affects legislative debate today. washington journal is next and you can join the discussion on facebook and twitter. . .

host: a good wednesday morning to you. this story on new major economic sanctions leading the headlines. eu imposed tough new sanctions on russia. over to "the new york times," the headline sanctions pile up, russian alarm grows over putin tactics. from the financial times this

morning, the headline u.s. turns screws on russia. that story notes russian powers presented a united front when the eu and u.s. agreed to the toughest sanctions against russia since the end of the cold war. the eu announcement intended to cripple the russian economy and convince the kremlin to abandon its actions. finally, there is the front page of "usa today" sanctions hit russia, where it hurts. that story noting while previous sanctions were focused on specific businesses and individuals, the new set is designed to hit major pillars of the russian economy, including oil and bass and arms sales. the story notes that earlier sanctions were more symbolic and were short of the bare minimum the eu had to do, according to

an analysis at the foundation for defense of democracy. president obama made that announcement at the white house yesterday. he was asked during that announcement by a reporter if the sanctions currently in place are working and if the u.s. could provide lethal aid to the ukraine in the future. >> we think the combination of stronger u.s. and european sanctions is going to have a greater impact on the russian economy than we've seen so far. obviously we can't in the end make president putin see more clearly ultimately that's something that president putin has to do on his own. but what we can do is make sure we increased the cost for actions that i think are not only destructive to ukraine but ultimately are going to be destructive to russia, as well.

host: that was the president yesterday at the white house, reaction from capitol hill, members tweeting out their responses. here is congressman at am shift. the agreement between the u.s. and europe to ratchet up shanks is an important moment in the struggle to reverse putin's land grab in crimea. john mccain writes as i said before america's failure to provide ukraine with a means to defend itself is cowardly. ukrainian president asks for u.s. leadership to help deter russia. we need to answer the call. over to senator chuck shoe mere, threatening the wto and world cup status of russia would get his attention. senator murphy, today on russia sanctions -- on the russian sanctions, it was crossed. no going back to europe. it's decision time for putin. action on russia today does not go far enough. need to impose crippling iran

like sanctions to deter putin. those are some of the responses. we'll bring you the responses off capitol hill, as well. opinion piece in the "wall street journal" today by william galston writes that this is a moment of truth for the obama administration's foreign policy. the administration had formerly accused russia of military intervention in ukraine and released evidence to support this charge. no one is talking about the direct involvement of american forces. the issue is whether we are willing to provide the ukrainian government the intelligence and i would add the arms it needs to defend itself. failing to do so would make accusations just so much empty bluster. we're asking your opinion on those sanctions, and whether you think sanctions are the right strategy as we said our phone lines are open. democrats (202) 585-3880,

republicans (202) 585-3881, independents. tweets already coming in on this topic. one from florida, gordon writes yes, sanctions -- it's good the eu and usa stand together against the aggressive actions taken by russia. it's definitely the right strategy. and one other tweet this morning from factual says he'll let you know if it's the right strategy in about six weeks. also on our facebook page, this morning plenty of comments. paul kelly writes in on facebook page that these sanctions is what a nation which fears then me does. it is not what a valiant defender of liberty does. that is the quickest way to being utterly december pied. and below that, harry walters writes, stand firm, mr. president. ignore the haters. the war managers want boots on

the ground but economic sanctions against putin and russia is the best way to go. we true americans support you and not praise a murderer like putin. as we said, this story getting plenty of play in papers around the country today, and especially on the opinion pages of many of those papers. dr. been carson were writes for the "washington times," and his opinion piece, a foreign policy, he writes in that piece what the obama administration has done in response to this aggression by russia not really much, other than impose toothless sanctions on russian businessmen close to mr. putin but not the russian president himself. is this what ronald reagan would have done or would he have helped pro democracy ukrainians? additionally, he writes we need

to reinforce our commitment to nato and get the former components of the soviet union involved, otherwise mr. putin will do this again. we need to embowl den europe. we're taking your calls this morning on the washington journal. we'll start with eugene calling in from oh high on on our democratic line. eugene, how are you? caller: good. host: new sanctions and whether sanctions are the right strategy against russia? caller: well, unfortunately we have an opposition party in the republicans that is so -- they seem to be so enamored with president putin. if they aren't, maybe they should move to russia. snowden could use the company. the other point i wanted to make, let's give time for these sanctions to work. we got a president with a cool head, a sharp mind, and we just

need to give time for these sanctions to work. host: how much time are you willing to wait? what is the right amount of time to see if these are working? caller: i would probably -- i can't point to an exact time period, be it six months, one year, two years or whatever, but i'm sure it's a lot more time than what the republicans in congress seem to want to give him. so i support the president on this. i think it's the right thing to do, and he's doing a fine job of keeping our troops out of conflict. that's what he promised to do when he got to office, and he's continuing to do that today. host: tina is up next from san antonio. tina, good morning. you're on the washington

journal. caller: thank you. i just have a comment. host: go ahead. caller: well, as far as the sanctions the president said i believe -- i believe it when i see it. just like before. thank you. host: are you still with us? we'll go on to ted in massachusetts on our lines for independents. ted, good morning. caller: good morning. my comment has to do with i guess you call it -- right now we are spending a lot of time taking the moral high ground, and demon icing putin. we should consider their interests. i believe that there's very little comment about the strategic interests of russia in the ukraine and crimea in

particular. they have a plug down here, and i was wondering if that could be talked about a little bit more, because this is their interest, it's strategic, and that's about all i have to say. thank you. host: and joseph is waiting in providence, rhode island on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. this thing about russia, the united states should leave russia alone. you got china, china is going to put sanctions on the united states and this thing about iran, not iran. egypt. egypt, and all the other stuff. you know, if someone in some way -- iran, sweden -- not sweden, pakistan, all them people get together and take israel out, israel should be

gone. israel -- host: we're not talking about israel this morning, we're talking about russia and the sanctions. are you worried about starting a sanctioned arms race here? caller: i was saying the united states should -- host: i apologize for that. we'll talk to david calling in from ocala, florida, on our lines for democrats. david, good morning. david, you with us? in terms of sanctions, possible sanctions coming in from russia on the united states in response to what was announced yesterday, here is a story in the financial times talking about that. the story notes a group of russian lawmakers proposed banning the big ford global accounting firms and two of the largest consulting groups from the country in a sign of growing pressure on moscow's economic policymakers to hit back against increased western sanctions. the main targets of the

restrictions are deloitte, ernst & young, pricewaterhousecoopers, and mckenzie, reads the proposal, seen by the financial times. the lawmakers suggest labeling countries that adopted sanctions against russia, aggressor states. it adds foreign legal entities and individuals registered in aggressor states should be prohibited from conducting audits and providing legal and other advisory services. that's the story in the financial times today. we'll try david again calling in from ocala, florida. david, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys? host: good. go ahead. caller: my question is this. the question you're asking us to answer about the sanctions on russia, i'm not sure that any of us can answer these questions, because we don't know what the actual sanctions were. we don't know the time limit that they're going to put on these sanctions. none of us out here know what you people in washington know

about what's going on behind the closed doors. so the actual question itself is pretty difficult unless you just want to kind of fabricate your own answer to that. am i correct in assuming that? host: let me try to give you a little bit more information on it. here is a release from the european union yesterday talking about what they're trying to do, what the sanctions will be. the r. the european union statement notes that these decisions will limit access to eu capital markets for russian state owned financial institutions and impose an embargo on trades and arms, and curtail russian access to sensitive technology, particularly in the field of the oil sector. the statement from the eu goes on to note the package of new restrictive measures condition suits a powerful signal to the leaders of the russian federation, destabilizing ukraine or any other neighboring state with heavy cost to its

economy. does that clear up where the sanctions are going, dave schmid. caller: that all sounds good, when you read all of that, but when you're on the other side of the fence trying to answer a question, okay, that you really want to answer for someone, all right, and all that you just got finished saying to me, okay, personally, is that here is the doors that we're going to walk through, but there's no substance or structure to the end result or where the path is actually leading us. in other words, if we do this sanction that you mentioned, what would be the results of that sanction? would that be a good thing or bad thing? we can't analyze this unless we have the full information on this. host: we're trying to provide as much information as we can out there. we showed tweets earlier from members of congress calling for providing arms for ukraine and new measures to provide more energy exports to ukraine to

sort of break russia's hold on ukraine. what are your thoughts on some of those suggestions from different members of congress? >> well, it may be that that may work. i mean, but what you're actually saying is you got two or three members of congress that know exactly what's going on. we really don't know what's going on. we would love to answer your questions. we really would. but you need to put the questions on the level, okay, that are not like a little bit of a smoke screen, what do you think about this or what do you think about that. thinking about something is thinking in layers. they could be 15 different layers for this. and if you're going to just take and scratch the surface of one and ask a question, that is pretty unfair to the intelligent people down here that do think in think tanks and do understand what's going on, and do know that there's a lot of layers to all of this. and you give so little information on what do you think if this is going work or not, and the people are sitting back

going well that's just a question what do you think it's going to work? i really don't know what the mechanism is. i don't know what the toos are, i don't know what the avenue is that we're traveling. i know we have people up there, john kerry, and we got the president, and mrs. clinton when she was there. this is the american public, and we're a lot smarter today than we were ten years ago, ladies and gentlemen. you can't just ask a question of somebody, okay, and just have them willy nilly through something up like you ask them a question that they had a lot of knowledge of. am i wrong in how i'm phrasing this? host: we'll try to get through as many of these layers as we can on the washington journal on the issue of trying to break russia's energy hold on eastern europe. here is the story from the "wall street journal." it's an opinion piece by senator mccain coming out july 28th, if you want to go back and read

it. i'll give you a little bit of it. they note in their piece putting mering's energy to use, that will deploy u.s. natural resources to weaken the putin regime and strengthen our allies in ukraine and russia. the u.s. should put that natural gas on the global market, and they go through in that story in detail what their bill does, if you want to check that out, july 28th, in the "wall street journal." go to eric in hollywood, florida, our lines for independents. go ahead. still with us? we'll go to eric in hollywood, florida, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. first time, long time. regarding the sanctions, i agree

with one of the previous callers that the president's handling first of all i think it's good to see it's refreshing someone in leadership of the cooler heads prevail, et cetera. one of the things -- one other thing, if i may, since i'm a long time lister in, regardless of the topic at hand, regardless of what part of the world it's taking place, i play a game and it's amazing how long it takes someone to crawl out of the woodwork and whatever the subject is, to blame israel for everything. now, i can't imagine i'm the only one who feels that way, and is cognizant of that fact. thank you very much for allowing me to voice my opinion. host: eric in hollywood, florida. in st. petersburg florida on our line for republicans. good morning. delphine, you there?

