the voting count. speaking of the supreme court, we may see trump's lawyers appealing their loss on a claim of presidential immunity. plenty going on. it is the trump trials column in

the washington post. they do their weekly wrap-up and take a look at various aspects of cases. alabama, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that i love your new set. many do not like it, but i think it is beautiful to watch. the other thing is, i am independent and i do have an independent candidate this year, robert kennedy. i think he is worth everyone taking a look at because there is too much argument and not enough investment. and the people of the u.s. host: why is he worth voting for in your mind? caller: because he is a candidate for peace. he has been a successful lawyer.

he knows so much. he knows a lot about the inner workings of the government, of the bureaucracy because he has had to file a lot of suits against them. host: did you catch that super bowl ad the other day? the canadian ad was rebooted for rfk junior. host: i was glad -- the kennedy add was rebooted for rfk junior. caller: i was happy to see it. host: michael is out in california. republican. good morning. caller: to all of your collars, let's go back 10 years before

obama. what has this country been like? if you are working for a living and going down to the borders, taking commodities across into mexico and back and you look underneath those bridges and look at all those people coming in the last x months -- tell me there is no problem down there. first off, you need to get out of the city you live in and go down to the borders to check it out. what donald trump has done for this country before the pandemic -- joe biden said one thing about the pandemic. look out. there is a deadly, airborne virus out there and i am going to stomp it out. so he made you stay in your house is. you go outside and look around.

did you see deadly airborne iris? did it kill everybody? all he does is cite you up and commence you that the world is coming to an end, and that they know what is best. host: before you go, do you chat with people who say there is not a problem on the border? do you feel like there is an acknowledgment on both sides that there is a problem? we lost michael. let's go to pine bluff, arkansas. macaque. caller: good morning -- democrat. caller: i do not have a problem with democrats. democrats come in. we have some bad ones, but we also have some good ones. they come into our country and are willing to do the work that

others will not do. the republicans need to get off of the immigrants because they are not going to send their child -- their children to do the job that immigrants do. on the other comment that i have , donald trump does not realize that nato is our allies and that my 21 years in the military, we need those allies because we have bases there that protect our military members, so donald trump is not a good member to be president of our country ever again. those are my only comments.

it would sacrifice our military members. host: trying to get to a couple more calls in open form. independent. good morning. caller: thank you. when i listened in to the calling lines, it is always distressing to me the number of people who forget history and ignore reality. the soviet union, for decades controlled eastern europe and they were oppressive. they took away people's rights. we fought against them in a cold war. they could not afford to keep up. now vladimir putin is trying to reintegrate the soviet union. he invaded ukraine. he is not a peaceful guy. he is known to assassinate and

lock up his opponents. people say, russia is fine. i do not know why we are opposed to russia. look at history. also, ignoring reality. the reason he said what he said about nato is so ironic because donald trump has declared bankruptcy six times. he has walked away from payments to his own lawyers. he has many contractors who went bankrupt trying to get money out of him. not a good businessman. yet he turns around and says if nato does not pay their share of -- they do not have a bill to pay. they have an agreement to pay a portion of gdp towards national defense. our military industrial complex for the last 40 years has said,

we will cover you. we will spend all this money on you. we ignore history and reality, and it is frustrating when this happens. host: kathy from georgia is next. good morning. republican. caller: i would like to say that former president trump and his nato comments, he is not president right now. if he was or when he gets elected, he will have good people around him, like president biden is making statements all the time. shrinkflation is caused by biotin and the democrats because they are against oil, which is making the prices go up.

the democrats and hillary clinton made all that up and no one was held accountable for that. i would like to see that brought up more. you should bring up president biden's full statement more. but i say, vote for trump. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, lisa. caller: i just want to comment on the gentleman a couple calls ago, when he said. he really summed it up about donald trump being a businessman . let me piggyback on that. donald trump is a businessman and he has the eye -- city to talk about nato? let's look at donald trump paying his fair share. this man has made millions of dollars and only paid less than

a $1000 in taxes. why doesn't he pay his fair share? let donald trump pay his fair share. he has done so much. he does not pay his bills. he does not pay people their money. so why doesn't donald trump pay his fair share? host: we got your point there. we are out of time. we want to remind viewers that the senate is in at noon today. tomorrow at noon. there is plenty to watch on c-span today at 11:30 a.m. eastern. the challenges of governing ai. it is on c-span, c-span.org, and

the free c-span radio at -- app. we are going to take you over to the discussions with the top cyber official in the administration along with industry stakeholders throughout the tech industry, taking place in washington dc. that is live coverage on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio app. we will be joined by george, the migration policy institute for our next conversation. stick around. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. americans can eat democracy at work where citizens are truly informed and our republic thrives.

