with senator chuck grassley of iowa. --n, a look at bipartisanship in congress. >> good morning on this wednesday, april 10, 2013. wall street journal reporting the senate gang of eight is working on immigration. setting a path to citizenship hinging on 100% surveillance of the border. crossing90% of those illegally. meanwhile, president obama rolls out his budget proposal today. "washington times" noting it is late. the senate will vote on a gun control bill, we will begin there.

send us a tweet if you go to -- and we will post your comments. let's begin with the front page of the washington times. their headline on the senate setting this vote on thursday reset the stage for a showdown. it bears the gop to filibuster. the piece says this --

he goes on to write this -- democratic senators max baucus and mark pryor from arkansas

said -- texas, republican caller up first. what do you make of this vote is set in the senate on thursday challenging a gop filibuster? i think the gop should kill a buster obama is doing everything he unconstitutionally can. he comes out the day after the shooting and talks about saving the children because of assault weapons and 30 round clips when he and his democrats murdered 2000 babies a day and he does not give a speech against doing that. funding the murder of black, gay, female, babies.

host: can i ask you about your senator, ted cruz, who said he is going to filibuster this and he will vote no on the motion to proceed to begin discussing the gun legislation. were you part of the effort to convince him? caller: no, i wasn't. good for him. he is an american. second amendment. you don't infringe on our rights. obama has been infringing on our rights from the day he was born. host: john cornyn, your other said in her, says he is undecided. caller: he should stand up for the american civil rights. to save black people, white people, all people from obama. host: little rock, arkansas. democratic caller. caller: thanks to c-span for giving me the opportunity. i think all of this is just a distraction from america's real

problem, which is jobs. i think maybe before they do anything else, the first thing they should do is pass a jobs bill. host: you think they don't have their priorities in order? caller: it used to be jobs, jobs, and now it is guns and gays. host: all these months and i never hear anybody talk about people who do violent home invasions using guns, which happens every single day in this country, and they are let right back out on the street. nobody talks about this, but this is a big problem. it will die every day, holmes get invaded. by simple commonsense solutions, if you really wanted to keep children and america safe, why aren't aren't penalties being stiffened to keep the violent felons away from law abiding citizens?

nobody talks about this. host: getting some comments on the facebook page of this morning. here is some of them. the senate is set to vote on gun legislation thursday. harry reid saying he will bring it to the floor. he held a news conference yesterday after meeting with his caucus. here is what he had to say. [video clip] am finding cloture on the bill as reported out of judiciary committee. background checks, trafficking, school safety. i am going forward on that. if there are compromises made, i had mark package and others come to me -- they did something on mental health. and they have been working on this for a long time, background checks.

blumenthal has a very forward leaning proposal that he worked with senator lau bloomberg on the size and capacity of clips and magazines. all kinds of things that can be done with amendments to the bill. but as i said yesterday, if people think the law now in the country is too weak, this bill will strengthen it. if people think it is too strong, they can offer amendments to weaken it. but we are moving forward on this bill. the american people deserve a vote on this legislation. host: harry reid yesterday talking after meeting with his caucus, setting a vote for thursday on a motion to proceed. that means they need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and then they can begin debating legislation, and the majority leader they're talking about what is in the underlying bill and then allowing amendments on the legislation as well. he and that click mentioned joe manchin who is working with

patrick toomey, pennsylvania republican, coming up with compromise language on background checks. "the washington times" says this -- the two senators scheduled a news conference this morning at 11:00 a.m. to the us exactly what they are thinking about when it comes to background checks. and "the baltimore sun" has details on that this morning. here is the story from "the tribune those quote reporters. they say this --

next to the that is a picture of ,enator mansion --nchin democrat from west virginia calling for compromise. there he is in "the baltimore sun" on that. and charles schumer, number two democrat in the senate, met with harry three -- met with harry reid. than whereet, closer we have ever been. vice president joe biden tries to shame republican senators on gun control filibuster. the headline in "the washington times" story. it says --

that is "the washington times" on that. capitol hill, supporters of gun control legislation, from newtown families -- families from newtown, connecticut, where lobbying, in and out of senate offices. they personalize the fight against gun violence. the newtown delegation flew to washington monday night with obama on air force one after he gave a speech in hartford urging support for his proposal. on tuesday, obama called senators from both parties to push for the gun bill, according to white house officials. ayanna, augusta, georgia. democratic caller. what do you think? caller: i say if they want the guns, let them have them but make them responsible. if i was to go out in my car and hit somebody, i would be charged with vehicular the messiah.

if they take these gardens and -- take everything they got -- houses, cars, money, where it hurts and then you will not have so many people going out to buy guns. host: ethel from virginia. independent caller. caller: i believe that people should be able to have the guns that are responsible. -- i can understand why guns- our government sent to mexico and women and children got murdered in mexico and they have not given answer to america the people why they sent the guns. host: john, portland, oregon. republican caller. i you with us? caller: yes. i don't know what it is in the other states but in oregon here, we already have that law. our governor here is just going through the motions.

that isd a bill already a bill. texashat happened in with a guy with an x-acto knife. they came out with now that you can take knives on a plane. i am really disappointed in our government. the right hand of the government doesn't know what the left hand is doing. host: mac in chicago. democratic caller. caller: good morning, how are you? very good show. thank you. look, i think this is a very good step taken by senator harry reid.

there is absolutely no reason how anybody's second amendment rights would be infringed if you have a background check. gets meg that always with the people who seem to think that the second amendment is the only amendment that really matters to them. there is the first part of it which says a well-regulated militia, so clearly the framers said that there would be some laws that would regulate the deals of guns in this country. thank you for showing the deal that senator manchin and senator toomey isommey -- working on. it is in the best tradition of the senate. i think the people who are so mad at the government should

really look at that and see that the senate is working exactly the way it should. there are two sides, there are strong feelings on both sides, and here are cbo senators trying to work on something something. before people go out and blast senator reed and blast the senators and the government systems that are not working -- look, this is exactly the way it should work. thanks again. host: before you go -- in our last hour here we will talk about the new dealmakers in congress, those people like nottorncin, toomey -- necessarily moderate for working together to craft deals. we will talk about that in last hour of "washington journal." let me down to this all of you. mike lee, republican of utah, who will filibuster is quoted in "the washington times" saying this. the president is trying to rush legislation through congress because he knows when americans

find out what is in the bill they will oppose it. our job is to do anything in our power to make sure the public understands these bills and how it affects their rights as citizens. --ler: i think senator lee me and senator laid probably agree on absolutely zero, but i will say this, is that -- if that is how he feels -- and i am actually very glad. i look forward to watching senator lee and to see senator lee defend the point of view that anybody should have a gun. that is not the thing. this is exactly the attitude that has gotten us kids killed. we don't need that in this country. i am in full favor -- if i want to go out and buy a gun, i think i should be able to hear it but we have to stop in this country

people who are mentally ill from getting firearms and high- capacity guns from being able to go out and kill kids. page of "usant today" with the headline. senate takes up the bill thursday. criminal checks deal sought. and also in the paper, we mention other amendments in the revisions,al health language regulating the size of ammunition magazines by senator richard blumenthal, democrat from connecticut, and a ban of certain types of assault weapons opposed by senator dianne feinstein. as far as republicans who are thinking about voting yes on this motion to proceed, senator kelly ayotte, republican from the hampshire said on msnbc on tuesday, as he does not support pillow the start of this. senator johnny isakson from georgia said although it is still unclear what will be on the bill i think it deserves a

vote up or down. and it goes on to say that reid may not have all of the democratic votes, either. senator frank lao umberger, democrat from new jersey is ill and will not vote at least you have a leading democrats not said whether they will support the efforts to move this gun legislation on thursday. and then from those advocating a filibuster, here are some quotes in "the new york times." the republicans let, is what they say. this is from rand paul --

and also, rob portman, republican oh -- in ohio was at the political breakfast yesterday. he said if it was an infringement on second merit -- second amendment rights he would want to block it. and the senator of missouri left open the chance of filibuster. sammy, georgia, republican caller. you are on the air. caller: thanks for taking my call. are you still there? host: we are listening. caller: thanks for taking my call. i hope the republicans, this filibuster, i know they stick to it and don't back down. i don't think what they are

wanting to do is going to do anything which is going to stop gun violence in the schools, but the democrats just want to keep on pushing, and it won't work. timeoming back the next it happens, well, we have to do something else. bloomberg and , they alland schumer have something in common, they are all jewish. i wonder why all the jews want to take the guns -- >host: that seems like a gross overgeneralization. ,aller: every time it comes up they are the ones always pushing it. in "the new york times" and all of these liberal media get in behind them, and that's all you

hear every time. host: billy in chicago. democratic caller. worker atam a former a project here in chicago. straw buying is a major industry, major industry. those who are against a background checks are leaving the door for america's gangs. are a hugeangs market for guns. host: explained that a little bit for people who don't know, that the straw market -- that there is a huge market in chicago for straw purchasing. a straw buyer, if you came out as a background check and buy all the guns you want, you can get rid of them. host: how is it working?

caller: you can sell them to the internet, by a truck load and sell them to anybody. the people you are selling them to our anonymous. host: what do you do in the housing project there? caller: i was a street gang worker in the 1960s. host: here is a headline in "the washington times." a new survey -- law enforcement professional sake unrestricted are ineffective. the survey found 91.5% of respondents believed the federal ban of manufacture and sales of semiautomatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. look at a graphic they put together on this. do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that would hold one in 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

96% of those law enforcement professionals surveyed said no, it would not. and then on a scale of one to i've, one being low and five hi, how important do you think legally armed citizens to reducing crime rates overall? 56% of law enforcement people said that having civilians legally armed has a high impact on reducing crime rates overall. what do you think, bill? caller: i don't believe that. a lot of people can buy guns legally -- many are irresponsible. you have people who drink too all sorts of domestic problems. we see that in the amount of people being killed. , america's gangs are a major market for guns. -- : a viewer on twitter

you can send us your tweets, and by the way, "the wall street journal" editorial on this. ,he filibuster threat, they say is giving political cover to senate democrats. they say --

we are going to keep talking about this, getting your thoughts on the senate sending the gun vote for thursday. "the wall street journal" criticizing in the editorial the republicans who said they would filibuster this motion to proceed, which is the vote on thursday. if they get extreme votes, that allows them to debate the legislation on the floor, offer amendments. on theot an exact vote legislation itself. we will return to your phone calls in just a minute, but first joining us on the phone is man the cook from the national journal economic and fiscal policy correspondent -- amanda cook from "the national journal" come of economic and fiscal policy correspondent. what to expect -- that is the headline from your piece. guest: i think a lot of what the president will propose in his budget, which he will officially release at 11:00 this

morning, i think we have seen from him before. he will stick with this idea of taxing the wealthy a little bit more, he wants to raise about $500 billion in new revenue. he wants some new stimulus programs, like a new pre- kindergarten program that he wants to pay for through raising tobacco taxes. not a ton of new things. probably the biggest thing is he is formalizing the offer he made to house speaker john boehner during the fiscal cliff deal i'm proposing cuts to social security and government benefits through a mechanism called chained cpi which would change the cost of living calculation for the benefits. that is probably the biggest new thing he has proposed but it has never been in his budget. host: what does it mean for the overall discussion of a grand bargain? how's past their budget, the senate democrats passed a budget put together by patty murray.

now what? guest: i think the thing to watch today is not actually the release of the budget, but the dinner tonight the president will have with 12 republican senators. i was on the hill yesterday talking to some of the people who will be going to that, and there is a sense of, i would not say a huge amount of optimism, there is a little bit of sign of relations between the president and some republican senators. no one really wants to raise taxes, but people do like the idea of the chained cpi and the cutting -- the social security benefits. it is really what today is about, to try to reach out with senate republicans rather than just cut a deal through speaker boehner or minority leader mitch mcconnell. that is really the purpose for today. host: the dinner, the second one the president will be holding with a dozen gop senators. "the washington post" reporting orrin hatch will be attending, johnny isakson who helped set

it up, john boozman from arkansas, susan collins, john thune of south dakota, mark reiko from idaho, they will be attending the private dinner with the president. o from idaho. will the president be campaigning across the country for his budget like he is doing in other issues? --it remains >> guest: it remains to be seen. there is a ton going on this week with guns and immigration. some of the other issues will take up the oxygen for the rest of the week. we will have a better sense -- treasury secretary jack lew who has been critical with the fiscal cliff and laying the groundwork for a the negotiations is going the hill tomorrow to testify on the president's budget. and we will have a clearer sense, i think, from his testimony of how the dinner went and also how the white house is going to message.