delphine, you with us? we'll go to allen waiting this morning in washington, d.c. on our line for independents. allen, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, the sanctions are a step towards war in that regard. they are a complete disaster. the united states working with russia, if they weren't working for russia you would have won the civil war. in support of the union, it's amazing how things have turned people so anti-russia. we need to work with russia in development. we need to support peace and if we need to -- we need to investigate and see what type of activity takes place from the state department, and they are

the real threats, not putin. they are the real threats. host: that's allen in washington, d.c. this morning. one other editorial this morning, from the financial times, closing a 25 year chapter with russia is the headline, they note in that piece, by ramping up sanctions on moscow in response, the u.s. and its european allies are closing a chapter in their relationship with post communist russia. they are recognizing a relationship. it was once hoped would depart from the suspicious self insolation of the communist era. it goes on to note there is no need for alarm is im. a revival of the cold war will not happen because today's russia is not yesterday's soviet super power. it notes relations with russia will be difficult and dangerous

for years to come. that's in today's financial times. let's go to dan, waiting in pittsburgh, massachusetts. on our line for republicans. dan, good morning. caller: thank you for taking myal today. i would like to comment first of all on sanctions. you know, it seems to me that the united states in the last two administrations, bush included, we are -- our actions don't see firm enough or aggressive enough. all over the world i see where the u.s. is actually creating chaos by not dealing hammer like blows in bringing some type of finality to these issues that we have going on around the world. you see what's going on, and how they're taking over iraq. iraq we left early, and we left a mess there. libya, the same thing. it just seems like these sanctions are going to draw this

and drag it on for years. ukraine we should be giving them all of our -- whatever they need to get the job done and finish it, rather than drag this on and on. that's my opinion. host: that's dan in pittsburgh, massachusetts. you might be interested in senator roger ricker's comments yesterday. he talked about what he thought were some of the failures of the obama administration in dealing with this situation. >> i'm very disappointed in the secretary of state, and i have a lot of company in that respect. and, of course, he represents the administration's policy, no question about it. i don't think anybody in a responsible position in washington, d.c. would have advocated the united states becoming militarily involved with helping the ukrainian

democracy resist the russians. i think that is something that simply could not have been attained, nor did we have the stomach to do that. there were so many ways that we could have helped ukraine with assistance, with alarms, and instead, you know, the meal is ready to eat, and first aid kits and things like that. so i'm disappointed with a lack of giving the ukrainians the ability to defend themselves. host: that was senator ricrker on this program yesterday. here is a quote in the "washington times" from german chancellor angela merkel. one of her quotes also sent out on her twitter page, as well, one of the tweets came from the president of lithuania who

welcomed the decision via their twitter page but expressed concern that france would maintain its deal with russia. that's tweet noting that the president welcomed the eu decision on a wide range of sanctions on russia. unfortunately nothing stops the deal -- the french naval deal. we'll go to john waiting on our line for independents. caller: good morning. last september i spent a month in eastern europe, and 20 minutes from ukrainian border. and i think overall, the economy rules the world, not the politician in washington who got elected four years ago. and it was -- i've been interested in politics for 45 years. i owes caped check oh slovakia

in 1969, after russia's invasion. so i have my feeling towards them. but i think if we would have helped economically with ukraine, you know, that is the breadbasket of the war. why don't you give them the power the opportunity to workings to make the money. everything else will fall in place. and i've seen that and i'm talking to people and i was asking them simple questions, what do you think about the u.s.? and i was very, very surprised and actually sad of the negative comments they had on us. so they said that russia is very resilient. one more thing that we probably don't think that much, we have -- we cannot export that right now because we have no facility, number one.

in two months it's going to be closing europe. what is putin going to do? is he going to shut off the gas again? and have millions and millions of the people suffering? not only from an economic point but also providing people heat for their houses, that is something that we definitely need to look into. and that's all i have to say. host: the "washington post" noted in their story yesterday on this topic that economic sanctions imposed on russia's defense finance and energy sectors could greatly impact european unions economy as part of that they put out a chart noting how much russia relies on the eu and vice versa. russia relies on the eu for 42% of its imports, 53% of its exports. on the other side of the chart the eu relying on russia for 12% of its imports, and 7% of its

exports. you can see that chart from yesterday's "washington post." the story headline, europe's economic ties with russia loom large. i want to stay on this topic for a few more minutes but point out some of the other stories going on around the country. so we'll be taking your calls in just a second. i want to point out the front page of the "washington times," house gop raises the steaks with bill to deport children, talking about the ongoing crisis on the southern border. house republican introduced a bill tuesday to deport the surge of children crossing the border illegally and just enough money to house and care for the children through september far less than what president obama wanted. the story notes the bill sets up a high stakes legislative match between republicans and senate democrats who called for five times as much money and rejected proposed changes to the 2008 law that would make it easier to deport those children.

that story in the "washington times" this morning. we're going to be talking about that subject in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. we're going to be joined by congressman steve pearce, republican of new mexico. he was on the house gop working group on the crisis at the southern border, and we'll be talking about that proposal with him. also in legislative action yesterday, on capitol hill the senate approved robert macdonald to be the next head of the department of veteran's affairs. the story notes republicans join democrats to approve macdonald as the va secretary, an easy confirmation that was expected after the former gop donor and senator pledged to quickly reform the va. mcdonald didn't receive a single no vote, that story from politico. i want to get to your calls. vickie is waiting in anchorage, alaska, on our line for republicans. we're talking about the new sanctions on russia from the u.s. and eu.

do you think sanctions are the right strategy in this ongoing conflict? caller: i think the sanctions are good, but we're not limiting his trade with china. china is staying on every economy on the planet. they have no restrictions at all with china. china is not having to stick with any sanctions with anyone. so don't you think they should also have to be participating in what's happening in the global markets, since they have free trade everywhere, and they're just providing arms and everything else. host: you think the leaders of the eu need to take sort of a wider view here on around the world? > caller: yes, i think china is getting free access to everything. freer free to go to china. when we shut the arms down somewhere else, china is giving them arms. when we help china, it helps

free access all around the planet, and they are giving under -- i just think that the little bit we are doing the putin he has another partner right there on his border. i mean, honestly. host: on our twitter page, it's good to bring europe along in confronting international aggression. that's the only way to protect democracy. go to lewis waiting in texas on our line for independents. lewis, good morning. caller: i think the question this morning, i'm going to try to be brief, i know you're moving on to another topic soon, i think the question presumes that it's a good thing for us to continue this game of gio political maneuvering concerning oil, and gas, and i mention that

because there's good information that the web site global research that talks about the -- the energy issues underlying what's happening in the ukraine. i think if we -- if we step back a little bit from all these events and we could -- we could -- rather than continuing what we're doing in the ukraine, we should be doing what germany is doing. we should be trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and trying to use more renewable energy. germany develops over half of their energy now from wind and solar.

if we did the same thing in our country, which has far more physical territory than germany, we wouldn't have to be subject to the power of the oil companies like chevron, who are trying to develop the gas resourcesser in crimea, and maybe the -- among the main reasons why we have so much involvement in ukraine right now and why the situation is like it is in ukraine. that's my comment. thanks. host: that's lewis in texas. the board of "new york times" also writing about this topic today, stronger sanctions on russia at last, is the headline of the lead editorial. they note in that piece economic sanctions are flawed and double

edged weapon but short of arms force they're the only tools at the disposal of the west right now in its dealings with president putin. secretary of state john kerry also in front of cameras yesterday held a news conference with ukraine's foreign minister. during that news conference was asked by one reporter what the u.s. would do if russia actually invaded ukraine. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> the president has made it clear that many different options, but that would be taken, needless to say, as not just a violation of oil, but an exceedingly dangerous action which would wind up with, you know, the most severe possible kinds of isolation and sanctions possible.

and germany, france, other countries in europe, would clearly join in to that and would have a profound, profound impact on the russian economy. i would believe for the very reasons that it hasn't happened yet that president putin understands that, that the risks are enormous. host: senator kerry yesterday. we're getting your thoughts, your reactions to this announcement yesterday to this new round, this tougher round of economic sanctions announced by the eu and the u.s. phone lines are cope en. kevin is waiting in indiana on our line for independents. kevin, good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi, kevin. caller: i absolutely agree with the sanctions. i'm just sad to say that i think had these been done earlier we could have possibly averted this thing getting shut down and some of this other business going on over there. it's just been a real mess.

host: all right. kevin, what do you think the right strategy should be here, now that we're at the point of new economic sanctions. do you have a time frame in mind of how long we should wait to see if they work? caller: i don't think it should be very long. i'm thinking within a month if there's not pretty serious changes they need to talk about policy changes, for sure. host: that's kevin in indiana this morning. walt writes up, what happens if america supplies ukraine with russia with weapons and russia invades? talking about the eu and their involvement in these sanctions. here is a piece from the "washington times" this morning talking about the history of what happened here, noting the european union agreed to place sanctions on the broad sector of the russian economy.

some eu members, notably germany, had been reluctant to impose sanctions until the downing this month of the malaysian airlines jetliner that killed at 298 people aboard. the west blamed a missile fired by russians backed separatists in that incident. tom is calling in from clinton, maryland, waiting on our line for democrats. caller: yes, i was speaking about the gentleman, he was on yesterday, about us providing arms to the people in the ukraine. i hope the united states doesn't do anything like that, because the right thing is -- russia providing those people with the high power weaponed who had shot down the aircraft, they shoot down russian planes, we might be in a war, and i don't think we want to get into that kind of situation. so i would think we would

keep -- hoping to keep arms away from ukrainians, and that's something -- if something happens we have to do something different. host: do you think sanctions are going to work here? caller: i hope they do. i hope they do. but it remains to be seen. i hope they do. host: tom in clinton, maryland. we come back to this topic in a second, but also wanted to -- one of the stories leading several of the papers, especially those in washington and virginia yesterday, the gay marriage ruling upheld in u.s. appeals court story that came out late monday. joining us on the phone is robert barnes from the "washington post," the supreme court reporter there. mr. barnes, want to talk about this ruling in the fourth circuit court, and this had a broader impact than just in virginia? >> well, it does.

the fourth circuit covers virginia, west virginia, maryland, south carolina, and north carolina. and after the maryland -- is the only one of the states right now that currently allows same sex marriage. after the ruling yesterday, or the day before yesterday i should say, the attorney general of north carolina said that he would stop defending that state's ban on same sex marriage because clearly it's a decision that's going to have to be decided by the supreme court. and there are challenges in all of those states. host: we're showing our viewers the front page of yesterday's "washington post" with your story, fourth circuit rejects virginia ban on gay marriage. talk about the fourth circuit court a bit historically. is it more conservative? is this ruling seen as a change for the court? >> historically it has been more conservative but that's not the court's reputation right now. it's more -- they are more democratic nominated judges on

it, for instance, than there are judges who were nominated by republican presidents. this was a panel, so it was only three judges, kind an interesting mix. two of the judges had been both nominated and then recommended by republican and democratic presidents, and so it was a bit of a mixed court, which is interesting in that way. and the other thing i would say is, you know, all of these are sort of building up to the supreme court. so now the fourth circuit has ruled in virginia's case, the tenth circuit has ruled, saying that the bans in utah and oklahoma cannot stand. and so what this led to is a rather extraordinary winning streak for proponents of same sex marriage. ever since the supreme court ruled in june of 2013 that the

federal defense of marriage act was unconstitutional, at least part of it, the proponents of same sex marriage have won every challenge that they fought in federal courts, all around the country. host: your story yesterday included the map showing the changing landscape of gay marriage around the country, the darker shaded states on this map, the darkest shades are those that allow same sex marriage, the ones in gray where the ban has been ruled unconstitutional, and it's pending appeal, and then the lighter shades there where the ban has been challenged. speaking about the virginia ban specifically, when does this take effect and when might same sex couples be allowed to start being married in virginia? >> well i think it seems likely that won't happen for a while. the ruling itself doesn't take effect for 21 days, and so that gives a chance for opponents to

either ask for a stay of the ruling or to ask the full fourth circuit to review this panel's decision. and the supreme court as you probably know has stepped in in a couple of these states where the band has been overturned, and they have said no marriages until things are sort of finally settled. host: the supreme court reporter with the "washington post." appreciate you joining us to give us an update on your lead story from yesterday's paper. we got i a few minutes left in this segment of the "washington journal." we're talking about the u.s. and eu's new sanctions on russia asking if it's the right strategy. that's the headline from the financial times. us and e u-turn screws on russia. let's go to freddy waiting on our line for independents.

good morning. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about these sanctions on russia. i feel those are acts of war. i think any war with the russia would be a nuclear war, and actually sanctions in this whole attack on russia is a march to a war that no one wants to ever have to deal with, but at the rate they're going they're going to have it. i think that our country participated in the overthrow of the government of ukraine and now we're playing into the other cause, we wind up in a war that costs the entire world peace and harmony. host: how did our country participate in the overthrow of ukraine? caller: billions of dollars pumped into ukraine, creating some kind of democracy. billions of dollars.

and then as the government toppled the cia director to direct the ground attack, did not agree with the overthrow of the government. yes, we participated, u.s. participated in that, 100%. host: where do you go to get your information about these issues? caller: i get my information from democracy. now i get my information from the nation. i get my information from the internet. i get my information from multiple places. multiple news sources. host: that's freddie. and he's going to be our last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." we'll talk about border situation with congressman steve pearce whose border runs along the border with mexico. and diana degette will join us. we'll be right back.