get information straight from the source, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen on the afterwards podcast. hear wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others. they regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the podcast takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with industry updates and best sellers lists. download the free c-span now at

-- app. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online story. browse through products, apparel, books, home to core and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, sees and has provided complete coverage from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. a front row seat for how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interactions and completely unfiltered.

c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop for where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. wife c-span's campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 eastern, online at c-span.org, or download it as -- at c-span now, our free app. >> washington journal continues. host: let's focus on immigration at the southern border.

she served -- where you work now, migration policy -- remind us what your mission is there. >> good morning. we are -- guest: good morning. we are nonpartisan. we have policies that have to do with immigration. host: we hear a lot of things these days about border encounters. can you start by putting the numbers into perspective right now and how it compares to previous years at the southern border? guest: what is happening at the southern border is unprecedented. we are receiving more people, seeking asylum, coming to the u.s. that has ever been the case before. this is not unique to the u.s.

this is happening all over the world. we are entering a new era of mobility and people facing dire conditions, and leaving them. in the case of the u.s. and the hemisphere that we live in, we see people fleeing violence, fleeing the beginnings of climate change, failed governments, fleeing persecution and poverty and the remaining effects of the pandemic. the u.s. has recovered very well from the pandemic, and terms of area economy, but that is not the case and many other countries of the world. particularly in countries of this hemisphere. what we are seeing now, in terms of circumstances that they are

leaving, but at the same time we have very outdated laws and no way for people to really come forward to meet needs in our economy. the only real way that they can get access to the united states is to claim asylum. some are eligible but others are not. host: what happens when they are not eligible for asylum? guest: the situation at the border and the way in which people come into the country is that we do have very stringent border enforcement our border has an extraordinary ability to create and enforce the law. but when people have a claim for

protection. when they claim safety and a need to have an asylum case reviewed, we have a responsibility under our laws to review those cases. the way it should work is for those people who have an initial screening at the border -- if they pass that screening, than they are permitted to enter the u.s., in order to complete the decision on that claim for asylum. but the caseloads have now become so huge that those decisions on asylum now take years to make. for the years that people are in the country, before they get there asylum decision, that uses

-- they will at least have some safety for years. for those who are eligible for asylum, once they get a positive decision, they continue with their lives and become part of this country. but for those who are not eligible for asylum, they need to be removed, deported, to their home country. the longer people are sheer, waiting, the less likely it is, realistically, that they actually will be deported. they begin to become part of the economy. sometimes they have children or dairy into the country. we really need an asylum system. we need to maintain a set -- an asylum system and continue to be a country that offers protection , but we need to make those decisions in just a few months rather than such a long,

stretched out period. in order to make those decisions in months, we need many more resources. parts of the immigration system that we do not of is border control. we need asylum officers, judges, and facilities. and then the ability to return people to their countries, if they are not eligible. host: is asylum the main way to get into the country right now? how do people start that process and finish that process? what if they are denied and actually deported? quite -- guest: in terms of the screening

process, somewhere between 50%-60% are screened in as possibly eligible. that percentage varies. there are more stringent screening systems in place now that the administration is implementing. but let's say somewhere in the 60% -- -- in the 60 percentile. it depends on the country and the which people are coming. maybe 20%-30% are actually granted asylum. that means there is a significant number that needs to be returned. although the u.s. is returning more people over the last year or two in this administration that have ever been returned before or, the rates of return

are high. but it is not as high as those in the country waiting and not having decisions made. host: migration policy.org is vacant find them online. we will be taking your questions and comments at the end of our program. it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 is for the independent line. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. are we seeing family units or a surge in children? what countries specifically are they coming from?