i think what the president is doing is sort of saying, look, i am willing to compromise by proposing the social security cuts, and this is very big of me, and let people know that, so if there is no deal ultimately spring and summer he looks like he tried at least. host: nancy cook from "national journal." thank you for your time. the budget will also be a topic this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern time when the white house budget director nominee will be testifying before the senate budget committee about her nomination. 12:30 p.m. today, the office of management and budget will be also talking about the 2014 budget proposal. this is what the acting omb director. that is live on c-span three. both of those events live on c- span three. 10:30 a.m. starting with the omb director nomination and then at

1230, the acting: be director talking about the 2014 budget proposal. as nancy said, the president at 11:00 a.m. in the rose garden will be talking about the budget as well. on our website, if you go to www.c-span.org, you will see this link to it. the 2014 budget, an overview is what you can find that the white house put out this morning with some key budget facts included in the president's budget. and then also on the president 's budget, related to our question to all of you, "the -- "theon club washington post" reports the white house is seeking $235 million to aid mental health.

the senate is going to vote on thursday to begin debate on gun control legislation. we are getting your thoughts on that. eric in pensacola, florida. independent scholar. caller: first off, i want to agree with you. i would like to reject the criticism the guy was saying earlier about people being jewish. but i would like to make a couple of quick corrections and ask a question of you. the gentleman called earlier talking about a well-regulated militia. like people misuse or misunderstand welfare in the founding documents. it does not mean warfare as we

see now unregulated does not mean their regulations, regulation means well equipped. people need to understand that 18th-century. your second amendment views -- the people who call so far who seem to have an anti-second amendment bias, you tend to ask them longer questions. thingse is a couple of -- what about the guns in place now? if the law passes and everybody has the weapons and may decide they do not want to turn them in him are they suddenly criminals? what about guns smuggling? fast and furious. if you want to look at the government mishandling. the people killed on the street and babies -- background checks. how does the government plan to match each gun owner with a national registry? where is that going to be used? why don't we -- why do we see

only victims on these congressional and presidential junkets. what about the people whose lives are saved. i don't see anything about that. i think you can judge a person's honesty in discussing stuff whether or not they show both sides of it and honest about it. host: as you know, the host of this show, we are to facilitate the conversation and get your viewpoints. the whole point of the morning call-in show is to go outside of washington and have voices from across the country calling in and let washington know partly what you are thinking out there on the issues. my job is just to facilitate the conversation. i might ask people some questions in order to draw them out a little bit and get a better idea of where they are coming from. in other news this morning, as we keep taking your phone calls on this, the front page of "the chicago tribune is what has this headline. kelly takes second seat. democrat robin kelly will start

a new job in congress as the least a senior member of a house dominated by republicans. that political reality is not on kelly, who says her first task is to restore district offices and concentrate on constituent services as she be places disgraced former representative jesse jackson, jr., on the south side of the south suburban second congressional district there in illinois. kentucky newspaper, lexington herald leader this morning, with the front page, showing the minority leader mitch mcconnell next to a picture of ashley judd. leaked tape outrages macconnell. the senator asked the fbi to investigate will be coded discussions about a possible run by ashley judd. the actress has since said she will not be seeking that seat. in maineto the knees republican caller. senate set to vote for thursday -- will go to denise in maine.

caller: i have a brother who is it's a phrenic and is not being serviced by the mental health -- who is schizophrenic and is not being serviced by the mental health in this country. my question is, the family of mental health patients are not allowed to know their status by law. how areuestion is, they going to attempt to find the mental status of patients for registration purposes? if the families are not able to get this information, how is the government going to get it? host: "new york times" editorial, the public wants akram checks. -- wanted background checks.

that is the "new york times" editorial. we talked about immigration making progress. the gang of eight senators working on legislation say they will unveil a bill later this week, possibly thursday. there is "usa today" with the headline. patrick leahy has been trying to speed up process. in an interview tuesday he said he will hold immigration hearings april 17 and hoped there would be a bill by that time. outline of what is next with immigration legislation. and also some of the headlines on that. pro-immigration groups are

rallying on capitol hill today to talk about this legislation. and then also "the washington times" reporting that in the house, a gop bill gives two years to seek or -- to secure the u.s. border. ,t is important legislation even though the two members working on this are not part of the overall group working in the house. he said, though, none of the sponsors is part of the informal house or senate talks to strike a deal. the bill appears to be written as if it could have become the border security trigger in any deal. under a trigger, the border security conditions would have to be met in order for illegal immigrants to put on a pathway to citizenship. theo on immigration, " baltimore sun" reporting there is dispute still over farmworkers and how to deal with them as they continue to negotiate. and then it was "the wall street journal" that had the exclusive

details on how border security would work. that on the front page of the paper this morning. 100% surveillance would be required along the border and agents would have to be catching 90% of those that cross illegally. and then there would be a pathway to citizenship. sarah marie saying meeting all of the gold is expected to take 10 years. ismeeting all of the goals expected to take 10 years. judy and georgia. the democratic caller. caller: i am calling in allowing to congress the assault weapons ban to sunset to begin with, putting and distraction in motion causing the death of everyone that has been killed because that dan was allowed to sunset to begin with. my concern is that the actions

is causing civil unrest. the actions of congress is causing the death and ,nstruction of so many lives and the mental health and stability of the american citizen. ,y concern is congress agenda saysesult from congress their agenda is about destroying the health, wealth, and welfare of the american citizen. and what can be done to take back congress away from those we know have sold their souls to the corporate stability or the corporate society. that is my greatest concern. i am in georgia. my representative is do not represent me.

and as far as i am concerned, i should have the ability to actually do a citizens arrest and put every last one of them in jail for abstract things justice and refusing to allow due process. host: will go to anthony in maine, independent caller. go-ahead. a couple of calls ago against the gun legislation, i completely agree with. i think the biggest problem here is republicans and democrats. i think the two-party system, it is one side versus the other but they are really two sides of the same corn. they have windowdressing differences but in the long run there will be gun legislation passed him the whether this or another bill, but there will be some compromise and it does not matter because the supreme

court ruled three times in history that any right that is constitutionally detected cannot be infringed, license, registrar in any way, shape, or form but we do not really listen to the constitution of the what the supreme court used today and i am sure that new supreme court will uphold it. the whole point being is the republican party wants to control what you do in your bedroom, what you can put in your body and the democratic artie wants to control other aspects of what they think are dangerous like guns because they have this idea that a gun has a brain and therefore guns are evil and they want to kill people, which we know is not true. we know it is human beings. they take away guns, as we see yesterday in texas, 14 people stabbed, 14 with a box cutter knife and yet we want to talk about sandy hook, many people were shot, it was horrible, most children, but 14 grown adults got stabbed and it seems like we don't even see the

problem. the problem is the mental health. when they tackle the kid yesterday and they asked him why, he said to the police officer than the other students, i wanted to create a killing spree. a gun did not make him do it. he had a knife in his hand. this was the individual. his mental health stuff, too, this is the problem. a police psychologist and every school will not solve the problem, it is the society we live in, the way we raise kids, the tv, the violence we see, the theey shore, the smoky -- soulless attitude. not telling people to go and find god. if true, it is great for you. but we have no respect for ourselves as human beings anymore and that is the problem and all we are going to do is take away our rights because the government says so and in the long run, who is going to protect us from them for? has obtained a republican caller. caller: the first point to be made -- you can't legislate

morality. these gang members are going to get their hands on these funds. a lot of people like to talk about the first amendment saying you can't yell fire in a movie theater, but you can if there is a fire. if you don't have a gun, you can't use it for protection, you lose the option. you cannot prepare the to be oh. many of the people discussion the gun legislation did not know the current laws, and it is obvious listening to the rhetoric did and they know nothing about the new legislation because it is basically just emotional, as many callers made the point. the democrats come out there and bring it is and the conservatives come out -- so you never get actual. the 2 -- party system is fine -- it is not the parties but the people who elected people and people who do not want to be accountable for their actions. it is not what is out there available, it is what you choose. host: we will take a couple more phone calls but first, some quick headlines another news. here is "the washington post."

the u.s. commander of the pacific command testified yesterday before a senate panel about the situation there. said the united states is capable of responding to an attack on north korea. we covered the hearing. if you are interested in watching that. and if you watch the yesterday's "washington journal" we did our show, a large part of it from the naval academy in annapolis and senator john mccain was on the show joining us in the studio. and he also talked about tensions in north korea, if you are interested in watching that. in the money and investing section of "the wall street journal" -- can't relieve in foreclosure payout. most borrowers to get $1000 or less as part of a $9.3 billion settlement between the u.s. and banks on the foreclosure process. next that is a side story, lenders it used aid to replay to heart. a number of small banks used to

$.1 billion in government cash intended to boost small business business lending to repay bailout funds from the financial crisis. this is from a government watchdog group that announces on tuesday. also that banks lend less money at firms that did not take bailout aid. that is "the wall street journal." here's a picture in "the financial times" of margaret thatcher who passed away monday. -- 1925-2013. this was in a beach in southeastern india yesterday. wall street journal" reporting on the details of next week's london funeral. of the body of mrs. thatcher, the longest-serving british prime minister the last century will travel to cathedral in a carriage by horses, and it will

be lined with military personnel as what are expected to be huge clouds. attendees will include the queen and her husband, writes philip, as well as british prime minister david cameron and a host of other well-known figures from public life, including some who worked with mrs. thatcher and others who served in politics and also present would be friends and family, including two to be all children or grandchildren. it is not yet clear which foreign heads of state might attend. that is "the wall street journal" reporting on the funeral. ron in eagle river, wisconsin. democratic caller. what are your thoughts? senate sets a vote on thursday on gun legislation. caller: i support the regulation -- legislation currently in congress. i see the problems being driven by basically three issues. irresponsible gun owners, and the woman from sandy hook was an irresponsible gun owner. she wanted to normalize her child who definitely had a

problem. she allowed him access to guns. it was a big mistake that caused this whole question of what is going on now. and the guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, that is why we need the background checks. and three, the paranoia of the gunowners caused by the lobby and politicians that be, lobby support. it is about gun sales. it is not about confiscation, for crying out loud. this country could have confiscated guns of years ago when they were single shot muzzle loaders. it is not going to happen. quit the paranoia. i live in an area yet in the north -- i live in an area in the north him and there are guns on the mound -- all around me. it is a question of

irresponsible people with guns is the problem. host: i will leave it there and go to tim in the main, independent caller. are last on this. caller: there has been , non-tely no discussion gun owner, and i really hate guns. there is no discussion on whether or not we should repeal the second amendment. i think the right to live is more important than the right to carry a gun. host: all right, tim. we will return to the discussion in about 45 minutes when senator chuck grassley, the public and from iowa, will join us to talk about that, immigration, the budget as well. at first, peter welch, democrat from vermont is next, and we will talk about the politics and policy of president obama's budget, right after this break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> she was her husband's political equal and his partner.

she never went too far within the boundaries of what a proper victorian or early victorian lady should be in the 19th century. but everyone knew that they shared an office in the private apartments. she was active in discussions at the many state dinners they had. , but sheas not a prude was very much a woman who knew what she wanted and set her rules out and everyone had to play according to those rules. and she was respected for it. she was very, very popular. >> our conversation with historians on sarah poll, wife of 11 president james polk, is available on our website www.c- span.org/first ladies. and tune in monday for jane pierce and harriet lane. >> talk about some of the people of the movement.