>> sunday on book tv's in-depth, former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul has written more than a dozen books on america's education system. join thes of can as he takes your calls, e-mails and tweets live for three hours. tune in next month for mary francis berry, and supreme court expert discusses court sessions both past and present. in december, american enterprise institute president and noted musician arthur brooks, in-depth, on c-span-2's book tv. television for serious readers. american artifacts on american history tv, this weekend our

visit to the national security archives at george washington university reveals declassified documents, 50 years ago this week congressman passed the act giving president johnson broad powers to wage war in southeast eshah. watch more american history tv next week. while congress is in recess american history tv will be in prime time monday through friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, featuring events from watergate on its 40th anniversary, on cp-3. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public

service. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman pearce is a republican from new mexico. many of the recommendations of that working group are included in this new $659 million border bill that was unveiled by house republicans yesterday. can you break down that bill for us, what the $659 million is for and what some of the policy provisions are in that bill? >> basically, the idea is to get children back reunited with their families in their own countries, and then we got to absolutely secure the border. so as you can guess, about two thirds of the bill is for border security. send the national guard to help give humanitarian relief at the border, free the border patrol up to go back and take care of their jobs just patrolling. then secondly, the humanitarian

aspect, absolutely we have to feed and house the people who are here. we have to deal with the policy but simultaneously we have to understand that these are human beings so there is about a third of the bill, about $100 million for humanitarian assistance. then we deal with the problem of what's driving them here from their countries, and we're going into those three central american countries asking them to beef up their border security. when our trip went to honduras and guatemala, rafts going back and fort all day long, all night long, inner tube rafts carrying from two to ten people, they just go across the river and the border agencies from both states sit and watch that, and then finally we're asking those countries, and they have since done this, but it was not illegal to smuggle humans and so

now they've both countries passed laws outlawing the trafficking of humans to another country. so a lot of things need to be done, and that's basically kind of the shape of the bill. obviously some need to change, the 2008 law where we get equitable treatment of everyone that is coming in from all the countries. i think that's a piece of the bill. last in, first out, the countries there said send children back. they also said the biggest message you can send to stop people from coming is to just returning those back in the '80s i think brazil started sending a lot of people here, and the only effective way to slow the tide was to return people that had recently come and they see their money wasted. that's kind of the look of the bill. host: for weeks people have been hearing about president obama's request of congress, $3.7 billion for border

security, $1.6 billion for law enforcement, $1.8 billion for shelter, and care. can you explain the big difference in numbers between $659 million that you think is the right answer versus the $3.7 billion? guest: the $3.7 billion is for a year. our bill just covers for two months. so actually the numbers are very strong. what we didn't want to do is just say okay, we're not going to look at this problem again for the next year. we're taking care of the needs through september. then we'll -- that i have goods us more time to take a deeper look. we can evaluate what's going on in other countries. we've got checks and balances for the money they're receiving, but also checks and balances for the money the president is receiving. we just have to stop the problem. that's the main thing. i think all americans are agreeing we want to be sympathetic to those people looking for asylum, we want them to get speedy hearings, and

that's going to require more judges. we also are not going to do it for a full year. let's see if we can't stem the tide first. host: we're a couple days away from congress adjourning for a five week recess. what do you think would happen with this new proposal that was traveled this week? guest: it's coming for floor vote either today or tomorrow. we either pass it or we don't. i don't know what the senate is going to do. that's not the how's problem. i just know the situation needs to be addressed. we just can't have an open border situation. we can't just let people come in here. there is a process to come here legally. i think everyone supports legal immigration. let's get the thing checked in the right lane. host: what do you think of statements from senator harry reid yesterday that this border bill could be used as a vehicle for comprehensive immigration reform? guest: i think that would be a mistake. we're simply trying to cure this

problem. there's no intent for the house to say we're going to take up an amnesty bill, and it would bog the process down tremendously. host: we're talking with steve pearce, republican from new mexico, s second district, the district that runs along the border. about how many miles of your district? guest: 100 miles. host: he's here to answer your questions and take comments. let's go to steve who is waiting in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, on our line for democrats this morning. steve, you're on with congressman pearce. guestpearce. caller: congressman, i have a couple questions. did you see the report that the president made granting amnesty to the 12 million illegals out there? number two if you did do that would that drive congress closer to impeachment proceedings? guest: i don't see anybody on the republican side talking about impeachment. i think that democrats for

political purposes. it would be contrary to the will of the people for the president to suggest an amnesty program through executive order. one reason that we haven't done it in the house is that we're listening to the people. host: bill is up next calling in from new york on our line for independents. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: good. you're on with congressman pearce. caller: good morning, congressman. you talk about 800 million budget, you talk about 600-mile wall, and you still allow the people in your southern borders to hire illegal aliens, and there's no penalty to the employer. wouldn't it be cheaper to make employers responsible for the employment of the illegal people in this country? ronald reagan as governor of california opened up the

floodgates and let the mexicans in. now their income moved up into the northeast, and now the whole country is saying well, let's impeach obama. this has been going on in the 50s, agriculture was basically the migrant workers. but now it's -- now the migrants are in all aspects, because up north i don't know anybody who hires illegal aliens. but in the south that's all you do down there. now you're complaining about the problem you have. host: i'll let you jump in. guest: number one, holding employer accountable i'm perfectly fine with that except you have to have a government that can tell them who is legal and who is not. we always try to follow the law. but we could not tell legitimate green card from a fake green card, and so until the government can identify those people who are illegal, when

they walk in, i would think a thumb print would be pretty easy for those people who are legitimately in the country. the second thing, bill points out that we're somehow -- the southern part of the country, just don't find that to be true. the workforce is really thin right now, and just to drive a truck in my hometown, drive a truck in the oilfields, is $100,000 a year. so it's not like people in the south are using illegals to drive the cost of labor down. the cost of labor is very high. most people that i know, most business owners are trying to follow the law. the government just can't tell us who is legal and who is not with illegal. host: the second caller, the idea of impeach m, talking about this yesterday, can you tell me about what's been going on in your conference when it comes to the idea of impeachment?

guest: actually, nothing. the president, the speaker said for the last three years that he's not going to bring anything to the floor. there have been people claim oring it out in the district. there are people talking about it around the country. the main people talking about it right now, the democrats, they raised $2 million over the weekend talking about that, the political issue. host: campaign committees? guest: absolutely. the democratic national committee, used the issue to frame their side, so i don't see much going on in our conference at all right now. it's not like we're down huddled in the basement talking about impeachment. host: wants me to go back to we need to talk about your border bill that was talked about yesterday, and wants to talk about some of the tactics of that. he says would attempts to attach ram necessary tie execute your bill for good? guest: i don't see that that would happen. sometimes it looks like the

senate does not want to solve the problems. we continue to pass bills, they just languish there in the senate. and if the senator is threatening that he's going to put an amnesty bill on this attempt to solve a short-term problem, that's the -- exactly what i think is making people angry across the country, and justify any by angry, because they just see the games being played here. everyone knows we have a problem, need to solve it. it's going to take money. we're willing to fund what it takes. we need to remember these are human lives we're talking about, and as the senate plays games with the politics of it, then these human lives are being disrupted. host: calling in from maryland, on our line for democrats, joanna, good morning. you're on with congressman pearce. caller: good morning. i think this whole thing comes down to a fear of the browning of america. i think there's a lot of white backlash over this, and i have a feeling that if these were

englishman and english children fleeing unspeakable violence and poverty in their country, we would welcome them with open arms. and what i hear from the republican side is things like they're bringing in diseases, they're diseased, oh, my god, my god, trying to strike fear in the hearts of people, calling -- you just did it yourself, calling them illegals, as if there's no high manty to them. illegal is an adjective, not a noun. i am just outraged that these children are thought of as vermont and diseased, and somehow they're going to pollute our society, that kind of thing. they're escaping. they're escaping horrendous violence. they're refugees, and we should be taking care of them. host: do you want to respond? guest: i'll probably represent more non-cuban hispanics than

anyone in congress. very well aware of the cultural mix that is going on in mexico. we have about 400 years of cultures working together. so the fact that it's jo ann i think who is the one using the striking adjectives about things that would cause fear. i don't hear that in our conference. i don't see the republicans sitting here making these issues. i hear democrats who make them issues.

she said be honest and tell people the benefits that they get at taxpayer expense. guest: well, many of the people are coming to my district, we have about 700 of them many mexico who was just talking to a health care provider yesterday and she's telling me they're bringing the children down if they have sickness or cough. they're seeing them locally. everyone is being fed, they're being housed. family units are being held together in they request asylum,

they're being given a prompt hearing on these are the things that make america stand out. and i think that people are being treated fairly. now, i have seen the locations where they're holding people in large gymnasiums or whatever. those circumstances were just our capabilities are being stretched to the limit which tells us again that if we're just going to have open borders, then we've got much bigger problems than the 60,000 or 80,000 that are coming here in the last few months. host: how much of you time are you going to be spending along the border in your district? guest: we will be where the family units are being housed right now. i think we've got two or three trips into there. we're down right in the border

region two or three times. but 300 miles on the border. sometimes we just have a very big district and we're going to work all the way across it. ost: derek -- gary on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i only got one question. what percentage of the people that's coming across our southern border and what percentage of people is flying in or coming across our northern border. but which one is the worst? guest: well, both borders are very insecure and when we talk about border security in washington, we should be talking about the north and the south. many of the terrorists came across there. right now, the big flood is coming across the southern border because the central american countries. that's just the easiest border to get to but the northern boirsd easily open and gary is drawing a good point that we

borders. on both the bill that's coming before us right now is just to deal with the flood across the southern border. in other words, it's a very specific bill to target that particular policy problem. the securing of the northern border becomes a longer range thing. in fact, it's already in the job of the border patrol, but i don't think that it happens. i don't think either border is very secure, frankly. host: is there any estimates as in what it would take to bring it to the level of security that you would like to see? guest: i think it takes a change the border patrol. this predates president obama and president bush, we've gotten

into this problem over a long period of time. both party, both administrations and so president bush double the border patrol. i can tell you from visiting with the ran customers, they say that border security did not increase at all, that they say the ranchers say they're not going to secure the border until you drive east and west. north and south is how you see the vehicles moving. we had to bring tremendous pressure. this is under the bush administration to get where they would patrol along the border tself. and the people who were closer to the border than that paved road said what about us? so we brought tremendous pressure and finally, they put an a.t.v. track along the fence. and i think we have plenty of resources. we've doubled them. let's just get them focused on

their job. agents tell me they spend six or seven hours a day on paperwork. that's one thing that the national guard could do is go down and process paperwork and let the agents who have been trained for the border be out there. host: and part of your bill that was dropped yesterday also involves opening up some lands held by the department of the interior as well to border patrols. >> a good example is the national pike monument on the arizona border with mexico. it's the area where big signs exists telling americans not to go in there because it's too dangerous. it gives the cartels almost unlimited access to our country and our border agents can't go in because of the national parks and the national monuments don't allow them. so our bill simply says border agencies will have access these federal lands. it's one of the biggest issues that we're facing along the border and it just gives the

unlimited access and the land so that persons americans are unsafe there. host: what do you day to groups that who try to say you're limited environmental restrictions? guest: they are using that with no substance. just take a loofpblg you can even google it. look at the environmental chaos that has caused when millions of people are coming to these national parks through the national monuments and destroying things. we towered in the sequoia national monument. there are limits there where people are not allowed to backpack because the cartels are raising pot back. they simply have shotguns wired up. you walk in there, they'll blow your head off. so our own country is saying please don't go back into these areas. that doesn't sound like an environmental considerations are being well paid attention to at this point. i think that's a false argument that they're bringing.