>> this is a very important point because this is the fundamental difference between what is taking place in the last two years compared to what we have experienced on the southwest border for decades. for decades, beginning in the 1970's and up until 2014 to 2015. the vast majority of people crossing the border illegally were young mexican males, single and trying to avoid border patrol and generally finding work in the u.s. when those people were apprehended, many of them were arrested as they tried to cross the border and were unable to avoid border patrol. when those people were arrested, it was straightforward to return them to their country because

their country was our neighbor. they were simply turned back over to mexico. that was a much simpler situation, a much simpler process than what we see now because what we see now, based on the kinds of condition that i was describing our people coming from central america, about a large majority of people are coming from honduras, el salvador and guatemala in 2015 and 2016. those people make it more complicated asking for asylum because they are looking to turn themselves over to border patrol. they are not trying to flee. they are trying to find border patrol agents to file a claim for asylum. even that has become superseded

in more recent years by people further south than central america, from all parts of the hemisphere. along with that from other parts of the world. those flows of people are even more complicated because some of them are coming from countries that we do not have diplomatic relations with. cuba, nicaragua and venezuela. it is very difficult to return people to those countries. in addition, many people are coming as families with young children. those are more vulnerable cases. it is more complicated to file

those cases to keep people in custody. we also do have quite a share of young, unaccompanied people coming on their own. all of those circumstances, together have made it a far more complex challenge and operational requirement and the need for resources to handle such changing characteristics. host: there was a 60 minute report a little over a week ago that focused on migrants coming from china. how did the number of migrants from china, claiming asylum, compared to other countries that you have talked about? guest: i'm not sure. my application of other countries around the world -- china is one of them.

chinese have been coming to the u.s. for many years, seeking asylum. china, as a country, in terms of approval rates has one of the highest percentages of approval rates. china is a good example of the range of differences in the conditions that people are fleeing. this perhaps takes us to the issue of what the definition of an asylum-seekers is under the law as compared to the condition of people leaving in general because of dire circumstances that they face. in order to qualify for asylum, you must meet the legal definition for asylum. it is the same definition that we use for a refugee. those terms are interchangeable. you have to be able to show a well-founded fear of persecution

, based on five different criteria. race, religion, national origin, political opinion where a membership in a social group. that well-founded fear of persecution requirement, it does apply to a goodly share of people who actually are asking for asylum. it tends not to apply to a large share of people from ennis layla , where the conditions are terrible, but it is not a country where there is a high incidence of targeted persecution. that gives you some example of the range of questions that asylum officers and judges need

to grapple with when they are hearing cases. host: plenty of calls for you on this topic. a republican first in the segment. go ahead, elizabeth. caller: thank you for coming on. there is so much talking all the time without knowing what is going on. i have a couple questions. one question is, what do you see of all the things that you listed, resources that there needs to be more of to make the process a little less chaotic at the border? the other thing i wanted to ask is, is it true that there are more people coming across illegally during the last president's tenure? thank you for all your hard work. guest: thank you for those

questions. resources are acutely important here. this is because given the characteristics of the population coming in and the large numbers seeking asylum, the most important resource is in short supply are asylum officers, those personnel who screen people for asylum at the border and are also able to fully determine their cases and adjudicate their cases. as well as immigration judges. asylum officers and judges are the personnel that are in the most supply. this takes us to the debate in congress the last several weeks

about a border deal. the deeper truth about the border deal or the deeper importance of a border deal that the senate has now rejected, it was about the resources. the border deal was attached to supplemental request for resources that would have vastly ended the numbers of asylum officers and immigration judges. that would have been -- it would have taken us farther away, further towards being able to respond to the challenge of these flows. your other question about the numbers is relative and that the last administration experience some of the highest years ever

of flows. however, this administration has experienced many times greater number of people coming in those flows because what happened at the end of the last administration was the pandemic. because of the pandemic, basically a public health need to keep people from coming into the country and put a stop to some extent. it did not entirely stop the flows but it allowed for people to be expelled quickly. the current administration is now experiencing this much broader set of nationality that was not the case. that phenomenon had not set in during the prior administration. host: 20 minutes left in our segment. you are on with doris.