who were the people who most moved things? was it came, malcolm x, the death of mr. evers, carmichael, john lewis? >> all of the above. all of them had different roles in the movement. one of the ways in which i tried to explain to students is that rosa parks made martin luther king possible. martin luther king did not make rosa parks possible. if she had not done what she did by refusing to give up her seat on that montgomery bus, martin luther king would have simply been an articulate, well- meaning baptist minister. it is because the rosa parks that we are talking about him today. she opened up the possibility for him to display those qualities that he had and to rise to the occasion. >> this weekend, stanford university professor labor and

carson joins other civil rights historians at the organization for american historians annual meeting in san francisco. all of the panel, professor carson takes your questions live. it arts saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on east and three's "american -- american history tv. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in two congressman peter welch, democrat from vermont, sits on energy and commerce committee as well as oversight and government reform. let's begin with the budget. here is of "the washington times was but this morning with this headline. obama's budget faces bipartisan opposition. social security plan angers his liberal base. guest: it is true. a lot of consternation with the president starting out with the chain cpi. the democrats don't want to mess with social security. we don't believe it has contributed to the budget deficit. and anything we do about social security should be about preserving it, its solvency, for a 75-year period.

there is a lot of opposition, significant opposition to the president's proposal on the chain cpi. but there is a lot in the budget that we fully support. i mean, the big debate here is about whether the sole focus of the budget should be, as paul ryan, his budget says, just focusing on the debt and the deficit. the budgets of focus on that but also have investment in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, address wage stagnation, rising inequality, america lagging behind on research and investment. the president's budget, in fact, addresses the debt. we have a debt that is serious and unsustainable, it will go from 10% of gross domestic product down to 1.7%. a very significant steady debt reduction. but what it also does is it has these investments in trying to rebuild the middle class.

and it has, bottom line, a commitment to the notion that if you have an expanding middle class and economic growth, that is going to do an amount to bring our debt down. we like the president's approach, even if we have not -- have that detail on social security we disagree with. host: on medicare -- "the times" reports it requires higher income beneficiaries to pay for coverage and the revenue coming from capping the tax with options that those in the higher tax brackets can claim. , the: the medicare part devil and that is in the details. higher income people to pay more on the co-pay and adaptable, and where the cut off is the question. -- co-pay and deductible. if it is a reasonably high level, we do that and it is a way to bring down the cost. but the approach on health care that we all have to take is an acknowledgment that it is not just medicare. we have a health care that is too expensive.

the biggest challenge in this country on the cost side is on the cost side, trying to bring the cost down. we pay twice as much for healthcare in and out of medicare than other countries pay, and our results are not better. it is a continuing challenge for our country. host: why isn't it being addressed in the president's budget, as the leader of the country, putting out a budget that deals with social security which too many people is not the immediate problem, but medicare is the immediate problem? ,uest: the affordable care act obamacare, does begin to try to change the way we deliver health care in the country. it is a super freighter we have to turn around. keep in mind, some of the cost- containment provisions in the affordable care act are really important to be implemented. vermont, we are sort of in the lead with accountable care organizations, with focusing on a payment system that rewards performance rather than the fee for service system that drives a volume in unnecessary care.

there is a lot embedded in the affordable care act that would help. but there is a lot more that needs to be done. we should do prescription drug price negotiation. we are the only country where we buy whole scale -- wholesale but pay retail. if we did the price negotiation and the medicare program that we do in the va, we would save taxpayers and medicare payers 100 and $60 billion over 10 years. host: a quick history lesson -- when was it put into law, that medicare could not negotiate? guest: it is when the medicare part d program that provides description drugs was passed, and that was the condition of tom the hammer delay who was a leader of the house and it was obviously a concession to the drug companies and really pretty outrageous. it is the case, we buy wholesale. if you go in and buy 100 aspirin but you have to pay as if you are buying 100 individual tablets of aspirin.

host: on the politics of this in "the washington times" this morning, it says this -- a quote from jim dean, the brother of former vermont governor howard dean and chairman of democracy for america, political action committee. he said, real democrats don't cut social security benefits, period, and it is shameful a democrat president is leading the charge to do so. the group vowed to recruit a primary opponent for any democrat in congress votes for a plan that cut social security. guest: it is really going to be rough politics on the democratic side for anybody who is going to be talking about chain cpi. the democratic approach, including president obama, has been to support social security. and of course, the chain cpi is an argument that the cpi measure is inflated, which, in terms of the things that seniors by, i don't think it is the

case. health care, those costs rise faster than inflation. fuel, home heating fuel, and food. so, you are going to see a lot of pushback on the democratic side. host: "the washington post was quoted friday said liberals expressed outrage a freshly reelected president would concede so much. some allies were concerned he was making a strategic mistake to do you a great? guest: not the way i would have done it. for the president, two things he could do. he could put out the vision of his budget -- which, frankly, i wish he would have left out chain cpi. that would allow us to do, like the house democratic budget that was proposed, it would lay out a vision about investment in the future, fair tax burdens, rebuilding infrastructure, doubling down on commitment to education and scientific research. what is happening with the chain see the icon the the focus of his entire budget on this issue

that is very controversial on the democratic side -- what is happening with the chain cpi, the focus of this entire budget. even though the president has made an enormous concession and by doing this indicating he is willing to take on the democrats, it does not appear to have bought him goodwill with the republicans. host: here is what the speaker had to say in a statement. in reality, he moved in the wrong direction, routinely taking off entitlement reforms and he's previously told me he could support. the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there is no reason it should be held hostage for more tax hikes. that's no way to lead and move the country forward. guest: the speaker has basically been in a dead stall in doing anything proactive since this whole budget discussion began. let's remember, the president puts out a budget, but it is the job of a congress to pass a budget. the house has passed a budget,

the ryan budget, i voted against it, but would past one. the senate has passed a budget. the president has his plan out there, but right now what the speaker should be doing is appointing conferees so we can have a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and the senate. it is a convenient target for the speaker to be focusing on the president, but the bottom line is, the speaker in the house -- and the house, we have a job to do and we can do it if we go into conference and have concrete specific discussions about taxes and spending. firstwe will go to pam from new york. democratic caller. you are in the air with congressman peter welch. caller: i wanted to provide one of the first pushback on the chain cpi suggests an. -- suggestion. i worked all my life up from 16- 65, at one time i had two jobs and ran a small business. i lost my job at age 64 and finally decided to the fight i

had to take my social security. my husband is disabled. we got a recent social security increase of about seven dollars each, which gave us $14 more in our household budget per month. and then we got a notice from food stamps they were cutting off by $12, from $64 a month to $48 a month. we live on just over $1500 a month. the idea that social security could get cut even further, it is just preposterous when you look at all of the things in the government now that could be cut. how about selling off some of the empty buildings you spent weeks having hearings talking about? there are so many cuts you could make before you turn to us. thanks for listening. guest: that was a very eloquent statement about the situation not only that you face but millions of americans face. they worked hard all of their

life, trying to get by on a fixed income and social security benefits are modest and most social security benefits are in the range of $14,000 a year. so thank you for your hard work and your eloquent statement. host: israel in louisiana, republican. caller: good morning. d this has actually aske idea. revenueut making bonds, like buildings that the government owns? what about gold, what about investments, bonds? i'm saying, how about other than saying the sky is falling and reacted to all these cuts, make more revenue and, make more money? the u.s. mint makes more money every day, but you need

something to back up this money. rather than keep shooting themselves in the foot, what i find my party is doing, is like cutting everything for the low income people, meaning to me i would rather see if they could have some sort of way that they could invest in themselves, like ,he lady was saying -building- land. if there is not any thing you can present to make more money, reserves or some oil ordered is to say, ok, we have the money, but we need something to back the money. >> it's a great point. debate in washington is between folks who feel austerity is the policy that will get us to the promised land, a bigger economy. that is embodied in the right and budget, all about cutting. and the alternative view that says

we have to rebuild our middle- class, that if you put people to work by doing smart things like rebuilding roads and bridges,, like expanding broadband in all of america, like retrofitting and making our homes and commercial buildings or energy- efficient. those create jobs and put people to work and create tax revenue. that is the approach that has historically been so constructive for america. we need a strong and expanding middle class. what we have now is the return getting richer and the middle class is getting squeezed. wages are stagnant. so we need a budget that starts to address that, not just because it is the fairest thing to do but because it is the smart economics institute. host: on twitter -- guest: number one, the affordable care act has to be

implemented. we have gone through two years of battle and released three years of battling about whether it will be implemented or not. there's an enormous continuing resistance denying the funding authority to implement that program. no. two, i would have price negotiations to save $160 billion. number three, i would really move aggressively, if we could, away from the fee-for-service system into a pay for performance system. the volume-driven system, we have a medical system where every procedure results in a charge regardless of the art, and benefit to the patient. the focus has to be on care that actually works. those are some of the things i would do in order to bring down the cost of health care across the board, not just in medicare. host: why is that not being done? guest: because our health care system is so complicated. war, the second world started creating a health care system that was related to employment.

employers started providing it. that was a way that they could keep good employees, by offering this benefit, because there were restrictions on offering wages. what happened is we have a patchwork system where there's a lot of economic interests that are affected once you try to do anything in health care. local hospitals employ a lot of and the pharmacy industry was able to get a provision in the law that makes people scratch their heads in outraged where we cannot have a gold price discount if we buy wholesale. these are the type of things embedded in the health-care system that makes it very difficult to change. host: jodie in somerset, pennsylvania, democrat. caller: yes, i was wondering what they're going to do about the people who are on social security disability and things like that to live in low-income housing projects subsidized by

section 8 housing with the government. our contract is going to be up as we receive a notice by the end of this year. are they going to renew the contract or is the 100 apartments where i live going to have to move or try to find someplace to go where you are barely making ends meet now? guest: that's a good point. let's hope you get the contract renewed. this is where you live and you have to stay there. i can only imagine the disruption in your life and in the lives of your neighbors if you have to go. i don't know the specifics on your particular apartment, but there's enormous amount of pressure on this across-the- board sequester cut. that affects people in damaging and very dumb ways. it's very important that we do our job and get our act together and that includes replacing the sequester with a more sensible, balanced approach. a big battle here is that many

of us believe revenues have to be part of it. others think the only thing we can do is cut. that if we just do the cuts, and yesterday approach is something that happened just after the recession. we're starting to come out of it and then you cut back and it's going to economy. host: here is the drudge report -- is inappropriate for the white house to be still going forward with these concerts' in light of sequestration? guest: you pick your poison. the sequester is done. we should replace it. white house stores become symbolic. they have been stopped. that is upsetting. a lot of people have come here often as kids in middle school and the highlight of their visit is one of the white house stores. it's a nice thing for young people. pick your item in the sequester.

if you allow the sequestered to go into effect, there will be a lot of things that will be really damaging, like it that a woman loses her house, that's terrible. a lot of things would be inconvenient like a white house teour or the concerts'. host: independent caller, roland. pass thise want to immigration stuff. now they're going to cut social security and medicaid. who is going to pay for these people when they make them citizens of the u.s.? i thought obamacare was going to bring the cost of insurance down. i'm disabled. now i have to pay $35 a month for a little pile of insulin to stay alive. -- vial. this is supposed to be the richest country in the world. i believe in term limitations. these guys have been in there 40 years. we need change.

host: let's get a response. best: the priorities should about making certain that we take care of hardworking people and people more disabled. alle are careful and we're in it together, then they will be able to help you out. but the immigrants you asked about, they are going to have to pay all their taxes. it will have to pay their own way. that's embedded in the immigration reform bill, a recognition that immigrants have to get square with the law. we have to have strong border security. they have to go to the back of the line if they want to get citizenship. but there's also a recognition that you bring this labor out of the shadows, they will be fully taxpaying citizens. so this is a controversial issue, but i think we will make some progress on immigration reform.