host: we'll get to as many calls as we can. dave is calling in from wisconsin on our line for i-n-t's. dave, good morning. do -- inns. -- i can'ts. -- independents. caller: you need to start throwing these employees to jail. higher these illegals. you guys can fix this. you've got to have social security number. you can figure that out right away. if one's valid, if one's not. if somebody else is using it. it's easy. and when you take away the employment, people won't come. and you could -- fix this problem a long time ago. guest: again, one of the big businesses is stealing social security numbers or just picking them up and using them. the social security administration says they

themselves can't tell who's illegal and who's not. holding employers accountable while the government can't do its job is not my idea of freedom or my idea to cure the problem. the government should make sure that they can tell employers who is legal and who's not. when i first got here in 2002 or 2003, there was a news release about three million social security cards, blank social security cards that were stolen. if you take a look at the social security card, you've got a three-colored card that was created back 1400 years ago or 70 years ago or whatever it was. there's no modern technology. no chips, no nothing on it. these are agencies that are working 100 years behind times. and they don't know how to stop the fraud themselves. again, you can say that employers are problem but until you can tell employers what is a legal social security card when it looks like the next one? that's a very hard position to ut our employers in.

if we have a thumbprint or retina scan, you're here on a work permit, now, i can put the employers under great sanctions. but until the government can do its job and tell us who's leaguele and who's not, you put a burden on people when there's no cure. host: steve is waiting on the line for republicans. steve, good morning. caller: my question is the manpower, the border patrol strategy training in the past in 2012 -- how do you think that ? pacts our border i think it's drawn more of our i -- [inaudible question] think that's a big issue.

but i don't know -- what the american people need. guest: steve is on the point i was making a minute or two ago but it predates just 2012, the same paperwork requirements existed under the bush administration. i raised great questions with secretary chertoff, with the president himself saying we need the immigration but we need legal immigration. so what are we going to do to secure the border? it was a steve smith of mine who would see -- constituent of mine who were seeing pulled across he border. it's a culture that exists for, i don't know how long. i talked to retired border patrol agents and they tell me that they used to secure the border with a lot fewer people. again, i think a lot of it is the culture that says we're not

going to put the resource on the border. we're going to have you doing paperwork. we're not going to have you out there doing the job. i think steve has an adequate point. host: margaret is on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, congressman. as i wait, there's 100 things i want to say. i'm married to an immigrant. i will respond to -- i think her name is janet. it's such a ridiculous. now we can't say the illegals. i'm tired of two arguments. my husband and i had to go through a long process. we came to florida in the 80's. he thought it was a privilege to be in this country. he worked two or three jobs while simultaneously learn the language. we have borders and laws. we never thought it was nasty or an untenable burden to while we had to follow the law and this

idea. and i work in florida. i can tell you. i worked with persons with isability. this bleeding hearts that say let them come. they come here and this idea that they're all enjoying the american dream what, will you do if you don't have the language. they are in low paying jobs. my husband actually owns his own business now, partly because he followed the law. and he became american. he didn't stop being a brazilian. this ridiculous idea that oh, well, you know, if you're a republican or a conservative, you must hate brown people. you can't say anything. i agree with you. i think we should tell all these braintrusts how many bills are sitting in the senate. guest: thanks, margaret, i appreciate that. and, again, the idea that we can't talk openly and honestly

about the situation is one that is penalizing the country greatly. i think your husband's story is one of many immigrants. they come here for better lives. the come here to feed their family. there's a legal process to do that and we need to follow the legal process. no other nation in the world allows its borders to just be so openly violate. and so are we to be the only one with open borders? there's about six billion people in the world. we can't feed six billion people. we have people who have paid taxes in this country. and they have a right to receive the resources, to receive the benefits that they've been promised before someone else is brought in and saying that we're going to take your benefits and redistribute them here. it's a big question for the country right now testimony host: to new hampshire, georgia is waiting on our line for republicans. good morning, george. caller: good morning.

we hear a lot of people over the last few months since this becomes such a big issue just enforce the laws that are on the books already. i keep hearing that over and over again but yet few have taken the time to explain what are the laws on the books? and perhaps if you could take a minute or three days -- [laughter] depending upon how convoluted this has become and explain to us the basic laws that will on the books and if they do meet the need and while we're stretching this out to the point of a ridiculous argument, it goes on day after day, year after year and midweek it had some help. what are the laws that are on the book and i'll hang up. thank you. guest: thanks, george. first of all, you have to have permission to come into the country. that's one of the basic laws. and you can come here and request asly sum and my district

is an example of how the law is right now. ed we're bringing family units. we're going to give them a speedy hearing. if they're requesting asylum sum -- asylum and the law is being followed the people who are requesting asylum sim, they get a lawyer and they get their ase heard. they with put under the process for asylum and if not, they're asked to return the country and aid the country. those nations were asking please send our children back. we can't give up that next

generation of our culture. and so when we think that we're doing somebody here a favor, we're actually robbing the human resource of the human talent from other countries. and that's something that we just can't ignore. host: and who are those people from the other country that are telling you this? guest: we had meetings with us aid, agencies out on the streets and the honduras and the president and the first lady. host: there's a new poll and i want to get your sense on what you make of this poll. it notes most americans surveyed in the poll released on tuesday said the united states should give shelter and assistance for children of central america coming here illegally without their parents. a non-partisan organization, 69% said that the children should be treated as ref scombriss should be allowed to stay --

guest: yeah. so the -- again, that's what we're using the humanitarian assistance for. we have that bill that says we're going to feed these children. i think everyone would agree with the humanitarian aspect of it. now whether or not that we can take everyone who comes here or whether or not we should go down and start giving plane loads travel and to here. those are bigger questions and those are questions on what we can sustain and when people then have to address the question -- on how much are you willing to do? how much are you willing to give to make that happen, that becomes a different question question host: dean, good morning. pear on with congressman se.

caller: i agree with we thousand -- all eligible u.s. workers to be able to be identified so that like you said, you would have problems with the system much easier. but my big concern is there's scores of employers who abuse that system. they simply hire contractors and there's -- like somebody mentioned before, the people in the back of the shops that don't speak english. these are folks that are hired under the table and are not collecting their taxes under the employer. there's too much going on that makes it a bigger problem. now, question for you. you mentioned before that the democrats are the one bringing up impeachment. the democrats are the one bringing up the diseases that these kids are bringing over and everything. that you agree

unfortunately like fox news and sarah palin and outlines like those are driving the issue? and i'll take that answer off the air if i could. >> yeah, they may be. i don't know. but i don't see republicans in the kroenke -- congress consumed with the issue. we're trying to help the country as best as we can on the issue. there's credible fear there. that's one of the questions i get in a toshiba ya a lot. what about this? -- artesia a lot. what about this? there are good questions that can be q.b.ed about that. but i also don't see republicans being ones to do the fear mongering or whatever. i don't really know if fox news is driving and i suspect what they're doing is responding to a -- vane of of

tremendous concern. if anybody was put in any community, you see states that say you're not going to put kids and put people in our school systems, not in our state. those are democrat states as well as republican states. so there is definitely a national opinion when it comes down to bringing the possibilities of anything into your community. right now, one of the problems that we face is the educational problem. when we're in guatemala, i think it's less than half the people that speak spanish. there are 32 different dialects of the mayan language not even the guatemalan can speak to all of their citizens. so what are we going to do to provide an education for those minor dialects here? yet we're required to give an education.

many questions come up that strain the resources of local communities and they have a right to speak up. host: east point, michigan, is next. ed is on our line for independents. good morning. caller: i've got two comments. this country is built on cheap labor. slavery for 250 years. number two comment i heard him say that him and his wife own a small business. and yet this guy has work worth $22 million -- and number three, we have congress, a bunch of millionaires, they're not looking out for the average american -- guest: well, i would just take issue with the fact that people in congress are doing nothing for average citizens. this year, 17 ranchers were kicked off of their allotments. those are private property rights that the forest service were given they were kicked off. it was our office and the

congressman congresswoman from albuquerque did that. and they ended up reinstating everyone there. likewise, we have some areas of high, high wages and about 250 miles away, we got areas of very low income and low wages. so we took some of the companies over to the low wage area. we hired people. now they get housing back on the east side so they're working two weeks a month on the east side of the state. go back home for a week. we're just doing what we can to make things happen for everyday regular people. for myself, every day i serve, i think i'm serving people like my mom and dad. my dad was a sharecropper when i was born. he went broke doing that when i was a year and a half old. moved to the oil field. took the job at the very lowest level. stayed in there in his entire

working life. they didn't know one political thing. and when i represent, i think i'm representing people exactly like mom and dad. they had a right to raise their kids. they just wanted the government to kind of stay out of the way and let them go to work every day and they would provide for their families. and so i find my service following along those lines. host: crowley, louisiana, is next. joe is on our line for democrats. joe, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. guest: good morning. host: joe, are you with us? caller: yes. i want to talk about the immigration issue and stuff like that. why can we use people to pick cotton, that do our land and stuff, pick fruits and stuff and then call them immigrants and don't want to make them legal? guest: joe, i think the main question is at what point do we stop?

every country has limitations on how many people can come from outside. that's basically because of the job and the economy it will only support a certain population. for instance, china has about 1.5 billion people in the country, about the size of the united states. two thirds of the people live in abject poverty. they have a middle class that's developing but many people are poor. i've traveled there. i've seen that. in india, i've traveled there. a country about the size of the u.s., about a billion people there, largest middle class in the country but still, abject poverty. and so the idea that the u.s. or any country could be the place for all the world's poor to go, that just economically can't work. and what kind of a human consideration is that when if we can, if we were to take the brightest and best from every other country, we rob them of their future. many times, i tell the mexico

kids. i said the worst thing that mexico does is export its children we educate them. we give them hard-working and then they go make an economy in other state. i was encouraging people come back home. make your future in mexico. with good human capital, with good people entering the workforce, we can compete with other states. so it's a constant problem whether it's people immigrating from new mexico, moving from new mexico to dallas or to new york or from el salvador to new mexico. the question now is is it just going to be unbridled flow or not and that's a credible question put in front of the american people. the polls regardless of the one you showed, john, i think the polls say we must get control of the situation. we just can't allow the world to flood in across open borders. i think that's the essential question. host: danes waiting to talk to you on our lines for republicans.

good morning, dan. caller: good morning. i have two quick comments. the first one is when congress comes to an impasse, i believe that the american people should be able to get the vote, the chance to get the vote. that way, the bill passes. that way, nobody is arguing with each opener. the second quick comment is i don't believe these immigrants should be able to vote unless they are u.s. citizens. because i believe obama's pulling them across the border to get a vote and that's it. host: dan, you're saying hold a referendum every time congress is deadlocked? caller: i wouldn't say every time. only when the bill -- i imagine only when the bills are very important such as the immigration and things like that. but yeah, i think the public should be able to take a vote. if nothing happens and if the situation gets serious, i believe we should pass the bill so the public has a choice.

guest: there are definite upsides and downsides to what you're suggesting that comes closer to a pure democracy than what we have. but i will tell you that when we were facing the government shutdown in the middle of the night and we had to pass a bill, this was about year before the actual shutdown, my comment to the speaker was nobody wants to shut the government down. but if it does, why don't we simply during that period reboot -- we call for a reboot expect we let the american people take a look at the 12 or 13 different appropriation bills. we let them assess them line-by-line. we take a month for each one and to get rebooted, to get put back into the system when required at least a four-star rating by five or six million people? at some point, americans are going to take a close look at the way that their tax dollars are being utilized at some of the wasted programs, the duplications.