caller: good morning. you were talking about the last administration under trump. your numbers for where they are crossing over is incorrect. under this regime, i live two hours north of the border and we have illegal aliens all over the place here. the government is doing nothing. i went to see three people fired today. they are doing nothing for this border situation in arizona. host: doris? guest: people are coming across and all kinds of places. i'mide. i am correct on the numbers. the numbers are higher in this

yes of the trumpbut during three administration, they were higher than any that had come before that time. there is no question that we are in a new era, that we are experiencing levels of migration now, not only in the u.s., but other countries around the world , more than we have ever had. the characteristics are different. they require different responses in order to enforce the border effectively. until there are adequate resources to put measures in place to make it possible to manage those flows effectively, there will continue to be an unruly situation. host: the line for democrats. you are on with doris. caller: i would like to offer some solutions to the border

crisis. everybody talks about it, but nobody offers any solutions. when you find out they get back there, there is nothing back there for that. they just come back to the border again. get a bunch of capitalist together and see what this country needs. go down there and build a factory. give them a benefit for doing it. give them jobs, so that when they go back, they have something to go back to. that would be a solution. everybody talks about the problem but never offers any solutions. let's talk about solutions. host: karen talks about solutions in the washington post. hold employers accountable, talking about the economic incentives drawn people here and

the fact that e-verify is not in use by employers. it is not mandated to be in use within players. can you talk about what it does? guest: sure. jobs and opportunities in the countries from which people come are absolutely critical and central to solutions. i think you are absolutely on point, where that is concerned. the difficulty is that kind of job creation and investment takes time. it generally takes a couple of years, maybe longer than that. attractive investment where contracts are often not well-regulated, etc., it can be a hard sell, but it is very much

an answer. democratic development, so that they have justice systems that work, etc. -- they are terribly important. where solutions are concerned, e-verify, etc. a new area that is critical has to do with our own need in this country for younger workers. we are an aging society. demographically, we need people in the health care sector and in agriculture, but our migration laws are out of date. there are not ways for people to get visas to come to the country for work purposes in ways that align with our economy and with our need for younger workers.

we need congress to focus on that and pass laws that make it possible for many of these people to have a chance to come here for work. they would readily take advantage of that chance. were those laws to be written effectively, they would include e-verify and they would include employers having a requirement to hire people who have a legal right and means to be in the country. those legal means have to come with visas that are right now not possible because they are not in our migration laws. only congress can change that. host: next up is a caller from albuquerque. caller: to follow-up on her last

comment, the situation is that we have a d regulated labor market. the wealthy class likes it that way. they want poor people pouring into the country, unregulated. it keeps wage levels low. they do not want government control. they want a worldwide market of workers. the original reason i called, i felt like there was some basic facts on the table that get overlooked. 5 billion people have been added to the world population. people think that we can live in the era of the statue of liberty, ellis island, all immigration is good, but we cannot take everybody. there are too many people on planet earth.

i followed the climate issues and housing issues. we cannot take everybody. there has to be a limit. our media and political leaders need to be talking from that perspective. all these countries like el salvador and honduras -- america is not going to let you in. there is a legal way. get in line. we are not going to let you cut the line because we cannot take everybody. we need to make a show of sending people out of the country. if i was running the government, i would build a temporary airfield next to the border. i would put them on the airplanes and fly them back to where they came from, and keep doing that. people will stop coming and realize that you have to get a permit. you cannot just brush the border and say, i'm here and i'm word.

take care of me. it will only get worse. caller: let's talk about the line. i completely agree. we recognize that of course there should be effective border control. this is an issue that needs to be managed. in order to manage effectively, there needs to be a line to get in. we do have reasons for people to come to the country as immigrants. we should remember that our system brings one million people a year to the country. that system has not been changed and has not been amended since

1965. it was basically set up then. there were some amendments in 1990, but at the end of the day, it is very out of date, given our current economy. the issue of a line is important. the issue is to create a line, so that people have a means of coming into the country. but we decide who comes into the country and that lying. right now, the millions that come every year, two thirds of them have a close relative in the u.s. that is important. it is a long-established value and it works to our advantage because it makes it possible for immigrants to acclimate quickly. but beyond that, we only have something like 40,000 to 50,000 visas -- the number is actually