it's important that we do. host: the wall street journal reports that with the gang of eight in the senate is working on when it comes to border security is a pathway to citizenship hinges on 100% surveillance of the border and that officials catch 90% of those trying to cross illegally. of it is ori make security has to be a significant part of the immigration reform. the apprehension is that if you have a path to citizenship or means thist simply problem will recur in another 10 or 15 years. spiders a focus on securing our borders. it is important to have a secure border. figures of the negotiators are coming up with, the bottom line is as secure as you can make it. it will never. be never host: is it doable to catch 90%?

the wall street journal says right now it's at 44%. guest: i don't know that it is doable. we have to ask the law enforcement folks about that. one of the things i hope that's not happening is the security requirements paso excessive that they are basically an excuse to avoid making progress on coming to a resolution. in kentucky, republican. caller:i want the guy to know that i'm with the democrats on this because i worked all my life. i worked over 48 years, counting my military service. my wife worked 25 years and she gets $5,500 per year. with medicare the way it is, she is out $4,000 in her medicine and doctor bills and stuff like that and tests. for us toe disastrous

have a cut in especially medicare. guest: thank you. there was a caller earlier who aboutrrored her reality getting by on a very low fixed income. hang in there. we will oppose the chained cpi. host: joe in new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. greta, give me a minute, because the last time i called was on november 6 with pedro. host: you have to go now. you are a democrat. i want to tell you this country is looking for the democrats to do things for the people. i'm talking about the majority of the people in this country.

security.ial i heard you mention $14,000. that's what i'm getting. $1,400 per month. that's what i'm getting. federal for the government seven years and i did not get a good pension. is what i'month getting. understand what they are trying to do. they are trying to do everything democratso see that do things during the people that voted democrat, so the democrats every two years, four years, six years, we will sit down because we will see the democrats cannot do things to help us. so the republicans, who have a few people they will make happy, which is the rich, the people

that make $95 million per year, 's and bigeo corporations, which means the republicans by doing this will become the majority of the people in this country to prevent the democrats from being the party of the people. host: we will leave it there. guest: thank you for that statement. host: on twitter -- guest: we have a problem with health care. before the obamacare was passed, we had 43 million americans without health care. there is a cost to providing health-care for the people who don't have it. there's also a cost when they

show up at the emergency room to get care. most hospitals welcome them and did not turn them away. one of the reasons why our health care and premiums are so high is because we all have to pay a in our health-care premium the cost of care for people who don't have insurance? . about $1,100 of your and my premium go to pay for people who don't have insurance. this increase is something most americans agree with. we want access to reasonable health care and obamacare does that. we do have the cost challenge that is systemic in health care. it is not caused by obamacare. it is caused by a periodic health care delivery system. host: were the numbers right that he tweeted? guest: i don't know. i don't know what the exact number is. there's going to be a lot of gaming by the insurance companies. when you have health care insurance company executives

making $28 million per year, there are places in health care you can cut. there is an expense. it is not going to be -- if you are low income person under obamacare, you will get significant subsidies to get access to health care. the bottom line, our focus has to go from having a continuing battle about whether we will pass or repeal obamacare to implementing it. the democrats supported it like me have to be very attentive to the practical implementation challenges that individuals and businesses are facing, because we will have to make some adjustments. let's have a focus on making this work, having health care be better and be more affordable. host: we have a camera on capitol hill as the budget from president obama khan arrives at the capitol, his 2014 proposal. printed off copies for members of congress.

why do we print out the budget? as the budget from president obama arrives at the capitol. guest: i look forward to reading it. it the obligation of the president by law to turn that in. that has not always been the case. the constitutional responsibility of the congress is to appropriate money and make decisions about expenditures. it was in the early part of the 20th century that congress required the president to submit the budget. it makes me want to go back to this whole battle and rhetoric that mr. boehner is engaging in. we have a job to do. his job right now is to appoint members of the house to be on a conference committee with the senate. the big question we have is whether the speaker will appoint a conference committee and then have regular order, which is totally broken down in the

house, and to allow the two bodies to work out their differences. host: a lot of cameras on capitol hill watching the unveiling of the budget. they are taking them out of the boxes. new york magazine put out a story that according to a 2012 boston post story, paper copies are still delivered to members of congress, federal agencies, and depository libraries across the country? even though the entire thing is available online for free. four-lso say that 2500 volume sets were sold to private $218 lastlast year for year, even though there's an app for that and you can get it free online. guest: what can i say? host: we're talking with democrat peter welch from vermont. president obama's 2014 budget is delivered to capitol hill today. the washington times says its

nine weeks late. peter welch is talking about what happens next between the two sides. here's the hill newspaper yesterday with this headline -- here's what senator portman had to say, from ohio, yesterday asked a politico breakfast. [video clip] >> that's how we got the budget agreement between bill clinton and newt gingrich. it was through a debt limit discussion. the idea we cannot use the debt limit discussion is ridiculous. most americans don't think we ought to be raising the debt limit without dealing with the underlying problem. it like their credit card limit. when you reach your limits, you

don't just raise it. we have to deal with the underlying problem. this is an opportunity and the timing is pretty good, so let's deal with it, let's use the debt limit. the leverage is the american people to think it's crazy for us to continue to borrow more without any end in sight. host: your action? guest: there's a difference between what happened in 1997 when the occasion of the debt ceiling became an opportunity to discuss fiscal issues. what happened a year ago in august, the debt ceiling became an occasion to plunge america into the fall. there's always been grandstanding on the debt ceiling and posturing, but ultimately both parties have understood america pays its bills. the notion that we would default -- and that's what the republicans these days are talking about, actually not paying our actually-- the notion that we would plunge america a year ago in

august that we had our first downgrade by standard and poor's. that was very damaging to america's reputation. what senator robert portman is discussing that happened in 1997 is not what the republicans in the house are talking about now. they're going to have us go into default. the ways and means committee is having hearings on prioritizing what payments will be made if we default on our debt. the party will go to the bankers on wall street, the bondholders, but the folks like social security recipients and our troops will be at the end of the line. i think this is very dangerous, but senator portman is advocating. host: arnold in texas, republican. caller: i have read a couple articles in our local papers

here that save the medicare part $2472014 will go to dollars per month deduction from what it is now. guest: i don't know, but i will check into it. caller: it would've been nice if you had read that before you passed it. but that is like asking what it's going to be a year or two from now in a private pay. i cannot predict what the premiums will be no more the price of gas. i hear your point, but this is expensive and it's tough when you're on a fixed income. that's why i have been focusing on what can we do to help bring down the cost of health care. that affects you if you're on medicare, but it affects employers struggling to try to continue to provide health care benefits to their employees and

the copays and deductibles for people not on medicare, those are higher. so this is a tough challenge for the country. we have to work together on this and try to bring costs down. tweets --ouple wee caroline in cumberland, maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning, everybody. host: good morning. caller: i would like to make a big comment. you all needa that to pay extreme attention to.

to bring down the national debt, arethese corporations that that areyman islands, t not paying taxes. make sure that these republicans, millionaires and billionaires, are paying their fair share of income taxes. the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. guest: you've got a good point. the president in his budget advocates for the buffett rule, where if you make over $1 million, you pay at least 30% of your income in taxes, of which is what a lot of people make a lot less than $1 million pay.

second, we would limit deductions for folks who have very high incomes, which was governor romney's proposal. anything we can do to tax this hidden money offshore, that is tax evasion, so you are right. host: you spoke earlier when you said we will oppose the chained cpi when it comes to social security, part. of the. part of the president's budget. what would the vote be? guest: if you put it on its own, the vast majority, probably 90%, for the chained cpi alone. what the president is doing is acknowledging that when he was in discussions with speaker boehner about a grand bargain, one of the issues he was willing to make as a concession in exchange for significant tax revenues, investments, and

infrastructure, was to go to the chained cpi. that would've been controversial then, but it was in the context of the grand bargain that had substantial revenues in investment. host: what if that were put on the table, how many democrats would support chained cpi in exchange for more tax revenue? guest: i don't think many right now. everyone will be looking at the bill in a final deal and try to determine what is the best thing for america. one of the things that has been difficult with the president coming out with this in advance is the chained cpi is tough. pointed out people have paid into social security all their life, their income is about $14,000. the chained cpi will result in a lower benefit over time for those folks and they don't have much margin. a lot of democrats and i think republicans are sensitive to that. so to security challenge is about maintaining the solvency

of so security. so security should not become something to resolve budget issues that don't add anything to do with social security. host: on twitter -- guest: i dispute that. people have to get this right. a lot of these folks who say we are going to default on the debt because of all these reasons that person said, they are the same folks who voted to go to war in iraq without paying for it. these are the same folks that voted for afghanistan's nation- building adventure without paying for it. and voted on the bush tax cuts on the notion somehow that would create more tax revenue. it did not happen. the time when there has to be unreal responsibility is when you are voting on that budgets or voting on that war expenditure.

it's the first time in the history of this country where we went to war in iraq and afghanistan where there was no tax to help pay for that, we just borrowed the money and put the burden on our children. then the debt comes due. the folks who supported the policy that required this expenditure get high and mighty and say we're not going to pay for it. so i don't host: buy that richard in huntsville, alabama, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to ask representative welch to expand on a statement he made earlier about the structure of our health care program being designed after world war ii and the employers offering the health care benefits because there was a restriction in wages. could he please expand on that? war ii there world were wage and price controls. seeking good were

employees, because we had a very high employment and a lot of women going into the workforce to help support the war effort, but there were wage and price controls, so employers competing to get good workers, they could not compete by offering higher wages. one of the things they began to do was offer benefits and health care became a major benefit to some of our big employers. after the war, when america was doing really well economically, the automobile industry was doing really well. manufacturing process and unions were strong. they began negotiating strong benefits including very good health care plans. we could afford it. we had the market power to be able to do that. as we have moved into this new global economy, that has become much more difficult. then you have this situation where some workers who have jobs or their employers provide

health care, there's a lot of folks working in the economic sectors now where the employers don't have the margin to able to provide health care, so they are second-class when it comes to the health-care system. but so many people in this country really have their health care connected to where they work. that is different than a lot of other countries. spring,m in silver maryland, republican, the last call. caller: a small suggestion for the federal budget. the suggestion i have is to get rid of the center for alternative medicine on nih campus. medicalhe center for supervision and it should be eliminated. it's $107 million, which is small, but it would be a

significant to get rid of that bunch of quacks. man?: congress guest: i'm not sure i agree with that. i don't know the details of what excedrin does, but i will check it out. host: peter welch, thanks for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: we will continue the conversation about the budget and immigration and gun-control legislation next with senator chuck grassley, republican from iowa. recentwe focus on their christian science monitor cover story on the deal makers in congress. first, a news update from c-span radio. 8:30 a.m. eastern. a top general said the automatic spending cuts or sequester will ground one-third of the u.s. air force's active duty force of combat planes. the general says that means, "accepting the risk that combat

air power might not be ready to respond immediately to new contingencies as they occur." the general went on to say only unit preparing to deploy to major operations such as the war in afghanistan will remain mission ready. turning to the situation in syria, activists say both sides are sustaining losses in heavy fighting today on the outskirts of damascus. says atan observatory least 28 rebels and 13 soldiers have been killed. meanwhile, secretary of state john kerry is meeting with syrian opposition leaders and russia oppose the top diplomat in london. turning to the issue of guns, west virginia democratic senator joe manchin in remarks earlier position and is close to deal with a pennsylvania republican senator pat toomey on a gun control bill. the plan would expand background checks to cover firearm purchases made at gun shows and online. that's a measure he says 90% of

americans say they support. the two are holding a news conference this morning. you can hear it later on c-span radio. those are some of the latest stories on c-span radio. [video clip] >> i would like to think it's important book in the sense it tells you how the court works. there are so few good books out there that explain what the process is, how they go about this, how they decide the cases, but they say to one another. we see these cases split. what do they really? do their personal feelings get into it? it's a book not just about capital punishment but about how the court operates. >> when you dig into the notes in the library of congress, the memoranda, the notes back and forth between justices that are available, and a lot of stuff is available, i'm not a lawyer, i plead not guilty to whatever you guys do, but i was fascinated by the human side of it. in many cases, the justices have