we could easily cut hundreds of billons of dollars out of the budget just by taking care of duplications. another couple of hundred billons cut out of the budget through the fraud that happens in social security, medicare and medicaid. so i think that the american people are going to insist that we get it right here. but that's one of the areas where i had suggested to the speaker that why don't we do this? we simply go online and let people vote on it. i don't know if it's ever going to happen. host: last caller in this segment. charles is calling from colorado. good morning, charles. caller: good morning. hi, representative. i maybe missed some of this conversation. but it seems -- in colorado here, is an example. we had ice came in and deported many of the illegal people here and the farmers here were screaming because their product was rotting on the vine. and everybody was yelling hey,

just hire americans and they're like well, the americans won't do these jobs. and when they do, they do it for a short period and then they quit. but it just seems like -- i think you mentioned the verify system. that seems like the only way to handle this, is to implement that system in there. and then put the onus on the employers and have heavy fines as escalating as they get caught doing this. because the people that are coming here for jobs and many of the people that are here are here on visa. they came here illegal living room they just didn't come over the border. they came here illegally and just ended up staying here. so that seems to me, the only thing you could do is put the onus on the employers. host: all right, charles. i want to give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: our immigration laws are

broken. so for me, when i talk imgracious i say there are three things. we need to secure the border. otherwise, we have a dynamic problem and it changes every immigration because it takes 20 years to become a citizen. we can do it faster and smoother. once we do that, we can address the people who are already here. many different suggestions. worker i think the guest program is absolutely needed. there are people who cannot find with 7%, 8%en unemployment people are saying they cannot find workers. i think everyone is screaming for us to fix the problem and start fixing it right. i am on board with them. pearce,ngressman steve

thank you very up next, democratic congresswoman diana degette joins us to talk about her reaction about the situation on the border. later, we spotlight in our "cq weekly"ment, a piece. >> a ukrainian security official says pro-russian separatists the mined approaches to malaysia airlines crash site. they turned back today after speaking with rebels. officials say 19 people have been killed in the region in the past 24 hours. meanwhile, russia is dismissing new western sanctions on the country's defense, energy, and financial sectors as "a meaningless gesture of

aggression from the u.s. and european union." envoy said that sanctions "lead nowhere and would not contribute to the de-escalation of the situation with ukraine." we are learning this morning that the last survivor of a crew that dropped the atomic bomb on hiroshima has died. theodore van kirk was a navigator of the enola gay. the b-29 super fortress dropped little boy, the world's first atomic bomb, over here oshima on 45,0006, 1945, killing people. in the 2005 interview with the associated press, dutch van kirk said that his experience showed dot wars and atomic bombs not solve anything and he would like to see the weapons abolished. he was 93 years old. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

on booktv's "in-depth," former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul. conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails, and tweets, live for three hours, sunday, august 3, at noon eastern. tune in next weekend for mary frances berry. author michael korda is our guest in november. and in december, american enterprise institute and noted musician arthur brooks. 'sn-depth," on c-span2 "booktv." american artifacts on american history tv. this weekend our visit to the national security archives at george washington university reveals declassified documents

about the gulf of tonkin in vietnam. 50 years ago this week, president johnson was given broad powers to wage war in southeast asia. "american artifacts." watch more american history tv next week while congress is in recess. american history tv will be at prime time monday through friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues." host: we are joined by democratic congressman -- congresswoman from colorado diana degette. house leaders, republican leaders, released their own border bill yesterday. it was far below the funding level that senate democrats were looking at, that the president was looking at. a few policy provision changes in there as well. your reaction? president's proposal

was for emergency funding for dealing with these children, any of whom are refugees coming across the border. to houseoney we needed them, to get them through the legal system, to figure out their status and either get them placed with family members or send them home. so to come up with so much of a lower amount of money seems to me that what the house leadership is doing is kicking the can down the road more because we are going to have this same crisis later in the fall. we need that money to help deal with the situation. host: what do you think will happen this week on the border issue? is any legislation get moved? guest: we need to move legislation, but the democrats will be reluctant to support someone -- support something that is so much lower than the president's opposable and also fewer policy provisions in it. we would have been willing to support something lower than the

president's proposal if it made a difference and help us deal with this tuition, but i am not sure how this is going to be able to have us help the situation. another subject being talked about his possible movement at the highway trust fund. hill" -- from "the they send back the house bill that was passed with overwhelming support with changes putting the legislation up in the air with only three days left to act before the august recess. what do you think happens with the highway trust fund? guest: this is a bill we have to pass before relief. the last thing we need as the economy is starting to recover not pass thengress legislation for highway projects -- and have highway projects stop work.

the legislative process is working. senate sent the bill, the senate -- the house sent the senate the bill, the senate sent it back. end of theund to the year, that is a good thing. that gives congress enough time to come up with reauthorization. we feel like we are kicking the can down the road again. we are not really tackling these big problems and fixing them in a way that will benefit the american public. happening --think do you think having this fix last through december will be better so that you can address a longer term fix then? or have a longer bill like the house bill does so you can address in next year? guest: i think we need a permanent solution. this chart showing cash balances in the highway trust fund getting down to zero as a projection by august 29.

what does that mean for colorado? saying.his is what i am we have highway projects all across the country, and we have a lot of them in colorado. will states, the snow start to fly in september. we have to complete a lot of these projects before it snows in these projects get shut down. it is important that we do that before we leave. i don't think we should leave until we get it done. host: a recent lease from your office notes that half of the department of highway transportation funding comes from the federal government. diana degette will be with us for the next 40 minutes or so as we talk about the end of session activities before congress. we will start with amy calling in from texas on our line for independents. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead, amy. caller: i wanted to say about the children on the border -- the people getting together to help these children or put them in foster care should be ashamed. the foster care system that we have now is so broken. most of the trafficked kids in the country now come from the foster system. where were they before when the children already here were being put into harel the homes and horrible places? -- into horrible homes and horrible places? do they not matter as much as the immigrant children? guest: amy, i care about all children. of two myself. many kids coming from central america are refugees. many of them have actual family members who live here in the united states. some of them are not. --t we need to do about this

it is a multipronged solution. first of all, we need to get these kids into a stable situation while we figure out their legal status. then we need to get them lawyers and figure out what their legal status is. some of these kids, i have heard horror stories. a 14-year-old girl who has been basically given to the cartels for prostitution. it takes a while to sort that out. but then the third thing we need to do is either find them a place with their families here if they are determined to be refugees or if they have families here. if not, send them back to the country where they came from. the other solution -- and i think this is an important 1 -- engineering genuine efforts in working with both mexico and the central american countries to make sure these kids do not come here in the first place. it is a long and very treacherous road, and many children have died.

if you think about it, as a mom, if you think about the journey they are taking, it is really heartbreaking. so to work with mexican enforcement at their southern border and to work with these other countries to let their citizens know they should not be sending their children unaccompanied to the united states. ricardo is in the week, maryland, on our line for democrats. caller: i really am frustrated and mad to hear the republicans and people calling up talking about the bills that we hold up. i cannot tell the number of filibusters republicans have that theys the bill are holding up. it is a much greater number. would you explain that? guest: ricardo, i am in the house and not in the senate, so

we do not have the filibuster system in the house. but i will tell you in the house, under the leadership of speaker boehner and the republicans, we have the least productive congress ever in the house. this week we are getting ready to leave for a five-week august recess. in october they scheduled another five-week recess cause of the election. my opinion is we should be creating jobsn for the middle class. this highway bill is a good example of something we need to pass, but we need to be doing other things. we need to pass the appropriations bill, look at education. there is a lot we could be doing, and some days i feel like we are treading water. you are right, it has been a very unproductive congress at a time we could be tackling some of these issues that could benefit the american public. host: one of the things you will be doing before leaving for recess, there is a hearing

tomorrow in a committee where you are ranking on the affordable care act. what do you expect to learn from that hearing? guest: we have had a series of hearings on the affordable care act in that committee. i am not sure if it is going to add anything new. i am hoping that next year after we have had a year of the affordable care act that the oversight subcommittee will start looking at some of the data that is coming out to see how many people have been enrolled and to see how many people are enrolled, to see where it is working and where it is not working. any time you are doing an overhaul of the health-care system, you are bound to head issues come up. i think rather than voting to repeal obamacare 53 times, we should be looking at the bill to see how we can fix it and make insurance more accessible for americans. host: when you say you are not

sure what new will come up, are you saying oversight commit -- oversight efforts by the committee have not been positive so far? oversight subcommittee hearings on the affordable care act, for the most part they have been gotcha type of attempts to show it is not working. i am not expecting a lot of new information to come out. for: that hearing scheduled 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. jean is waiting in sterling, michigan, on our line for independents. caller: i just want to make a statement before i start with immigration. a bill onjust passed harry reid's desk that he will not even let go into the senate. so it is not really the house holding up stuff. that is the only statement i want to make about that. as immigration, we have a

national security crisis. it is not just about the children. this is about the open borders everyone crossing. our border patrol is busy with the kids. how are they going to secure this? guest: thank you for that question. the first thing is, i don't know how many bills the house has passed, but most of the bills that the house has passed in my ideological message bills that everybody knows has no chance of passing. there have been very few bipartisan pieces of legislation that have passed the house that could be taken up in the senate. a bill passese does not mean it becomes law. i don't think it is really worth people playing the blame game except for the fact that if you

want a bill to pass and really become law, it should work in a bipartisan way. i am working on a bill with chairman fred upton, chairman of the commerce committee, republican from michigan. the bill is called 21st century cures. it is going to be a very big attempt to restructure our health care system, health-care research at the national drugtutes of health, and and device approval at the fda so we can get yours from the lab right to the patient as fast as we can. this has been a very big bipartisan effort that we have been undertaking all summer and last spring. there are some things happening in a bipartisan way. but i think there should be a lot more. with respect to the questions that you asked about the border, i think you are right.

any sovereign country has got to have a strong border, which is why i support comprehensive immigration reform that will give regular order to the 11 million people who are here who are not on a documented status but will also give stronger border enforcement. i think both of those things are important, and that is why i was very disappointed that speaker boehner decided not to bring up the comprehensive immigration bill that the senate passed on a bipartisan basis. and so that is something that i think could really help. the issue with the children at in immediate emergency that we are trying to deal with right now. the surge of children that came here mostly from central america throughout the spring and summer. many of them were escaping cartel violence or servitude or worse, but some of them were coming because their parents

sent them here. that is a problem that we need to deal with in addition to passing comprehensive immigration reform. host: we are talking with congresswoman diana degette, congresswoman from colorado. she is in her ninth term in the house of representatives, answering your questions and comments as congress wraps up this week of business before heading home for a five-week recess. in brooksville, florida, on our line for republicans. -- to sal in brooksville, florida, on our line for republicans. caller: i don't mind doing construction on the highways, but these construction companies have taken too long completing a simple project. we have a construction project down here which is federally funded. the thing i protest about is they are putting lights up everywhere they are upgrading the roads. there is no need for lighting systems.

people get accustomed satellite systems, even though at one time the stars used to be enough to see. are everywhere. it is urban sprawl. is if what i would say you have an objection to the way they are building the highway, call your local congressperson's call your highway department and ask them. i am sure there are some highway engineers who said that would be a safety factor, what i cannot speak to the issues around local highway construction. burkeon twitter, mylan writes his comments about the affordable care act -- "another hearing on the aca? hearings,ngs, more more money, no results. fire the people in charge -- the republicans." .et's go to armand in lakeland caller: good morning.