140. about 40,000 to 50,000 are chosen because of their skills. their skills are almost entirely highly skilled tech workers. the fact that we have the labor market opportunities and labor market he across the spectrum, across the skills spectrum, there is not a real and meaningful recognition of that in our immigration laws. if we had updated immigration laws and the means to make these as possible for more people, for more porpoises -- purposes, we would be in a bunch better position for our national interest. host: why did we decide that one

million was the number? how long have we had that number on the books? that number changes only slightly over the years because some of the categories that make up our legal immigration are untapped. they do not have a quota. if the spouse of an american that is then -- there is not a cap on the number of people. it can vary from 100,000 from year-to-year. -- by 100,000 from year-to-year. it has been that way for a long time. host: good morning. you are next. will had, susan. -- go ahead, susan. caller: i have never been afraid

to live my country as i am right now. look at the amount of terrorists that have gotten into our country. even the fbi thinks we could have possible terrorist attacks, that there could be terrorist cells already set up in the country. and i saw that justice year, that 20,000 military aged men from china have come into the country. and it was around 20 something or 30 something thousand before this year. host: let me let you pick up

some of these numbers and the topic of who is coming in and specifically what we hear about the threat of people who may be coming in. guest: yes, well it is important to know that everybody who is permitted to come into the country, both -- specifically across the southwest border does have a criminal background check. that criminal background check is the standard check, the fbi check that is used for any kind of admission to include the terrorist watchlist and other intelligence agency watchlist. there have not been -- sure, theoretically a terrorist could come across the southwest border , but that is not the way

terrorist tend to come into the u.s. the people coming in across the southwest border, they are fleeing dire circumstances and they are looking for a better life through asylum or through work. as they try to explain, the work opportunities are not available legally in our office. i think it is fair to say that the fbi and concerned about terrorism -- since 9/11, they have been quite effectively address through a whole series of measures that were put into place and work effectively. the real danger now with terrorism tends to be domestically based, not people

coming across the southern border. host: jorge, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i went to mexico for dental work they are -- because they are inexpensive. while i was there, i wanted to see the immigrants. i went at night and it was cold. i was filming along the river. i was looking at america with the barbed wire. the trucks drove up and they were shining lasers in my eyes as i was filming it. i told them to stop and they kept doing it anyways. locals came. i do not speak spanish and i almost got kidnapped. i got ran over. host: do you have a question? caller: the suffering that is

caused by weedy, for-profit operations -- the people on the border see this and they know it. the dreamers are being leveraged and used against us. i think we should just have a constitutional convention moved to the capital and open up america to canada and mexico. guest: well, i think the point about suffering is true. there is no warmest amount of suffering that is taking place around this whole issue and around the point of migrants. at the same time, we as a country are neglecting putting a system into place that would make it possible to make it more manageable.

we as a country, it is also our future. we have a reason for immigration to continue. it should be legal, safe, orderly, it should align. our laws should be aligned with the needs of the economy and our values as a country, going forward. host: janet in illinois, independent. good morning. caller: i'm calling about whatever happened to the program that we used to have where immigrants can -- came for six months out of the year to work. they were welcomed and they worked hard to make money and then went back home in the fall. i do not know why that should not work now, that maybe there was not a need for that as much as there was back then. another question, why are so many people leaving their home countries, dropping everything and succumb to the border to get

in here? are they being driven out of their homes for some reason by the dark -- by the drug cartels? are they losing titles to their property, if they have any in the first place? why are so many people coming? are they being paid to come here? host: we have about two minutes left, so let me turn it over to doris. guest: i will say on the six-month program, that is again something that congress would have to do. and that does fall into the category of possible solutions. until congress acts to make it possible for that kind of visa to be available -- there are some right now but there are far too few. the reasons people are leaving has to do with dire circumstances. countries from which people are coming in this hemisphere are increasingly violent.

they are increasingly violent because of drug cartels and trafficking, but also because of poor governance. discrimination against indigenous populations, it also some dire weather events that are wiping out whole communities , from mudslides to hurricanes, that do not get rebuilt. certainly, poverty. but the issue of people leaving -- people do not leave their homes because they want to. they leave their homes because they are facing dire conditions. they have lost their homes. there is no possible way.

many people earn $10 a month. they cannot feed their families and they cannot sustain life. that does not mean that this is the way that people should be moving or that this is a border situation that we would in any way wish to have. we should address it but the reason people are leaving our life and death reasons. host: plenty more to talk about, but we will have to stop there. for viewers who want to learn more, doris, we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: that will do it for the washington journal today. house is in at noon tomorrow. now we take you to the information of technology

district council, the tech policy summit with live coverage. that event is already an progress and just got>> avoid tn social media where we did nothing for 25 years. the good news is speaker mccarthy to together a task force to do this. the good news is that speaker johnson and checking jeffrey's ours putting together the informal working group soon. they're trying to get some major ai bells done this year. among them are the create the ai acts. even some people like ibm do not have enough