reservations about capital punishment. on thenews veterans capital punishment cases that have defined the supreme court, denied it 9:00 on c-span2. tonight. washington journal continues. host: welcome back, senator grassley. guest: thank you. filibuster the vote on thursday? guest: the answer is yes. we will have this bill brought up. there's enough votes to move ahead. i just hope that senator reid will allow us to offer all the amendments we can, because if that is one of the things that republicans or democrats when they're in the minority, when you speak and have 41 votes, it's not that you don't want the

issue? come up, it's that you want the senate to function. of islam, there's a great deal obviously, there's a great deal of this like toward the gag rule. host: the senator has set a vote for thursday on a motion to begin debate. you will vote no. what is the vote count? guest: i would say 65 or 70. host: you think that many republicans will be joining with democrats to say let's debate the legislation? guest: yes. i think you could avoid a filibuster if there was assurance that there will be open amendment process, like the senate is supposed to do. the house of representatives does not have an open process of amendment, but we always do in the senate. there's resentment towards

senator reid cutting us out of that opportunity. host: he did say yesterday that he wants to weaken the if you want to weaken the bill, you can with amendments. guest: we were promised that on the continuing resolution and had a chance to offer a couple amendments. moran wanted to offer an amendment to keep 114 hours at getports open and he did not a chance to offer amendments. the point is if you want to avoid republican filibusters, what you need to do is have the senate served its historical function of being a debating society and not limit amendments. trust is broken down in the last three years or four years. that's why you have so much partisanship, because the senate historical has been where republicans and democrats, even if you disagreed, you know you want the senate to function. the days of mansfield, when he was democratic leader for 18 years, we never had these problems. host: the wall street journal

editorial this morning -- are you biting? guest: i answered your question twice on that. the point is you never know until you get there. . there's this what we ought to do is try to build trust. one way of doing that would be for the majority leader not to file a culture, even before a bill put down. ,nd also not to fill the tree in other words not allowing republican amendments. host: we're learning from the

baltimore sun that compromise is starting to take shape between joe manchin and pat toomey of pennsylvania. the deal would require all commercial sales to go through a background checks, that would appear to leave out some private sales among individuals but would cover the sales that gun- control advocates a are significant regarding criminals. from what you are hearing so far, is that something you think you could agree to? guest: i don't know without reading it. i hesitate to say until until actually reading the bill. but it's a major breakthrough from this standpoint, because the original legislation that one of the senators put down was if you were my daughter and i bought a gun to give to you, you attacked at a background check. that's a little ridiculous. the other proposition, why there's a little distrust of the whole thing is because criminals want a gun to commit crimes or to kill people, they cannot get a gun. but they will have a gun when

they want one. so you are passing laws that affect honest people and penalizing honest people are you willonest people -- not prevent the criminal element from getting guns anyway prevents why there's a little distressed about this whole thing of getting the government compromising the second amendment. it's not as pure as the first amendment. everybody feels the first amendment is pure. and the fourth amendment, unlawful search and seizure, eminent domain. why is the second amendment not just as much of equal value as the appearance? host: advocates or background checks say it's very popular with the american people. what are your constituents telling you? guest: i have 30 town meetings in the spring break. i went to 30 different counties. this was the top issue in all of my town meetings. there's a terrible distrust for the federal government that when you get involved in gun

legislation and you are going to have a background checks, institute of justice says you have to have registration if you are going to have a background checks and then the government knows where your guns are. people feel they will come to get the guns. i may not feel that way, but i'm telling you that's what my constituents feel. then they read about the new york newspaper, that put the people who had guns in the newspaper and listed their address. those people were mad because they now thought criminals who want to steal guns would come steal their guns and the people who did not have guns, their address was not listed, and the criminal element knows guns are not in those homes, but those homes may be affected. so privacy is involved and people see it their lives threatened or their property taken. that's where you get into this business of gun registration being something that people fear. you saw that in new york an aside in des moines, iowa. the des moines register said

they had a place where the police are protecting kids in the schools and they showed the places where the police are not protecting the schools. put a map in the paper. so that means the parents are scared about the safety of their kids. you have to be careful when you get all these records that the government will have a, violating your privacy and with potentially leading to other things that can happen. host: on immigration reform, another issue that is before the senate judiciary, which you are ranking republican. front page of the wall street journal this morning has exclusive details of what the gang of eight is working on. that is a path to citizenship hinges on 100% surveillance of the border and that agents catch 90% of those crossing illegally. is that enough for you to vote for a path to citizenship? guest: it might be, but i always

read the language of the bill, not an outline. i want to know the capability. i would have constituents that would say nobody should be allowed to cross the border without papers. nobody should disrespect the united states laws coming into our country, because we could not going to mexico without a passport. why do people taken come to america without a passport? on the other hand, we have a problem, because half of the people that are in this country illegally came here illegally and overstay their visas. here's the key. you touched on the key point of whether or not there will be legislation, particularly whether there's legalization and a path to citizenship. 8 have to of a hal convince the of the 92 senators that the border will be secure. the security of the border, the definition of that, and the determination of whether congress makes that determination or the president for homeland security, those two

things are key to moving forward. keepingre you being -- abreast, are the briefing you, the republican senators part of this, as they continue to negotiate? guest: they have refused to brief us until now and i can understand why, for the simple reason that when you are negotiating, you don't want to be negotiating to the newspapers and having abiding, and you -- having everybody come at you. we have open debate in committee and a close to the floor. we have open debate. just like in the gun legislation. it will have a fair hearing. host: when will the senate judiciary hear from this? guest: there's a dispute on whether the judiciary committee will have hearings. i don't think there's any dispute that senator leahy will have prolong the debate on this in committee and let everybody

have their say and every amendment to be considered. i believe that. i don't think it will take as long as it did in 1986, the last time we did this. i was there back then. it took us about three weeks the subcommittee and committee to get the bill out of committee. it took about six years from the thomas started in 1981 until we finally got a bill passed in 1986. we thought we were doing the right thing. wantf the things i predictable i want to play in this, i realize that we made a mistake in 1986. we thought that for the first time we would make it illegal in this country for an employer to hire undocumented workers. we put a $10,000 fine on that. we take away the magnet to come here to work and then the legalize 3 million people and then we would have this thing fixed once and for all. the preamble of the paper they put out this year and said we're going to fix this thing once and

for all. that is what we thought. i learned to keep reminding them of what they say they're going to do, they better not make the same mistakes we did, because we found out if you reward illegality, you get more of it. so then we have 12 million people undocumented. when we pass the legislation this year, and want to make sure 20 years from now, my successor does not find out we have 25 million undocumented workers. host: you think it happens this year? guest: yes. host: "usa today" is reporting -- guest: that's very good. they had a staff meeting yesterday. that may not have been reported to me yet. but if that's what it says, i believe it. is ag at least one hearing

step towards cooperation that senator leahy has promised. the more important thing is for harry reid not to kill the tree, to make sure we have open debate. host: with gun-control and immigration reform on the table, let's get to phone calls. gary in new york, independent. caller: i'm an army veteran, 17 years. i turned all my benefits. i get social security and my veterans pay. i don't see why they have to cut the budget on our backs and a lot of people are on welfare, they should cut their benefits. gary is picking up on our conversation we had with peter welch and president obama unveiling his 2014 budget. you serve on the budget committee. guest: i would not be surprised if the president will cut benefits of people now receiving them or people already in the

military. sayfor future, i would there's going to be some adjustment. give people 10 years to adjust to a change in the law on retirement, so that means any changes in social security, medicare, veterans' benefits, all those things. so they don't generally apply to people in retirement at that particular time or 10 years to expand. host: leonard in florida, republican. what's the name of your town? caller: i am calling in reference too disability. i was a construction worker and fell from a building. working 10 years to try to get some kind of aid. i have been in line and seen all , aspeople that come and go

far as a broken arm or something and they had this ability granted to them. and i am not prejudiced or anything, but it seems to be undocumented people seem to get it quicker than americans do. i also want to know if you dig naphtha was a good idea. nafta. road construction. what happened to the old made in america? or is this just a money thing to keep the world economy going when we have outsourced even governor romney --

host: let's have a response from the senator. guest: in the case of disability, the law is clear. you only get disability if you cannot do anything -- any other kind of work. if you have been doing construction, but you can push a pencil someplace, you will not get on disability. there's been an erosion of that in the last few years, a massive increase in the number of people getting on disability, probably violating the law. we had a judge in west virginia that in 20 or 30 years had only disapproved one case of disability coming before him. so there has been lax enforcement of that rule that if you can do anything, you're not entitled to disability. this ability is for someone who cannot earn a living in any way in the future. so he has to think of that. i don't think that he's fair in saying that minorities get disability easier or welfare easier than european whites.

caseworkers will see you as an individual. if they're not, they're violating the law. in the case of nafta, you ought to consider that a good thing. years, butack 20 anyway, mexico had tariffs of maybe 25% corpof our products going into mexico and we only had a 5% tariff on mexican products coming year. if you have equal terrorists on both sides of the border if, it has to be a win-win for the u.s. he's talking about manufacturing going to mexico, in the last 25 years, it has changed where manufacturing has gone to china and china has developed their middle-class to such an extent that china is outsourcing manufacturing jobs and china is becoming a platform for assembly. is where everf it

you can find cheaper labor, whether its chinese manufacturing, mexican manufacturing, or anything, you will be able to compete or you will be out of business. china is developing a middle- class. they are just like japan. japan used to take shipbuilding away from the u.s. south korea took it away from japan. china took it away from south korea. now it's going someplace else, because there's always somebody willing to work cheaper. the countries that used to manufacture know that through technology they will create more jobs and better paying jobs. so you move yourself up the economic ladder. it's the old and entrepreneurial spirit. whether you are in a communist country like china or free market like the u.s., entrepreneurship works. host: on immigration reform, a tweet --

guest: you know, this is an issue that i don't think is being dealt with only in the house of representatives in their small group trying to work out. it may be a major stumbling block. i don't have an answer to that person. but it is something that has to be solved between now and the bill being passed. host: what is the cost and what do you think it is, billions? guest: yes, without a doubt. part of the question comes from the fact that people that are here undocumented now in the shadows will come out of the shadows and then get on a lot of programs they are not currently on. probably some of those undocumented workers are on welfare programs they don't have a right to be on, but they are getting them. borderer thing, enhanced security, if you are going to keep people from walking across the border willy-nilly and we only have 700 -- 652 miles of

fencing build and you are going to build more fencing or have a virtual fence or drones or whatever you have, it will cost more money to run. host: melvyn in for lauderdale, florida, a democrat. caller: hello. i want to talk to the senator with respect background checks. about selling a gun from a family member to a family member. who's to say that person is not mentally ill or criminal? a situation happened in houston, texas, at the college. that individual had guns and his house. no one will know. he could go home and get a gun and come back out when he gets out of jail and go back and do the same thing. how do you know he's not going

back into a home that has a gun notou knocked -- are searching his background? we need background checks. guest: here's the point i have made before. basic to this whole discussion of compromise in the second amendment is the fact that f felons that cannot buy guns under the law now, they still gonna get someone to buy it for them. criminals will have guns. wherever we do, little or big, will compromise us citizens. he just proved that. he said to me these people that want to commit a crime, they will be able to get a gun. that.ustrates that's very important. one other thing he brought up at the assailant. i did not write that down. host: on the background checks,

you don't pick a background check would stop straw purchases. guest: i voted for the bill and i would support a bill dealing with just a straw purchasing. i investigated the whole fast and furious thing. we're talking about gun legislation. in the last four years, this administration when the license gun dealers in arizona and said to them we want you to sell guns illegally so we can follow them across the border and arrest the drug cartel people. they did not follow them across the border, but we have the government suggesting the illegal sales. now we are talking about legislation to put more control on guns. host: joseph in twin peaks, california, independent. host: you have to turn the television down. caller: i would like senator grassley to realize background bill ofre based on

attainder. guest: that applies to individuals. the legislative bodies cannot convict people like parliament used to convict people. we have prohibition against the bill of attainder, so congress cannot hold court and find you guilty of something or we cannot cannotay that greta receive a salary from the federal garment. we can eliminate fewer people. there are plenty of court cases on that. it has nothing to do with guns. host: joe in missouri, republican. caller: good morning. senator grassley, i'm so glad you're in the senate. please keep running and please keep winning. please give me 20 seconds, greta. we wait on the phones along time. the republicans to remain republicans and don't cave in and become democrats.