i just want to put the kids aside here it puts them aside. this country can put -- can take care of all the kids in the country. if we take care of the border, we would be able to see all the kids and adults coming through. i would love to talk to the gentleman who just got off c-span and ask him when he decided that the verified -- that the e verify program would not work. it would work. the problem is that all small businesses are too big to fail right now because they have the cheap labor. it iseap labor -- democrats and republicans because if you listen to everybody, everybody wants comprehensive immigration. they want to let all the illegals here now stay in the country and get themselves status so they can work. that is for all small businesses of too big to fail. guest: let me jump in and say

that comprehensive immigration , inrm would really include my view, a number of issues. it would include securing the border, which is important. but it would also be for people who have been here for a long time -- they would get in the back of the line of people waiting to become citizens. they would pay a penalty and they would be able to go on a path to citizenship. but then also, what it would do is it would set up a visa program so that agricultural coloradon my state of -- ski workers and other temporary workers -- could get visas to work here so that they would not have to come here illegally. i was telling representative peers as he was leaving that in colorado -- i was telling representativep -- i was telling representative pearce that for many farmers we need to have comprehensive immigration

reform because we need workers to work in our fields, and we do not have enough u.s. citizens who want to do that work for it rather than bring them in illegally, we should bring those workers in, if them temporary work visas, and let them do that. the same thing with the businesses. the ski areas in colorado have been calling and saying we need comprehensive immigration reform. in fact i'm a in my state, one of the biggest proponents of the bill has been the business community. host: kentucky is next. line foriting on our independents. you are on left congresswoman -- you are on with commerce woman degette. caller: if you grant temporary work visas for everybody who is here, you do not know who is here. so would you agree with president obama if you -- if he grants temporary work visas to

everybody here? advocating that we grant temporary work visas to everybody who is here. comprehend --ing passing competence of immigration reform. it would identify the 11 million people who are here who are now under the radar screen because they are afraid they would be arrested and deported. if we have a comprehensive bill, part of that bill, they could come forward, get in line to try to get citizenship. paying aof the line, penalty, or applying for visas or a variety of other things. it is just not a very tenable thing to have 11 million people here who are in the shadows of our society. up theid that clear congresswoman's position, or did you have a follow-up? caller: the president is supposedly going to grant a temporary work visa over the summer. i am just wondering what the

democrats are going to say about it if he'd grants the temporary visas for the 11 million plus because you still do not know who these folks are. guest: i have not seen that proposal. host: martin is waiting on our line for democrats in new jersey. are you with us? caller: yes. i want to ask the congresswoman thinkm a democrat and i that a lot of these immigrants coming here really take america for granted. we have laws on our books that say you're not supposed to be here it legally. a lot of them are coming here to get the benefits, and i think americans will do a lot of the jobs you say americans will not do. i just think we will not do it for the pay that the immigrants will do it for. country ofre a

immigrants. i am the granddaughter of immigrants from russia and ireland. people who have come to this country have come from immigrants, and so we have to figure out how to allow new people to come in that makes our economy robust and it makes us who we are, the united states of america. but at the same time, i don't think we can have a situation where we have a bunch of people here working in a shadow society. i would argue that if you gave them a regular status, either a green card or temporary visa or something, it would require employers to pay them at a rate that would be equivalent to any other worker. what we are seeing is, in the agricultural sector, in colorado i heard about some

people, they would hire them at a very low wage because they were undocumented. so they figure they would have to take whatever they would get. players hired them at a very low wage. at the end of the pay period, they said we are not going to pay you and what are you going to do about it, you are a legal. that is not the right thing to do. s u.s.o disadvantage workers because people are paying people on the black market. it would help legalize wage -- it would help equalize wages for workers who did want those jobs. host: wayne is on our lines for republicans. caller: my question is this. diana -- how would you rate the united states in the world today -- one through five?

>> one is best and five his worst? is that what you're saying? be sure i know the standards here, wayne. caller: my question is this. secure the border, secure the border. the united states, being number one or number 5 -- we can put people on the moon. we can liberate afghanistan, iraq, and pakistan with our armies, but yet we cannot close the border to our own country? come on. i could have that border security in one week. all you have to do is close the border to mexico, and the president from mexico will be at our border baking us to reopen it again for all the trade -- begging us to reopen it again for all the trade that we do, the tourism we send there, all

the billions of dollars they go into mexico from the united states. and yet the united states being as big as it is cannot get one marine out of their prison who has been sitting there for over 100 days? for nothing? first of all, i agree with you. we are the best country in the world, and we are number one. one of the reasons why we are number one is because we talk about these things and we have a grand condition -- drank -- a democrats,tion of republicans, unaffiliated voters, and independence having a robust debate and we can come to a consensus around these tough issues. that is why i am proud to be un-american and why i am proud to be a member of the u.s. congress. because as hard as it is every day, we hammered these things it istil we fix it until

equitable. part of the reason why we have that great country is because we have such diversity. if you travel around the world to other countries, as i have, both privately and in my role as a congresswoman, i see these other countries and i love it and i love going there. but there is not the kind of diversity or the kind of robust debate in many of those places that we have here. and i am always happy to come home, and we should all be proud of that grand condition -- that grand tradition. host: brooklyn, new york. robert is on our lines for republicans. caller: i have two questions. people are fleeing because of the cartel. what is the government doing concerning that? and concerning the war with theel and palestine, refugees that israel is

--ughtering so many children will we take them? many of the children coming here are fleeing from their countries because of the violence in the cartel's. some of those children have either been sold or given in to tools of theor as cartel. so they are coming here. they are really refugees from those situations and we have to figure that out. hereome of them are coming because their families are so desperately poor that their families think they could have a better life in the united states. course, if they are not refugees, they are not entitled to come here legally and they will be sent home. met think that -- i just with the consul general of mexico in colorado last week in

my office in denver, and we talked about how mexico can help us both secure the southern border of mexico so those kids do not come across that border to begin with. but also how we can work -- and with the presidents of those countries, to let their citizens know that they should not be sending money on this treacherous journey, but also that they need to work together to try to eliminate the cartels and the violence that those children are subject to. with respect to israel and palestine, that is a terrible situation and i know that secretary kerry is there trying to help negotiate a cease-fire. i really hope and pray that works because it is a bad situation in both directions. obviously nobody wants to see the violence we have been seeing there. i wanted to ask you about

a bill that you cosponsored in the wake of the hobby lobby decision in the supreme court. it prohibited employers from --ing religious beliefs from the senate version of the bill -- what is next for your house version? introduce the house bill, and members who agree that women and their families should be able to decide their birth control, not their employers, were going to be going out across the country in the august recess, talking to constituents about why this is so important that people should be able to get birth control as part of their insurance plans. we will be building support around the country. i'll have heard from a lot of young women who find it difficult to believe that in the year 2014 we are debating about birth control. they think it is very important as part of their overall health care that they get access to birth control from their

insurance. it is important to note, if people do not really talk about this, but part of -- i think all of birth control is obviously health care for women at childbearing age. but 58% of the people who take birth control pills -- for example -- are not even taking it for pregnancy prevention, they are taking it for other health conditions. all of that could be stopped by employers if they do not pass this legislation. so how do you think the hobby lobby decision and the efforts you are trying will play out in the ballot box in november? last: as we saw happen election in colorado, women concerned about getting their own health care benefits, they went to the polls and voted for the candidates who they felt would support them in that. i do think it will be an election issue. what i would prefer is if cooler

heads would prevail and everybody would say, yes, this is important. when the supreme court decided hobby lobby, the justices said this is an issue, a statutory issue and congress can fix it. that is what we are trying to do with our bill, say, ok, congress, the woman should be able to decide what health care she needs from her insurance, not her corporate boss. host: this time around colorado also at ground zero for a high-profile senate race, a race that was featured in a recent "l.a. times" piece, and their is you talking to senator mark udall, in that race against grosse pointe michigan, carl, good morning, on

our line for independents. caller: i see you are from colorado. did you vote in favor of the marijuana bill? guest: i did not take a position on the marijuana bill. i have a general rule that i do not take a position on state initiatives. i will not talk about my personal vote. what i will tell you is that it passed overwhelmingly, and in my congressional district, which is denver and a few of the suburbs around denver, it probably past by around 70%, i would say. so i feel like my job as an elected representative has been to try to make sure that the law is implemented in a fair and safe way. that is why i introduced is a stateswhich rights bill, states rights legislation. it says under the can stroll -- under the controlled substances act, legalize marijuana will be exempted from the controlled substances act. to really let states implement

that in the best way they can. caller: my second question. i have read a lot about the constitution, the federal papers, and i cannot find any place where i find that the government is allowed to take money from working people -- all working people, all jobs -- and give it to people who do not work. where is that? well, of course the constitution is the framework for all of our laws, and i think there have been supreme court challenges to the taxation clauses, and those have been upheld. under thellowed constitution. that has been litigated. haven, connecticut, on our line for democrats. good morning, roger. caller: everyone i see that represents us, congressman and senators -- they talk about if i had it my way i would work through this thing instead of

taking a vacation. but yet they go pack their bags and go back to where they came from. i don't understand that at all. issues likerious -- and they should resolve it instead of saying that they're going to do this. it is amazing. guest: i think you make a good point. i don't think it is likely that the house leadership, speaker boehner, is going to cancel the august recess. but it is frustrating for people like me, who think that we could have comprehensive immigration reform, who think that we could pass a highway bill that everybody could agree with. pass ank that we could comprehensive jobs package to try to get the middle class back to work, and a lot of other things. it really is something that we could do. saying let's not take a vacation, i think we

should say let's just pass these bills and stop demagogy it in both ways. i will say that when i go back to denver next week, i will actually be working in my district. so people should not really think that -- maybe some members take a five week vacation. i have not met one yet. people are working in their districts. but i think before we go and do that work in our districts, we should pass this legislation. speakeru mentioned boehner's control over the house chamber. reidu think senator harry has shown an inclination to stick around and work on some of these issues? it,t: i think he should do too. i think we should have done it he for the august recess was looming. but now that it is, i don't think he would take that long for us at least to pass the highway bill and at least to pass the supplemental appropriation bill dealing with

this crisis at the border. i think we can at least get that done. host: birmingham, alabama, is next. darrell on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the constant focus on congress, on both houses of congress, mrs. bank -- misses the point. that is that we have a president who is not an effective leader. we discovered that as soon as he did not have his party in control of both houses. johnson could do it. nixon could do it. both bushes, clinton. they were able to lead. we elect people in congress to represent constituents. we elect presidents to lead the whole country. i can already anticipate what your guest will say to this because there are two things she they miss facts about

what the president has done. two toey say it takes make a compromise and work together. that just makes my point that obama is not good at this. he's not good at it, so we are not only doongress their job but do the job that presidents do. that it agree with you does take two to compromise, and people need to really work together to do that. , i am workingaid on legislation right now with congressman upton on this 21st century cures. i have a couple of other bills i am working with republicans on that we hope we can get through. this has been a difficult time in america with the 2008 economic collapse, and your caller is right.

if you look at where we came from to where we are now, look at where the dow jones was, it was at 7000. now it is i think 13,000, 14,000. if you look at the joblessness rate, it has gone down consistently every month since president obama took office. we have passed the affordable care act and a number of key pieces of legislation, but i will really be honest -- i have been very frustrated. i have been in congress for 18 years, and i have seen partisan strife and i have seen a president impeached. i have seen all kinds of things. but what i have never seen is the absolute refusal of the tea party republicans to negotiate or even toany way negotiate with the regular republicans. this is why the government was shut down last october, was because of the absolute refusal to negotiate about what we

should do. i think that is political malfeasance, and i think that keeps everybody, including the tea party republicans -- should take a deep breath and say how can we sit down and negotiate and work together for the future of the country. time for a few more calls. fort lauderdale, florida, is next here it stephen is on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, stephen. caller: thank you for taking my call. andomment is on the border, -- thank you for taking my question. go ahead with your question. my question was that before the election, each candidate promised jobs in immigration reform and they promised that

they would keep all the -- what do they call that -- when you have food stamps and all of that stuff. they promised the old people they would give them social programs. they promised the old people they would protect their social security. we do not have enough young people paying into the system to do all those things. now he wants billions of dollars to secure the border. that is how they get elected, by promising everybody everything. but if you left your home bank account and paid all your bills and you only get $700 per week and you pay out 6000 dollars per week -- how long do you think that is going to last? guest: the good news is that because of the economy that is recovering -- and i think it is

recovering too slowly, but at least it is recovering -- the deficit has started to drop back down, and that is something we do not see in the press too often. the deficit was spiraling out of control, and now it is dropping back down. but something we need to do now is we need to sit down in a bipartisan way, and we need to say what are we going to do about the tax code so that it is more equitable for middle-class americans so that we are not continually -- continuing the ofe gap between the top 1% taxpayers and everybody else in this country. how do we encourage companies to bring jobs back into the united states instead of taking them offshore? we can do that, and that would create american jobs. what can we do to keep our programs like medicare and social security solvent for the next generation?