i want a difference in the party's. also, i am not interested in the polls. i live in a 12,000 persons town. we would have exactly the arkansasopinion in that 87 percent of people want more gun laws -- maloney. republicans, please don't cave in. please keep running and please keep winning. thank you. proud to beglad -- a republican. i don't blame democrats for being proud to be democrats. he's right. we have to maintain the difference between our parties. but we do have to do one thing in washington that upsets the people back home, republican, independent, or democrat. if we have to have less partisanship. we have to sit down and try to work things out. host: your in your sixth term. are you running again? guest: you should not ask me

that. i'm 79 years old. ask me in a couple years. if i can run, i will run. i run 3 miles of four "new york times per week. when i'm 81 years old, if i can still run 3 miles, may decide to run again. i'm not ready to make an announcement. host: it hinges on your running game? guest: there's a lot of other things more important it takes to get elected. but that tells me maybe if i can get to another six years maybe. host: democratic caller in south dakota, mickey. caller: you guys are the ones who vote for your own salary increase? guest: you're right. but within the last three years we have taken action to deny us any salary increase and also no employee on capitol hill has had a cost-of-living raise either in the last three years. caller: you guys were the ones to vote for people to have

minimum wage, right? guest: we do. caller: why is it fair for you to vote for the american people to have a minimum wage, but the american people don't have a right to say whether you get a raise or not? guest: because we don't have under the federal constitution, remember you have a problem with the federal constitution. we don't have a referendum. some states have. in california and you could put an issue on the ballot on what should be the salary of the lawmakers of that state, but we don't have that. we have representative government and not direct democracy like california. they also have representative government that people can initiate legislation, where is in the federal government you cannot. i hope i answered his question. host: greg in brown's bill, vermont, independent. caller: good morning. senator grassley, the point i wanted to make, i got cut off the first time when peter welch

was on. i run a small business. , buttake on 100 customers apart their cars and am collecting money from these people with deposits and i keep telling them it will be done next week and then a month goes by and so on and so forth, a snowball effect. my point is why doesn't our government take one issue at a time? the issue with guns. then go on to the next one. abided it comes on c-span saw out and off on their concerns and opinions, it is overwhelming us with all this information. nothing is getting done. if you guys cannot do it, you should be out of office and allow people to vote for the different issues, whether it is guns, whether it is health care, all of this. if you

guest: that is an expression that is legitimate. maybe it is overblown in the sense that negative knows -- news always at the newspaper or television. when we are fighting, i always use a senator who ran the finance committee with me. we work together. every bill except two or three were bipartisan. they all got to the president for signing. one got vetoed. but we worked together. but i fight with them all the time, it would be and it is a burp, but when we get along, it is not. what about your relationship with patrick leahy ? is it the same? guest: not in a sense of meeting once a week, but except for that, it is very good. and i used me for an hour every tuesday to vote on the agenda of the committee. senator leahy and i don't do

that. but we understand each other. we get along well. host: at the beginning when we asked you about the vote to proceed to debating gun control legislation, you thought that there could be 65 votes in favor of going ahead with the debate. what do you think that indicates about final passage of legislation, if it includes what senator manson and senator toomey are working on, some kind of, my background checks? guest: you have to get to a bill and work the bill through to get the finality. it is a very important step in that direction, but it is also a result of a compromise between republicans and democrats that was changing the rules so that you would not have a prolonged filibuster on going to a bill. the compromise was this business about can republicans offer amendments, that if we had a shortened. of time for debate on going to a bill, then we would have to

republican amendment sent to democrat amendments. i think that will speed up the work of yet united states senate. i congratulate senator reid and senator mcdonnell, two leaders for sitting down and making that arrangement. host: on final passage of gun legislation -- guest: i don't know. until they get the language out there, and even this latest compromise, what do you know about it? what you read in the newspaper. host: they will be holding a press conference. go to c-span.org for details. i want to clarify one thing -- you were talking before, i don't know if you implied that we had c-span are paid by the federal government. were you making that connection earlier? guest: no. that thought never crossed my mind. host: i just wanted to clarify that. guest: c-span is a private market. but a very good one. the gentleman who called in about people voting on things

and that referendums -- you may not have a referendum at the federal government, but you have more transparency now because of c-span, particularly because of the debates. there are less things done in secrecy now. when you have transferred the, you have accountability. so c-span has brought more accountability to congress. too bad we can have c-span in the oval office more often. host: there was some confusion with our viewers that we were funded by the government. and we are not. five cents on your cable bill every month pays for it. guest: thank you for informing me about that. host: ellen, go ahead. caller: ok. senator, you are talking about trust. i have trust in anybody in washington, anybody -- any elected official. i was around when you had senators on the floor talking about 3 million illegal aliens

and giving them amnesty. it was supposed to be a one time deal. that was a lie. we were told that employers were going to be find that hired -- fined that hired illegal aliens and they were going to know that they were hiring illegal aliens because they were sent a message to find out if these people were illegal. that was about three years before e-verify came in. when we have hearings, republicans try to put -- let's say, when they were going over that had plants nuclear power. feed republicans did try to put any power on new year basis. the democrats stop that. there was a story about one man

that worked in three different nuclear power plants who then was living in yemen. he was working under a false name. i would check and win the lottery because if i did win the lottery, i would send every representative and senator a roman garb that the romans in the past years war because right now our elected officials are the ones that are going to ruin this country. host: all right, ellen. guest: she did say something that i have artie said. we all did it right in 1986. we made a big mistake. one of my approaches the sun is to make sure that we don't make the same mistake again. or if we do, i don't have to vote for the bill. , it is.air fight some people are using it. the proposal coming out of the group of eight includes my e- verify mandatory bill.

the other thing is about the ditch -- generally the distress that this lady has calling in. i have expressed that in my town meetings. i think that one of the things that i hold a town meeting in all of our 99 counties every year. i have been in the 59 counties so far this year. i think face to face conversation with my constituents is the best way to reduce this cynicism. verycynicism is very -- a big problem that we deal with. people do not trust us. they think you are in politics to get rich or for social procedural political power. we have got to start proving to people that we are in government to improve our society. that is the principle of limited government. host: "the wall street journal" reports this -- all employers would be required to use the government e-verify system,

which screens for illegal workers. it is largely voluntary, although some states require it. this is something that the gang of eight -- guest: well try to modify there is that the five-year period is an improvement for small divisive, but not legitimate for big corporations. by the way, i use e-verify for everybody that i employee in my office. in capitol hill. and it is voluntary. and maybe most numbers of congress do. host: why do you do that? proposingi am something, don't you think i ought to do -- ought to live by it? host: what about the farm? guest: the family farm, we do not hire help. grandfather, son, grandson. if you hire a neighbor, you know who they are. we can operate a family farm without outside help. that is the whole part that point of a family farm.

-- that is the whole point of a family farm. host: there is a dispute over farm laborers. guest: right, fruits laborers -- host: what is going on here? guest: until a couple of days ago, i thought this was the least controversial aspect. now it turns out to be the thing that may break the bank. it is a dispute between corporation forms like you have in california, florida, fruit and vegetables, and the unions. what is the wage that is going to be paid? i feel that the free-market ought to determine the weight. . evidently, they have wages that some fear those wages will go down. some fear who is going to determine what the wages are. a dispute thatto has been settled now between business and unskilled workers.

maybe people working at a motel for example, construction jobs. host: but this is different, and you think this could hold up any sort of -- guest: it was never an issue. i thought it was settled a long time ago. i'm not in a group of eight that is presenting that program today. host: we are hearing that they are unlikely -- likely to unveil a proposal today. we will go to glenn in california, independent scholar. thank you for waiting. caller: you have come a long way, greta. host: thank you. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: for as long as i can , whener, ronald reagan he and his administration allowed foreign companies to come in and buy american companies, -- guest: my reaction to that would be when you have a president of the united states that takes along with the pope, along with

margaret thatcher, take the biggest enemy of the united states has ever had -- the soviet union -- and peaceably that nation is broken up and no longer a threat to us, i would think you would be praising ronald reagan instead of finding fault it is that had save this country billions of dollars that we would otherwise be spending in nato right now. host: your thoughts on margaret thatcher passing away. guest: i'm going to give a speech for her. the main thing for is that she saved britain from socialism and and she gave great moral leadership. host: are you or do you know of others that are going to the funeral next week? guest: i don't know anything about it. .aller: this is bill i have always voted democrat for the last election. and i switched over and i voted republican. but i did make one observation

that i would like to bring up. everybody keeps talking about this taking away these entitlements. we are trying to get close to the budget, which is a good thing. you have to run the government is same way you do a home. but one thing that did occur to me is that when we infused all this money into the country, into the economy, from these entitlements, that was a lot of money. including people working and stuff. --t about all the wedge wages that ratcheted their way up from all of the rest of us? if you are going to go back to where we were before they these entitlements and take away these lowerements, what only the wages back down to where they were before? they arer people -- falling behind when you take away their rates and minimum wage. host: ok, bill?

guest: i don't know if we have two worry about wages coming down. i do not see deflation here. there is deflation and some other countries of europe, but i do not see it happening here. host: a follow-up on you talking about running potential employees through e-verify, did anyone ever come across, show up being a legal? guest: i've never heard of one. but you have to have to ask my office manager. host: another issue for you, the senate judiciary committee taking up the nomination today , to sit on the court of appeals for the district of columbia' circuit. how far will republicans go to block mr. obama's nominees. what you think about this nomination, do you plan to block it? guest: will not go as far as

the democrats did in 2002 to block us got up. they had seven filibusters against them, held him up for three years. he had to go back into private law practice because he wanted -- he had to live. they did not want estrada to be on the court. they did not want him to be on the court because he was hispanic. they felt he got on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, then he would be the first one for bush to put on the supreme court and for some reason or other, republicans would not -- would never have the chance to but a hispanic on the supreme court. the bottom line is, we are not going to do that. is already some surprises that might come up in a hearing, but i believe there is no question about qualifications. the point is, is there something in his -- that we will not have judicial temperament, that he is going to see things through his own eyes as opposed to the eyes

of the law and the facts of the case. that is what we want to make sure. people keep their personality out of an individual case. host: the washington post editorial writing this -- republicans are doing the obstructing now. no matter who started it, referring to estrada, it has to stop. a frustrated majority party will at some point given to sensation -- to tim tatian. -- to temptation. guest: you would have to amend the constitution to that. i do not know where they are coming from. if you have personal contact with of editorial writers, would you please tell them we have approved 178 judges, and only two have been disapproved? do they want to have 100%? and that what it takes to satisfy them? 87 vacancies today, there are 67 of those vacancies we do not

even have a name up here from the white house. we cannot do things in the senate until the president sends things appear. so why doesn't the president get these names of your if you want this to approve them? it is the republicans' fault? that is what the editorial seems to imply. host: john from new orleans. go ahead. say,r: i would like to the name of this country should be changed to united corporations of america because the corporations are running this country. i would like to say entitlements -- it is a change we pay into those programs. they are not entitled. we paid into those programs. i do not think the budget should be balanced on the back of people, poor people that have built and work hard to run this country, and also with guns,

these comments have been going on for years. , and the republican party some democrats, did not do anything. did not do anything. and now we have a president in a few good people, gop's as well, trying to do something, trying to do the right thing. what the president is blocked. every aspect of the way. no, no, no. guest: the president is not a victim. he has done very well. fors setting a high bar minorities in america. it is very good. it proves that the system of government that we have in this country is not what this lady just described. it is an opportunity. the president has proved it is at country of opportunity. host: the 2014 budget proposal unveiled today on capitol hill. cpi for social security in exchange for more tax revenue on the table. and that something you could agree to? guest: changed cpi brings in

more revenue because it does not adjust your inventions on your income tax automatically every year, so you are going to end up paying more taxes if that goes through. i think the way we should be talking about this is not just a little change of social security and medicare. we need to work with the socialnt to strengthen security, medicare, preservative because if we do not do something pretty soon, there is not going to be any medicare. after 2033, people your age will only get 75% of what i get. the point is, it is part of the social fabric of america. and he to be maintained. be maintained. the trustees look ahead 75 years. as a sort of reform that we also do do what they suggested what the president is suggesting will fix it for two or three years out and we need to have a 75 year view of changes of entitlement. or the lady that found fault with the use of the word

entitlement -- maybe it is not good word, but it does not mean that it is something that that person has to earn. that person has earned social security and medicare. if she hass that worked so many quarters and she has had a certain amount of income, then the point is she has earned it or she is entitled to it. it is not a derogatory term. this comes out of my town meetings, that people feel when you use the word entitlement, it is like you worried adding welfare. no, welfare is welfare. and social security is social security. one is on entitlement, and the other one you're not automatically entitled to. host: a report last week showed a 35-year-old male retiring will get -- it will cost $100,000 more in medicare cost than what they put into it over the years. guest: if there is anybody six years old listening to this program and they wonder what is wrong with medicare, it is the fact that we pay in about one

dollar for every two dollars we're going to get out of it. how can any trust fund last for a long that way>? host: senator grassley, to every much. guest: thank you. host: coming up on our last hour, our spotlight on magazine series continues. the christian science monitor on the dealmakers and congress. on the korean peninsula this hour. primeury -- south korea's minister says the prospect of a north korean missile launch is in his words "considerably high." is it is expected to be a medium-range missile with a range of 2100 miles. capable of flying over japan. earlier, defense ministry --icials say profession preparations appear to be complete and the launch that take place at any time. here in the state, first lady michelle obama heading to

chicago. she will address the conference on gun violence and speak with students at a high school that has been deeply affected by gun violence. with congress poised to begin to debate tomorrow, the white house continuing its push for action this week. you can hear the debate on gun control in the senate live on c- span2 tomorrow. while the first lady is in chicago, president obama obama that the white house during earlier today, he sent congress -- his $3.77 trillion budget. the president of the proposal also includes an additional 1.8 trillion dollars in deficit reduction over the next decade, bringing total deficit savings to $4.3 trillion based on administration's tabulations. the president unveils this proposal at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. you can hear that rose garden event live here on c-span radio. those are some of the latest

headlines on c-span radio. she was her husband's political equal. she never went too far within what a proper of victorian or early praetorian lady should be. but everyone knew that they shared an office. at was active in discussions the many state dinners they had. she was not a prude, but she was very much a woman who knew what she wanted and set her rules out and everyone had to play according to those roles. and she was respected for it she was very popular. >> our conversation with historians on sarah polk, wife of the 11th resident james polk, is now available on our website, c-span.org/firstladies.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: our spotlight on magazine series continues with a look at the upcoming christian science monitor cover story on dealmakers and congress. david grant, who authored that, is here without this morning. you can see on your screen on the christian science monitor's website. talk about how deals are getting done in a different way today than they did in the past. explain. guest: sure. there are a couple of things that are different about congress today that are fundamental changes. the first thing is, as senator joe lieberman said, if you wait for the moderate to come around and to be available to cut these deals, you will be waiting a long time because there aren't that many of them left. there is no centrist caucus that can come together and put enough votes to move things through congress could what you need are folks that come from very ideologically divergent places, from marco rubio on the right to guys like chuck schumer all the way on the left to take

upon themselves to legislate and split the difference between the two parties. that is a fundamentally different change. there is also increased emphasis on timing. in 1986, when immigration reform and tax reform passed, that was at the end almost during an election. now all of the energy is rests tightly against being right after an election because people are afraid that in 2014 they will be caught up and folks will be on election mode again. be madee that deals can is complex versus the past. host: with the senate's kicking off debate and holding a vote forward on gung legislation, we are hearing about the two of these people that are cutting deals. that is senator joe manchin and pat toomey, republican of pennsylvania. the two of them coming together

on background checks. explain where they come from and how it is that those two got together on this issue. is almost the exception that proves this role. he is actually moderate democratic and a red state. to me have a lifetime a rating from the nra. is implement of what i said. he comes from the tea party. he is the head of the club for growth, which is a fiscally conservative organization. represents pennsylvania, so he is in a blue state. he has got things going on, as well. but he would be from that very clear, conservative credentials who says this is something i can work with you want. so he found somebody in the democratic caucus and someone --m the public and congress

caucus it is saying this is something i can get behind. that authority make that has to happen. whether one person comes from the middle -- you definitely fromthat by in -- buy-in somebody conservative or liberal to bring that along. host: when senator's mansion s manchin -- senator and toomey hold that conference, what you think that says on the the gun-control issue not only to the senators -- the republicans in the senate but the republicans in the house? guest: it remains an open question how republicans in the house will handle any package. how long it will have to go in the judiciary committee because house speaker john boehner has said all of the legislation that is important will have to go through regular order. what it says to republicans in the house is look, these are people in the senate that have

deeply conservative printable's , -- principles. they're ok with this, and they are as conservative as you are. that pave the way to get traction in the house. guys in suburban philadelphia will look at pat toomey and say, thank you for doing this. getting this moving. the senate passing a bill, the house passing a bill, is never a guarantee that the other one will do something with it or it will look like with the other chamber passed when it is done. but when you have that sort of guy like at pat toomey that is involved in a, that definitely ups the chances that the other chamber will look at it. host: when senators manchin and toomey hold a conference call -- hold their conference, go to c-span.org. john boehner will talk about the congressional agenda at 10:00 a.m.

president obama is in the rose garden talking about his 2014 budget proposal. program notes for you on that. you profiled several people in this piece. you call them political entrepreneurs. what do you mean by that? guest: i think lindsey graham is the best example of this. these are folks that are willing to go where it is dangerous, where it is uncomfortable for their party, made for themselves sometimes personally, and set up shop and say how can i fix this, how can i find a conservative solution to immigration reform, how can i conservative solution to social security? that one other people see something that is dangerous or something that could dislodge them from office, they think that is why i am near. that is really the difference. some people get cal by that. no one -- none of them would byr say that they get cowed that, but they do take a lot of

heat and abuse for that come up are trying to get into the holiday makes. but they see that as to be agitators. host: how risky is it for lindsey graham to be negotiating on these issues? guest: before the 2012 elections were over, a lot of these groups, guys that look to primary republican senators, before the last election was over were already saying, wait until the next election because we are going to get lindsay graham. so there are people out there with a lot money and a lot of political power that would like to really take it will run at some of these people because they made themselves vulnerable. in the past, it is maybe been a little bit easier to attack some of you guys because now you are seeing graham getting a lot of support from pro-immigration reform conservative groups. but he build effort himself -- built that for himself.

he said, u.s. should support me, i will be here, i will fight for this. senatorat brings us to coburn who does not have to worry about political fallout because he is term omitted. dr. coburn is a fascinating character in general. .e is very unique in congress he is a republican, he is as conservative as any republican in either chamber. he does not go to the republican national convention. he is a maverick lawmaker. savehe says i'm here to the country he means it. i think that gets the flexibility both intellectually and politically to go after things like a grand bargain on fiscal issues. , moresmall tax increase revenue for the government, is less important than actually fixing the country. this is a guy who does not operate by the same partisan roles as everybody else, and

that is what makes them so effective in bringing some of his colleagues along. you do feature democrats as well. chuck toomer is on your list. -- chuck schumer is on your list. fascinatinger is a character. hehas earned the fact that is somebody who when you get into the legislative trenches, he will be there and he will work extremely hard to get things done. he is part of the filibuster negotiation, he has been on guns, although he did not turn out to be the pivotal person on guns. he pushed that issue a long way. he has been on immigration for a long time. time and again, this is a man who can do the political game and understands that very well, but he cannot subdue the policy game and the intuitive feel for legislative -- for legislating a something that chuck schumer has in spades. host: on the policy game, what part of this is politics that senator schumer sees a win-win

on guns and immigration? guest: that is unimportant part of dealmaking. important part of dealmaking. all editions understand politics. they have been elected. thatsay this is something can stand up politically. you need that understanding and that awareness to make these deals last. without that, i do not think you can -- they will not survive. they will not carry on. you need some people in there andthey get both parts understand them. chuck schumer definitely does. host: dell makers is the cover story for christian -- dealmakers is the cover story for christian science monitor. unveiled his 2014 budget proposal to congress today. san diego, joel, republican caller. weler: from my standpoint,

are on the sidelines talking about dealmakers and personalities and chess masters, but what is actually going on is they are trying to you wrote our second amendment rights. they are to take away our constitutional rights. it is not a game. it is not funny to me. it is not cute. i'm not find anything neat about it. they are not celebrities. they are eroding our second amendment right that our to thers fought for grave. and i will fight for to the grave. take awayots try to my constitutional rights, i am going down with a fight just like evan t and 76, baby. 1776, baby. don't touch the constitution. it is not sensible. i am retired navy, i defended the decision of the united states. don't mess with it. host: all right, joel. gun legislation. guest: gun legislation evoke

strong reactions on both sides. victims of gun violence feel strongly in a different direction. but that is what elected representatives are there to interpret, to figure out how do you split these very emotional, very defensive issues. that is going to be the test going forward. that is what you need guys who understand the politics of both sides in the room talking about why you need toomeys and schumers at the same time. there is no easy answer to that. that is why having these guys in the mix is incredibly important. host: that collar echoing these since it -- sentiments that economize is not a copper mine, it is caving on your principles. -- this is is link something lawmakers have had to deal with for centuries. how do you make your way forward? that is the discussion of the public telling of its or the

marketing of these issues. you need to be able to say from a conservative perspective, this is how this deal works. perspective,l this is how this deal works. we can both walk away saying we do not like these things, but at the end of the day, we have got something that works for all of america. it is a country governed by people who are very split on these issues. that means to get something done, you have to cave or compromise. without caving being a real option, caving means nothing. i think americans are fed up with nothing. host: republican caller from tampa, florida. caller: thank you for taking my statement. i agree with the last independent caller. 90% of americans want to have -- the amended to the position, all the snow that is not going to happen.

dealing with senator schumer, he is not an honest rocher. any deal getting done will be in his favor. we all know that. thank you for taking my statement. have a good day. guest: certainly be interesting if they were to take a constitutional issue together, as he said, that is very unlikely to pass or to go anywhere. there were ways that the federal government could interpret the second amendment in ways that were not just unlimited access to weapons for everyone. that was written by conservative jeffersons, not the liberal justices on the court. clearly, the supreme court has there are reasonable ways of the government can interpret the second amendment in less than a totally absolute manner. again, there is a question of how far you go and do you actually trip over into beyond somethingllowed in

like universal background check spirit we will have to see what joe manchin and pat toomey have to say. host: on twitter, if there are such great deals in congress, why do we have such losers in the leadership? bringing up the question, why aren't leaders cutting these deals? any congressional district, you are managing an entire caucus of people. those present challenges to these folks. one setback, when john baker and -- john boehner was trying to cut these deals, he was criticized for cutting on his members and to doing things behind closed doors. the process of congress is supposed to work where a bill or an idea goes to a committee, they work on it, they pass the committee, goes on the floor of the chamber, gets voted through there, go through the other chamber, they have been doing a process of their own, and then the two committees -- two houses of congress conference them and

work out their differences. no matter the issue, in a matter the problem, that should be the way things work. that is supposed to empower the rank and file members of congress to be a part of these big compromises. that is not how things work right now. but that is the way it is supposed to work. so even the idea that the leadership should be cracking the deal is sort of a -- that is kind of what is wrong with congress. leadership is too involved. they need to devolve that power back to the rank and power. host: lois in tennessee. if that right -- is that right? go ahead. caller: thank you. the dealmakers are being bought by the nra and the lobbyists. they are there to make money. they do not care about the people here. life imitates art. they're making movies everyday. congressman take money and have .orporations make them

look at this, america, wake up. guest: lobbying is not new in congress. likeat something immigration reform where you have plenty of interest groups swirling around him of putting a lot of pressure on these members. ,ut these guys, as you said lindsay graham or marco rubio who has taken a lot of flack for these things, could certainly stand to be politically for going into them and trying to a part of a deal with the other side. working against that current of influence and money in order to get these things done because often times they are against your direct monetary from a political perspective or political standing concern. host: todd in california, you are up next. i wish some of the program, other morning

shows, could look up to you, greta, because you have much more class. you don't dillydally. thank you for that. host: thank you during go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i have been voting for nearly four years. when people say illegal aliens -- i am a u.s. citizen. -- that term is disrespectful. aliens come from outer space. when you talk to the lobbyists, that is who is running america. maybe c-span could do a program on that -- who is really in control? the average person can vote all they want, and this is the person you vote for, but the power goes for the lobbyists during -- lobbyists.

host: let me amend what he said -- these that can negotiate all they want, the gang of eight, but in the end, it has to have a majority of support in the house and senate to make anything happen. guest: part of what i think a lot of scholars today are talking about -- of callers today are talking about the lack of trust in washington. the path of legislation has to stand out over time, to show people that this place works. , we know you are suspicious of us, we know you are skeptical, we know that we just spent watch her years in a pretty -- four years and a horrible political environment. that is how you gain address. that is where these guys are really trying to go to work and say, we are here working for you. we are passing bills, taking on tough issues, we are going to do immigration and tax reform

and gun legislation that does not trample on the second amendment -- hopefully. that is how you address that issue. that is pivotal to that process. host: give us examples of history from your piece where -- past conferences have accomplished this. guest: the 1986 tax reform is a great example of that. at that time, president ronald reagan, the house was held by democrats. ,he president pushed for it and went for the house, the house pushes through, they send it through the senate, and a got bludgeoned in the senate. he came back from the dead, and the party pushing across the centerline. the lesson from that is that these things can happen if all the parties push in the same direction. the president and some strong faction in the minority party together and really make this happen.

i'll also also point out that there was not this golden legislation age in washington. they were brutal. it took years in some cases to be brought to fruition. today, you can see more of it on tv, complaining of that and i -- all-time high. get thingsears to done. some of the lessons is it is bad now, but it was not exactly roses in the past. host: jenna and ohio, republican. caller: what if there have to be a compromise? ourcan't they just leave rights to own our guns alone? with all of these laws that they are putting into effect, they're not going to affect the honest person at all. not in the way that they want. we are the ones who are going to be without our firearms,

without the protection, while those who want them are just going to get them anyway possible. i think that republicans in congress share your concern that the gun legislation currently being propagated is going to fall on the abiding citizens. that is something that the background check, for example, compromised. grants for state schools, and that is not have anything to do with people earn firearms are not. gun trafficking, those are directly related to criminals. the issue is really on back ground checks. the reason that there has to be a compromise is because more than half of the senate and a significant portion of the house and the president of the united states believe something needs to be done. so that can either be stopped in its tracks, and there'll be an argument, or there will be a

compromise and there will be an argument about that. that is the reason why the debate is going on right now. host: democratic caller in new york. caller: good morning. i have two things. i am calling because of the man from the navy who called a few calls back and wants to go to war, revolution, i do not know what he is planning on. but they are all excited about the second amendment. don't touch it. does anybody ever actually read it? and has got, like, four lines. they regulated militia. you throw the words regulated out. roe versus wade, i guess they don't carry the same weight. not understand, these gun people, that they have been bought and sold by the gun manufactured and do not even know it. they're voting against their own self interests. dost: members of congress

read the constitution. they are plugged in. they have read it. whether they interpreted the way that that you would think is appropriate or not, we will see. this question of what is constitutional and what isn't. the heller decision is very interesting. talking about what can and cannot be regulated or what amounts to an actual infringement on the second amendment. i think members of congress see but in a -- not as settled, there is an area the you can work in that has been established by the supreme court. -- the twitter user only people opposed to background checks are the people who go to gun shows to avoid background checks. we are talking about dealmakers and congress, the christian science monitor's u.s. cover story. if you areom

interested in reading it. have there been successes from the people that you profile and the so-called innovate -- gang of eight? guest: immigration is still yet to be done, guns. a grand, fiscal bargain is yet to be done. folks like lindsey graham, they have been a part of the immigration for a long time. , there have been successes on other things. the violence against women act. one of the first things out of the gate this year. they avoided a potentially epic ,howdown on filibuster reform which was a big deal. and then they kept the government open, which i think sounds like a low bar to get over, but that is where we are in congress today. but that was a big bipartisan, very intense negotiation to update different part of the federal government and keep it

open for the next six months. it was done in a non-terroriszi ng type of way. you'll see that that attitude, look, we have been doing this, we are kind of sick of it. setting there conversation for dealmaking. any are not gearing toward of these things will get done. it is difficult to do these big deals. immigration bill is going to be 100,000 pages long. it will be a tough thing. it is more reported that those guys are in the arena now to see how that works out. host: rick in port charlotte, florida. you continue to have a good program constantly. i admire your independence. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: the dealmakers most of

the time ring power to their parties. theink that when you have people that are coming across as -- we need is because this is best for our country. if we follow the constitution, anwon't really have understanding of what our finding father said in the federalist papers. a regulated militia that dealt with people -- the militia was the people. if you had people that were armed, the government could not overthrow you. that is why we had that there. when people start registering guns, like they have done in , downgermany, russia there in south america, everybody that registers guns, then you know where the guns are the. then they compensate -- confiscate the guns. ,uest: about registering guns

it is an interesting point with the aclu and conservative republicans come together and say that universal back ground checks are requiring ordinary citizens, potentially, to keep records of firearm sales is a step along the way. to be fair, if you ask anyone who favors these measures, they'll say that they will absolutely not ever do gun registry. you are sort of saying that they are lying to you, and maybe that is what you believe, but the other thing the caller brought up about bringing power to their party -- these people are all all editions. part of what they do is standing up for being a democrat or standing up for being a republican. they want a party to do well. they believe their principles are the right one for the country. that is part of the package. it is important. we should not see that as nefarious or evil. that is how that works. these it will get voted into

office, they have their principles, they work hard to bring them into legislation, into the life of everyday americans. over time, we should solve these problems. the fact that they have people who do not agree with them, these are the folks that i've written about, are important to bridging the divide between americans that believe the very divergent things. host: in the house on immigration, who are you writing about in the story? guest: lou gutierrez is the muse for the house on immigration. there are eight members of the house that are working together behind croton -- behind closed doors to compromise. gutierrez of the democratic congressman from illinois. representative paul ryan, who does not get enough credit for what he does on immigration, is also part of that group, alongside a representative from florida.

what is interesting about gutierrez is he was here during the last immigration reform debate. withote the house bill now senator jeff flake. he has been on this debate as long as any of these guys, john mccain or anything else. he is an advocate. he has put a lot of pressure on the obama administration to stop deportations. he has put pressure on republicans to stop talking .bout self deportation he is an advocate who now sees that the time is right to do something. iscould be tough, but he also willing to work with and has grown personal bonds with a guy like paul ryan, who is the republican party's vice presidential nominee. you could easily see a case i wantuis gutierrez says nothing to do with this guy. but they are so close.

among the most in the entire house of representatives, a fiscally conservative man is close with gutierrez. these things build on each other. when you build personal connections, the next thing that comes with you not to the person as somebody that is your total enemy. and you can do other things if you can get these big issues done. host: and and cam hill, pennsylvania. camp hill, pennsylvania. caller: republicans are bad people because we hate children and we don't care about anybody. -- it gets soted polluted. we cannot come together on anything, which is a complete shame. immigration is the same way. i do not know what the answer is to any of it. but something has to happen.

i think it is the leadership with reid and pelosi and boehner and all of them. there are commonsense people like coburn and a couple of others who have great ideas that nobody seems to care. guest: we care. i think people in congress see these guys as leaders in that they are bringing their ideas to the table. i think you're concern about this is impossible, that we ,eel that government is rogan that is what's called up the need for these people. just like lindsay graham, if he can do immigration reform and south carolina, deeply conservative state, and survive , i think that just shows that you can do these things. you can do these big things and not pay the ultimate political price. that is what we are working on during this congress. trying to rebuild some of that trust. trying to show that these things -- these can be steppingstones to other big

things. that is what is at stake. another four years like the last four years, i do not think anyone wants in congress. that is what these guys are trying to solve. host: as we talk on this wednesday morning, the senate is getting ready to vote on a motion to proceed on gun control legislation. david grant has been talking about senators manchin and holding aomey conference to talk about what they have come together on when it comes to background checks. here is a tweet from one of our viewers imploring me to read this -- i go to gun shows, and the reason is not to avoid background checks. .emocratic caller from chicago caller: congress is not broken. we are fighting a balance between the two parties. -- a should be a short third-party to litigate what should be and what should not

be. summary has to have that final call. if not, they just fighting amongst each other. we have been a great blog quite a few years now. on immigration -- we have been in gridlock for quite a few years. the nativeion, american indians seem to be fighting their own immigration to get registered. between the whole concept of immigration and the native american indians should actually makes together because they are here in america and they can't actually even get enrolled based on that. host: david grant? guest: on the issue of a third- party, it is interesting because the last election cycle to draft a third-party candidate of some sort, eventually quite unsuccessful in doing so. i would encourage you to think about the dealmakers, the folks that are trying to find ways, people do who are trying to litigate the middle, trying to figure out how to solve things. they act in that way.

are a part of their party structure, but a third-party requires a lot of changes. until that point, these are the people identifying them in both parties. those are the folks that can do the thing that the caller is talking about. host: john, independent in pennsylvania. toomey isrst off, pat gone. he is killing himself politically right now. i received over 20 e-mails from different local organizations, and we are already looking for a new candidate. just like four years ago when the republicans had massive deceits in their primaries am a pat toomey will defeated in the next primary. who said aboutan the supreme court and how the issues have all been decided, on the automatic weapon thing, the supreme court ruled in the 1800's that half a black man was

equaled to one white man. they also rolled in the 1930's that it was constitutional to intern japanese americans and citizens that were born in this country. host: how are you relating that to gun control, john? caller: the supreme court has already settled the fact that they can intrude on the second amendment. i am pointing to the fact that the supreme court has themselves violated because decision. guest: supreme court decisions are never -- that is why there are ongoing. to review what has happened in the past. clearly these are not settled forever, but for the time that we are in now, for the moment that legislators are looking at -- theysort of bills feel that there is an outlying of what people think is within

the rulings of the supreme court, the text of the cuts edition, and what is politically possible on capitol hill. it is an interesting point on whether pat toomey will face some sort of political reprisal for what's to come today, but i will also point out that nobody else is in a bill. so there's a lot of angst and inciting in anger about something that has not actually been unveiled. --hink that speaks to challenges everyone in politics today. , and the matter less politics and marketing matter more. giving people time to it time to explain would be helpful for all of us. host: alan from oklahoma is next. caller: thank you. proud of tom coburn. his stance. one quick thing -- who blocked

the civil rights and who blocked women votes? think about it. host: alan, what are you saying ? caller: it was the democrats. .e skipped over that quickly it was not regarding guns. we're going to have to do something. i do not think background checks are going to do it. are notc weapons available to the general public. you have to have a federal firearms license. host: all right, alan. i will move on to david -- and to daniel in michigan. i want to make a quick comment. i do not understand congress. 90% of americans want to background checks. what