because while it is working ok now, in 15 or 20 years, it will start to go broke because as the caller said, there are so many more seniors than young people. but all of these problems, as big as they are, they can be fixed if we have the political will to do it. but i think we need to sit down in a bipartisan way and do it rather than just have the policiesslash and burn like the sequester, which was devastating to a lot of things in our economy. host: let's try to get him george, waiting in wichita, kansas, on our line for independents. caller: a little bit of history. until about 1960 five, the united states suspended immigration in this country. the reason for that was to get inse immigrants who came time to assimilate. and look what this country

accomplished during those four decades. second, your comment a moment ago about political malfeasance is a little bit disingenuous. the problem with our immigration system -- everybody says it is broken. that is like buying a car, driving it from the dealership home in your garage, and never using it again. is broken -- nothing unless you try to use it. what is really broken is a political system on both sides of the aisle. host: i want to give the congresswoman a chance to respond. guest: let me say that all of those years that george talks about, where he says there was no immigration, we did not have 11 million people who were here on an undocumented status who were in the shadows of society and whose families were being separated apart. so rather than pretend that does

not exist, many people, a growing number on both sides of the aisle and a growing number in the business community, are saying these folks are here. many of these folks have been here. we need to secure our borders and figure out what their status is going to be, and then we need to have a reasonable immigration program that will give people temporary visas if they need it or what ever they need, but let's not just go along year after year with 11 million on an who are here and undocumented status. if i have time for one story -- i was at an event in denver and i met this young woman. she was the valedictorian in her high school class. andwas a brilliant beautiful young woman, and she wanted to go to college to become an architect. it in colorado, the asset program. it is the ability of undocumented children to get

in-state college tuition. she was able to get in-state college tuition to go to college. she wants to be an architect. but after she graduated from college, she does not have a social security card. she will not be able to get a job or if i don't really think that is the american dream. i think we need to get a regular status. we need to secure our border. we need to do something about all of these folks who are here right now. ed is what i think we can really do if we sat down in a bipartisan way because i think aside from congress, there is a growing consensus in the country about this. host: congresswoman diana degette, from colorado, we appreciate your time this morning. up next in our spotlight on magazine series, paul krawzak toys us, and hit -- paul krawzak joins us trade first a news us back from c-span radio.

-- first, a news update from the c-span radio. 4% in thenomy grew june quarter. the second quarter rebound follows a sharp 2.1% annualized drop in economic activity in the first quarter. last quarter's rebound was broad-based with consumers, businesses, housing industry, and state and local governments combining to boost growth. congress expects the momentum to continue for the second half of the year. they forecast a growth of 3%. congressional investigators say the government is underestimating the threat of a chemical attack on densely populated cities and has failed to inspect virtually all chemical facilities it considers particularly vulnerable to terrorists. committee investigators say archer metropolitan regions like los angeles, chicago, new york, and philadelphia might be more vulnerable to that kind of attack. investigation was conducted by the homelandaff on

security committee. cnn reports north korea has hired four projectiles into the sea of japan, on the same day a house foreign affairs committee holds a hearing on north korea. testimony from two state department officials. you can watch the hearing live at 2:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span3. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. "american artifacts" on american history tv. this weekend our visit to the national security archives at george washington university rebels are classified oculus about the gulf of tonkin in vietnam. 50 years ago this week, it gave president johnson powers to wage war in southeast asia. "american artifacts." watch more american history tv next week for a while congress is in recess, american history tv will be prime time monday

through friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern, featuring events from watergate, its 40 year anniversary. over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, readings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: each week in this section we look at a recent magazine piece. this week we look at paul in "cq's piece weekly." he joins us now. your piece focuses on the 40th anniversary of the federal budget act 40 years ago.

why did congress decided needed to overhaul the federal budgeting process. guest: one of the main problems was empowerment. resident makes and was president at the time, and he was impounding billions of dollars -- president nixon was president at the time, and he was impounding billions of dollars. congress appropriated money he was not spending, so congress was upset about that. arbors wanted to get more control over budgeting -- congress wanted to get more control over budgeting, so they wanted to restrict presidential incumbent of funds and get a better grasp over the budget. int: so this act is passed 1974, july 13, is it? think it was july -- i am not sure of the exact date, but it was in july. host: what was created, and how did it change the budgeting

process? the modernreated budget process. it is hard to imagine, but at that time there were no house and senate budget committees, no congressional budget office. overall budgeto framework, so this created the budget committees and the congressional budget office, which is congress' own scorekeeper, estimator of the cost of legislation. it created the budget process where congress comes up or should come up every year, is supposed to come up with a framework of spending and revenue. host: has the budget process worked? as those folks who pushed it in 1974 continued -- intended it? guest: that is a good question. it has not worked as well in recent years. commerce rarely passes appropriation -- congress rarely passes appropriations bills on

time. been passing the budget resolution every year in recent years, but the senate has not. , the lawmakers who passed this law had high hopes for it, but some of them also had concerns about whether it would -- how well it would be implemented. host: who were the people who wrote and passed this law? guest: one of those involved who is still in politics is vice president joe biden, but the congresse no longer in . al allman was one of them. others.re they are all gone from congress now. been and this act has impacted by several members of congress over the years. you get into it in your story. one of the folks you highlight is senator burns of west

virginia -- senator byrd of west virginia. what was his impact? guest: he created what is called the byrd rule. budget reconciliation allows the senate to pass a budget resolution or to pass other legislation with a simple majority rather than 60 votes. it makes it easier for the senate to pass legislation. so budget reconciliation is only allowed if the house and the senate pass a budget resolution. in any case, senator byrd was reconciliation being used to pass legislation which did not really have anything to do with the budget, with spending and revenue. so his byrd rule creates a point of order against using reconciliation for what he called extraneous matter.

host: we are talking about the 1974 budget act and the 40th anniversary that passed earlier this month. ofl krawzak is the author this story in "cq weekly." if you have questions and some complaints in the story that the budget is broken today. 202-585-3881, democrats, 202-585-3880 tom at , 202-585-388 two. joint this was a project that my colleague and i did the story, and we set out to find out how the budget act had changed the way congress debates

laws and passes laws. the veterans bill that you brought up is a good example. one of the things the act has done is it has made the score of the bill very important. that is the estimated cost of the bill. that has become very important since the budget act was passed. you see it in the veterans bill. over thethe debate veterans legislation had to do with how much it costs. one of the earlier proposals would have cost cbo estimated $50 billion per year. this was the congressional budget office created by that 1974 act. and there was a lot of concern about that. so another bill was for together that would have cost a little more than $30 billion a year. so it cost less. the current version that we have, likely to be passed soon, is a lot cheaper. it costs less than $1 billion a

year and it would add $10 billion to the deficit over 10 years. so cost really was one of the main points of argument over this veterans bill. foundin general, have you , looking at bills that use the budgeting process laid out in the 1974 act, has it made laws there? host: that is a good question. one of the interesting things is shapede budget act has the way that congress writes laws. a good example of this -- if you compare the clinton health-care plan, president clinton's affordable care act, when clinton came up with his health-care plan, the cbo said it would actually add to the deficit, and that was one of the reasons it did not pass.

democrats experience, wrote the affordable care act in such a way that they would get a score from cbo, that it would reduce the deficit over 10 years. so they wrote the law in that particular way so it would be easier to pass. there are other examples of that . i think during george bush's presidency, the medicare part d prescription benefit, arrest allocated $400 billion -- congress allocated $400 billion in that process. they put together a proposal that would have cost more than $400 billion, so they modified that. that is how you end up with a doughnut hole. so that particular benefit provides prescription drug coverage at the beginning, but once you have spent a certain amount of money, you no longer have coverage. until you have spent a lot more.

then the coverage kicks back in. so they wrote the law in that way so it would cost only $400 n over 10 years. host: so there is a certain amount of gaming the cbo to get a desire to score on these bills as they come down the line? guest: yes. in fact, members of congress work with the cbo when they are putting together their legislation so that they can achieve, you know, a certain score. host: we are talking with paul krawzak of "cq weekly" about his story, the budget act comes of age, the 40th anniversary of the congressional budget act. ,n our line for independents from misery, mike, good morning. c-span.thank you, i have been chomping at the bit to talk to somebody about budgets. a quick background, i worked for a mom-and-pop company for years, and they went corporate, and it

was explained to me the way a budget works, because i did not understand it, i think our budget is like back in the caveman, neanderthal days save money when you are working with these budgeted programs, when you save money, you don't get to carry it over. you get penalized, and i don't understand how that actually works to where you actually get to benefit from people that want to be thrifty and frugal and to actually save money. i watched a mom-and-pop company go big in turn into a corporation, and it just seems to fall apart from there. people became numbers instead of people. i wonder if you could maybe give me some background on that if you have done any studies about that, please. is a very comp located process. in general, the way it works is appropriate awill

certain amount of money each year for all the different operations of the government, and all of that money will not be spent in the first year. i love it well, but some of it will be spent in subsequent years. i'm not sure if that addresses your question. host: let's talk about the importance of numbers and how budget act change things in 1974. i want to read a bit from your piece in "cq weekly" quoting a former commerce, bill frenzel. he says -- parts of the 90's of a four act, nobody cared much about scorekeeping except for the current year. he conversely was a member of the house in 1971 to 1991. he goes on to say if the appropriation or the mandate that the current year president's budget or the target set by congressional leaders, it was ok. there was only one scorekeeper, the omb or the white house office of management and budget.

can you talk about how the 1974 act sort of put the power back in the legislative branch? guest: right, right. before the 19 1974 act, if you want to find out how much a bill would cost, you had to rely on white house office of management and budget, had to rely on the president. congress did not have an organization which would do its own estimating, so now congress has the cbo, which does that, and that has greatly increased congress' control over budgeting because it has a nonpartisan, independent estimator of the cost of legislation. so that is one factor. and the other thing -- i mean, bill frenzel, another thing he is talking about there is that congress was not, did not have to think long-term.

year, it would consider laws, passed laws. the concern about the cost that year but not be talking about the future costs. under the budget act, the congress passes budget resolutions, which have a sort of -- it is like a 10-year projection of what costs are going to be and what revenue are going to be, and so it allows you to look at the costs not just for this year but for the next 10 years and get a better sense of how this is going to affect the budget down the road. host: you also talk with the changes, and you quote the founding director of the cbo in the story. reglan is talking about before the budget was passed, -- rivlin is talking about before the budget was passed. things were more focused on whether it was a good idea or not, but it certainly was

important how much it was going to cost, and there was very little information about it. guest: that is true. -- hungers hast become much more conscious of the cost of legislation since the budget act was passed. both of the short-term cost and the long-term cost. interestingly, though, in some ways, the budget act has perhaps had negative consequences. stuart butler, who is a scholar at the heritage donation moving over to brookings, raises the point in our story that if the , it is verycore hard to consider that bill. he brings out the example of long-term care. cbo uses models of behavior to help it score a bill, estimate the cost of bills, and it is

modeling for long-term care is not as advanced as its modeling for others, so butler makes the point that it is a real challenge for congress to consider a very innovative proposal to curb long-term care does not havecbo the model to really be able to a valuator kind of legislation. host: talking about the history of the federal budget act with paul krawzak of "cq weekly." let's go to mac who is waiting on our line for democrats in maryland. caller: good morning. i was hoping you would help a struggling clinical science student the big to his father. basically the pattern in which -- every year the president proposes a budget, congress -- what is the first -- what is the

process for this, and what are all of these appropriation bills, these omnibus bills and farm bill -- why are they all considered separately because i was under the impression that after the obama presidency, that the wars in iraq and afghanistan were included in the budget, and now i'm getting every year when they pass a defense authorization bill, i feel confused. can you put a little light on this for me? i would appreciate it. guest: it is confusing. very basically, the president introduces a budget at the beginning of the year, and that is a very comprehensive, detailed budget. it is the way he would like to see money spent. after that is done, the house and senate are supposed to pass budget resolutions, which are much more general frameworks of spending. the budget resolutions provide a topline number for discretionary spending, spending on government

operations. and based on that topline number, the house and the senate each put together 12 appropriations bills, which is sort of the way they would like to see money spent. as the wars in iraq and afghanistan, congress has been funding those basically with war spending, which is outside the budget cap. ,asically looking upon those the war spending as emergency spending, so it has appropriated that money outside of the on discretionary spending or spending for government operations. also foreign file clerk asks a procedural question as well -- who audits the budgets once they go into effect? who audits the budgets?

that is a good question. there issure that really auditing of the budget. i mean, congress does review spending. part of the job of the budget spendings is to review and review programs throughout the year. host: another twitter question from sandy beach -- mr. krawzak, how many times did the senate failed to pass a yearly budget before as opposed to after the budget act? guest: well, before the budget act, there was not a yearly budget. what the budget act did was require the house and senate to pass budgets or budget resolutions every year. prior to the budget act, not pass a budget. congress passed spending bills every year, but it did not pass an overall budget, which was a framework for all of the

spending bills. the: we're talking about 40th anniversary of the federal budget act and how congress works before and after in this week's spotlight on magazines peace. -- piece. michael is waiting in new york on our line for progress. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. creating a budget is very hard. there are a lot of conflicting interests. you have to make it work. there is always a middle ground. do you really think we are spending enough and ani-- host: you bring up the history of pay go in your piece. what is pay go, and how does it work? guest: pay go is a law that says that if congress is going to create a new entitlement program entitlement program, and has to pay for that either by spending other

by cutting other spending or increasing revenue, so both -- that is basically says and it applies to entitlement spending, mandatory spending, so it requires offense. host: charlie is waiting in maryland on our line for independents. caller: two things, boringfileclerk asked about the auditing of the budget numbers. the answer is, budget numbers get reported in the reports of the agencies, and there are a couple of which, affiliations back to the published budget reports. number two, i was wondering if i could hear a comment on the following point -- gao and cbo each works for the congress, yet if somebody tried to game the government accountability

office, i think you would see a problem emerging in the reports that it issued corresponding with that trickery. cbo canvas ahand, report saying they were being game, they simply issue reports at the direction of congress, so i question cbo's independents and its transparency, too. that is what i would like to hear your comments on. goes, well, as far as cbo i mean, there have been complaints, observations that have written bills to get a particular cbo score. certainly they do. they aim to get a certain cbo score, and they construct bills to do that. cbo is in a position where it has to basically evaluate the bill and make its best judgment

about what it will cost, and that is really what it is required to do. host: you talk about cbo's independence. does that ever come to question and hotly debated bills that come before congress, when a score comes out that one side or the other does not like? guest: there are complaints periodically about cbo from democrats, from republicans over various issues. i guess the passage of the affordable care act was i guess one of the most recent where republicans complained about the way that the cbo scored that. reallyid that cbo was double counting. that it was using medicare savings both to extend the life of the medicare program and also reduce the deficit, so that was a big controversy.

overall, cbo has had, has always been respected really but both sides through the years. it has got a very good reputation, but there are periodic complaints, specific scoring of bills. host: who heads the cbo a, and how does a person get their job? cbot: the director of the is currently douglas elmendorf, and he is appointed, proved by congress on a regular basis, serves a term. host: what is the length of term for a cbo director? i am thinking it is six years. i'm not sure if that is the exact number. i think that is what it is. host: the affordable care act, another provision of the budget act that became important in that process was reconciliation.

can you explain that and how it impacted the passage of the affordable care act? guest: right. -- in theliation senate, to pass any given bill, you typically need to get 60 votes to allow the bill to be debated and passed. budget reconciliation allows a with a be pass simple majority, which makes it a lot easier to pass a bill. the purpose of budget reconciliation was for congress to be able to pass legislation to keep revenues in line with what the budget resolution requires. it has been used to pass controversial legislation, and is affordable care act

good example. even though democrats controlled the house and the senate during this time, they did not have the senate toin pass every part of the affordable care act that they wanted to do with the 60 votes, so they used reconciliation to pass portions of it, and they were able to pass it was just a simple majority. budget reconciliation also was used to pass the bush tax cuts. 2001, 2003.d 1, those were controversial. there were not enough of, so the use reconciliation. paul krawzak story on the federal budget act is our focus on the spotlight on magazine said man this week's "washington journal." if you have a question or comment on the history of the budgeting process, we have got

about 10 minutes. democrats, call (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. i want to ask you but another adgeting term that folks hear lot about and have heard a lot about in recent months and years -- sequestration. where did sequestration come from, and what is its relationship to the federal budget act? guest: sequestration was invented back in 1985 in the gramm-rudman law, which was an amendment basically an addition to the 1974 budget act, and sequestration is across the board spending cuts. the gramm-rudman act sets deficit targets, it said the deficit has to decrease each year and a can only be this high, and if it is higher, then automatic spending cuts will go into effect, so that is where sequestration began, and sequestration --

host: why was it important to include that back then? guest: well, because this would be a way to enforce deficit targets. congress wanted to reduce the deficit and control the deficit, forso this was a motivator a wayss to budget in such that the deficit would go down, and if congress failed to budget so that the deficit would go down, then these automatic spending cuts would go into effect, and they would bring down the deficit. so that is where sequestration began. 1t was also employed in the 201 budget control act, which limits spending over a 10-year period. under that act, if congress -- under the budget and control act, if congress does not keep discretionary spending below a thisin level, the thn

sequestration, automatic spending cuts, kick in. host: on the phone, james is waiting in tennessee on our line for independents. james, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to know why the cbo -- whether the dynamic scoring. i also want to know if the whole process will be much clearer? guest host: can you explain some of the terms that he uses? guest: as far as dynamic scoring and static scoring, cbo basically uses static scoring. toamic scoring basically is look at what effect a bill will have on the economy and unemployment and on growth, and so, for example, a number of

republicans would like to see more dynamic scoring. that certain policies such as tax cuts, they believe that tax cuts will stimulate economic growth and increase employment, it increase revenues for the federal government, so they would like to see cbo use dynamic scoring bills.ain tax cut cbo does use some dynamic scoring. it does a dynamic score of the president's budget every year. that position on this is most bills are unlikely to affect the size of the economy, increase the size of the economy , but some are. in cases where they think that the bills would increase economic growth, such as an immigration bill, they do a

dynamic score, but in most cases toy don't, and they say that dynamically score every bill, first of all, it is unnecessary. second, it would be very expensive and time-consuming. host: another james is waiting to talk to you in st. petersburg, florida on our line for republicans. james, good morning. caller: good morning. host: james, you were on with paul krawzak. caller: yes, i would like to ask cbo is still engaged with the affordable care act, or if they have disconnected themselves from it because of all of these executive orders that have affected it. estimatingis still the cost of portions of the affordable care act. the insurance subsidies under the affordable care act, cbo continues to estimate the cost of those and will continue to do

but cbo did say earlier this year in a report that they ,o longer estimate the entire the future cost of the entire affordable act because so many parts of the affordable act are now part of established law, and it is just no longer possible for them to do that analysis. when the affordable care act was passed, cbo said it would reduce the deficit over 10 years. that they canow no longer estimate what the impact would be. they still believe it will reduce the deficit, but they can no longer provide an exact estimate. host: james, did you have a follow-up question? caller: well, yes. i am wondering -- don't believe believema -- don't president obama has actually submitted more than one or two budgets during his six-year reign so far. is that a lawful thing, or is

there -- do you have to do that by law, or can you just blow it off? guest: no, the president by law has to submit a budget every year, and he has, but most of these budgets have been late, and that has been a complaint. by the way, this sort of leads to a larger issue, and that is one of the complaints about the 1974 budget act is that a lot of its provisions are not really enforceable. for example, by law, the house and senate are supposed to adopt a budget resolution every year, but if they don't, there is no penalty of a in many cases they have not. host: the president having to part of budget, if that the 74 budget act or does i go back farther? had tothe president submit a budget prior to the 1934 budget act, so that goes back quite a few years. host: we are talking about the

40th anniversary of the 1934 federal budget act. at the beginning of your story, you write it is a law that influences over legislation and spending it has grown and deepened in ways that its authors could not have imagined. could you talk to karen numbers of congress, and did they have any complaints about the process that was set up back in 1974? and i did, tamar speak with members of congress. there are a lot of members of congress, particularly republicans, who believe that the budget ax needs to be modified, that it is no longer -- that it needs to be updated. a lot of various reforms have been proposed. there isn't really a consensus now foress right any changes to the budget act. i could change in the future. host: what are some of the changes that have been proposed? guest: one of them -- and this

has been proposed at the think ank level, but one is to have ceiling, have a budget on all spending. the current budget resolutions limit discretionary spending, spending on government operations. that is about one-third of federal spending, but the other it is mostly entitlement programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, and that is not limited by any kind of budget, so these are the programs that are growing faster than economic growth, and they to growing the debt faster than economic growth, so this is spending which many say is unsustainable over the long term, so one proposal is to have an overall budget that all of this would have to fit underneath. host: i did not meet to cut you off. guest: and then some other proposals would require cbo to

do more dynamic scoring, which had mentioned dynamic scoring earlier. another would make various changes in sort of the way cbo projects spending, in a way that some members of congress think would help lessen spending. host: and who are the main proponents of some of these changes that you just brought up? house budget chairman paul ryan has proposed various budget changes. other members of the budget .ommittee have as well it has primarily been on the republican side, although there are some democratic by and for changes as well, chris van hollen, democratic on the budget committee, has intrusive bill, which is a line item kind of a bill, which would give the president more authority to reduce spending, although congress would have to approve it.

so there are also some democrats that support changes. host: let's go to kevin waiting in north carolina on our line for republicans. you are on with paul krawzak of "cq weekly." my questionkrawzak, is -- how much money did the congress borrowed from social service? guest: i'm not sure what you mean from social services. under? what are my i am under -- host: are you talking social security? caller: yeah, social security! guest: so the way that works is when social security taxes are collected, they go into a securities are

anded in that trust fund, the money is spent to pay social security benefits, but any other money that is available is used to pay for other government operations. is then owed money to the social security trust fund. host: another question for you from twitter -- is it possible for legislation to be stopped if it ends up going over budget? guest: yes. there are points of order in congress, which can be raised to prevent legislation from being passed if it is over budget. ould it bewhat a b interested as part of the 1934

budget act? guest: yes. it would allow commerce to object various things, raise points of order. actually, that brings up another complaint about the budget act, which is that it is too complicated. in fact, rudy penner, who was the second cbo director, we were talking with him for this article, and he made that point. he said he thinks there are very few people even in congress to fully understand the budget act because it has a lot of complexity. host: let's get in duke from south carolina on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. we just have a minute or two left ear. caller: absolutely. the question came up how much was taken from social security, and i do believe there was about billion extracted from

social security in order to finance the so-called obamacare. mr. krawzak, and our last couple of seconds here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] guest: yes, the affordable care act did cut medicare spending by about $800 billion over 10 years. that is part of the affordable care act. host: paul krawzak works for "cq weekly." he has the cover story, the 1974 budget act, the budget resolution. that is our show today on the "washington journal. :"we now take you live to the floor of the house of representatives. washington, d.c., july 30, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable chris stewart to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour