field, a recent article on the baby boom and visa process. those conversations pleasure they -- facebook conversations tweets, and e-mails. host: good morning, and welcome to the "washington journal" on this wednesday, may 20. iraq and the fall of ramadi to isis is the lead story this morning. up on capitol hill, the house yesterday passed another short-term extension to fund the federal trust fund for highways and roads. state and local officials are becoming enraged at congress' inability to pass a long-term fixed to the trust fund.

lawmakers have two days before they are slated to recess for the memorial weekend, and the legislative docket is full -- trade, renewing the patriot act and the highway bill as well. look for coverage of those debates on c-span2. we will begin with 2016 and hillary clinton in iowa yesterday. she held an impromptu news conference after not fielding questions from the press for nearly a month. republicans and journalists are criticizing the campaign's strategy. should hillary clinton answer more questions from the media? host: you can also send us a tweet or go to facebook.com/cs pan, an e-mail us as well, journal@cspan.org.

we will begin with npr's website. "until tuesday, it had been almost a month since hillary answered questions from the press. after taking questions from iowans in cedar rapids where she spoke about small business the former secretary of state answered six questions from reporters and took an awkwardly timed one about whether she will answer questions from the media in the middle of the event. the questions ranged from the release of her e-mails as secretary of state and criticism over donations to the clinton foundation and the state of iraq and more. that brings the total number of questions clinton has answered since she monster campaign, by npr's count 220. as an npr reporter recently reported, clinton had answered only 13 questions from the media since launching her campaign. it is something that

republicans, like jeb bush and rand paul, started to use against her, noting that they answered questions. fox's ed henry asked if she would take questions from the media, counting that as one that she took. maybe after i finish talking people here, i might, i will ponder it. after saying that an meeting with iowans, the former secretary of state walked over to reporters. there was a frenzy of reporters wanted to ask her questions." she took about six from the reporters and it lasted for about five minutes. what do you make of this strategy? here is what the former first lady, former senator from new york, under secretary of state had to say when to was asked about the clinton foundation donations and whether there is one set of rules for the clintons and another for everyone else. [video clip] hillary clinton: i am so proud

of the foundation, the work that it has done and is doing. it attracted donations from people, organizations from around the world. i think it goes to show that people are very supportive of the life-saving and life-changing work it has done here, at home, and elsewhere. i will let the american people make the run judgments. -- make their own judgments. host: hillary clinton in iowa in a spontaneous press conference with reporters following her there as she goes to the earlier states for the 2016 conference. we are getting your thoughts on her campaign strategy could should she be taking more questions from journalists? john in delaware, good morning to you. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i want you and the people to know that hillary clinton is ahead of her time in handling the washington media, and the washington media are falling behind the times in handling candidates. she's putting the people first

and listening to them, and that is the way it should be. that's it, thanks. host: ok, well, john, are you still there? caller: yes. host: let me show you chris cili zza's piece in "the washington post." "you won't believe hillary clinton's spin on avoiding the press." her supporters are saying what you just said, she is talking to the people. but chris cilizza goes on to say in his column, "nowhere in the correct the record memo does it have anything to dispute that fact. in total as a candidate clinton has answered 13 total questions from orders. it's been 39,000 minutes since she last answered a reporter's question.

do you not think it is time to know how hillary clinton spent her time since leaving the state department and how the clinton foundation handled its business with various donors who would undoubtedly still be in the picture if she was elected president? you get the idea. the rule of the media in the process is to show voters who the people are really at to explain how they would cover the country if elected. like the media are not come that is an important role and one that is essential to a functioning democracy." john, what do you think? caller: ok, i don't want to take up too much of your time but remember how ronald reagan handled the press, and how many press conferences he had in his span in office? he is the most popular republican of modern times in the presidency. hillary knows what she is doing, believe me.

ronald reagan knew what he was doing, so does hillary clinton. host: all right, john, are you campaigning for her? you going to donate? caller: i'm sorry, i'm one of those 99 percenters who can to donate, but i am going to vote for her. host: john is a democrat, by the way, and ramona is a democrat as well in albuquerque, new mexico. you are on the air. caller: hello. host: what do you think? should hillary clinton take more questions from the media? caller: why should she? host: you don't see a problem there? caller: i sure don't. host: ramona, what you think about the trade debate that is happening in congress? are you for the trade agreements that the president is trying to negotiate? caller: no, i am not. host: do you want to hear her

stance on that? caller: she did her stance. she is waiting for all the information from them. i don't know the information so i don't even care about the information anyway. if -- not up to me, it's up to her, and she gave her answer. host: bernie sanders, who is also running for president, has said she needs to be clear about where she stands on these trade agreements. caller: she has plenty of time for that, just like all the rest of them. host: ok, that's ramona democrat. patricia, illinois, independent. good morning to you, patricia. go ahead. caller: good morning to my opinion if hillary clinton is that she is utterly sickening. i am not a republican, i'm not a democrat. i'm solely an independent, and i can assure you that i am judging this woman as she continues to withhold information concerning libya, concerning her e-mails. she was the secretary of state

she has every obligation to reveal her e-mails, which would give us some idea to her conduct and performance as secretary of state, and would allow us to judge what her conduct and performance would be as president. all i can say is that i'm judging her now, and on the basis of her conduct and performance, i would not vote for hillary clinton under any circumstance. host: ok, what about her conduct? what specifically? caller: i find it offensive that she is withholding her e-mails. i find it offensive that she is obviously colluding with the state department if, in fact, the state department initially set it would be january before they were to release this new c ache of e-mails.

obviously that was very calculated. and the fact that she refuses to speak to the press -- the press is standing in as the representative of the public. when the press asks the question, they are there standing in for us. this does not mean that i support the media hounding that often takes place. but in light of the fact that as of yesterday she had only answered 13 questions, we have no idea what her position is on this trade deal, obviously she is characterizing herself by withholding her comments to the press as one who will blow with the wind. by this point, if she is undeclared candidate, and she is -- it she is undeclared candidate, she is, she should have from positions on all of

these stances. as for the clinton foundation, you will take note that the "little people," people like me people calling in, are not contribute to the -- contributing to the clinton foundation. those people who are contributing to the clinton foundation are quite obviously currying and buying favor, and that is exactly what is going on, and i find that absolutely offensive particularly in this time when we know that lobbyists on buying our candidates, and now we have saudi arabia buying a presidential candidate, we have china buying a presidential candidate. i find it absolutely offensive. host: let me ask you, you are

calling on the independent line. did you vote for her husband bill clinton? caller: yes, i did good in the first go round i did not pick in the second go-round candidly, i voted green. host: pictures are saying under no circumstances would you vote for hillary clinton for her conduct. talking about the private e-mail service she had as secretary of state. she addressed that yesterday during the news conference and the release of those e-mails. here's what she had to say. [video clip] hillary clinton: i've said repeatedly, i want those e-mails out. nobody has a bigger interest in getting this release than i do. i respect the state department. they have their process that they do for everybody, not just me. anything they might do to expedite the process i heartily support. i want the american people to learn as much as began about the work that i did with diplomats

and of element experts because i think it will show how hard we work and what we did for the country during my time as secretary of state. i worked extremely hard on behalf of our values and interests and security. and the e-mails are part of that. i've said publicly, i'm repeating it here in front of all of you today, i want them out as soon as they can get out. >> what will you demanded -- but will you demand it? hillary clinton: they are not mine, they are the state department's. as much as they can expect the process, that is what i'm asking them to. please move as quickly as you can to get them out. host: hillary clinton yesterday at the news conference asking the state department to move as quickly as possible. a judge has also weighed in on this, telling the state department to move faster on releasing these e-mails. front page of "the washington times," a federal judge ordered the state department to speed up

the release of secretary of state hillary clinton'private e-mails -- secretary of state hillary clinton's private e-mails, and mrs. clinton says she is eager to see them publicly made -- made public. we are getting your thoughts on whether hillary clinton should be taking more questions from the media. yesterday she held a news conference and talk to reporters for five minutes and took six questions from them. should she be doing more? first time in 28 days that she had done so. "the boston globe" saying this morning that new hampshire voters are not happy with the lack of access to clinton either. "those everyday americans who want to close hillary rodham clinton entrée, foreign policy, or even her favorite color have the same option -- they need to be on the right invite list to get in a room with her. clinton's campaign is not held a single event opened to the

public and there are no plans for an open forum in the new hampshire -- in new hampshire friday when she makes her second trip to the granite state. new hampshire residents hold dear a of meeting would be presidents face-to-face." annie, republican. what do you think, andnie? caller: i think hillary can speak with the media as she pleased, but i think as a democrat, republican independent, they need to sit down and rebuild america. just as japan shut down their doors and rebuild japan after pearl harbor, we should do that. we are a powerful country and we can make it. as for hillary, i have to respect her as a woman. she has experience as a politician and it shouldn't matter what she says to the media. host: eric in seattle, a

democrat. what do you think? caller: what i think, greta, is hillary -- hillary is going to run away from these policies that destroyed the democratic party during bill clinton. bill clinton did not get someone who is president, a democrat. it was dick armey. he signed a tea party budget compete deregulated glass-steagall, don't ask don't tell, nafta. this crime bill is what has the african-american community. now -- messed up now. all this is coming home to roost. what sister souljah said was right. bill clinton's presidency for african-americans was disastrous. he should have been telling the

right wing newt gingrich and dig army -- dick armey that what they were doing was wrong. host: all right, let me ask you this, back on topic here -- how does this really to whether or not hillary clinton should be taking questions from the press? should she have to answer for her husband's administration? caller: just answer those questions. she made a statement about the crime bill, that it was wrong mass incarceration, and same-sex marriage. she said that. she is speaking out against those things now. this is what she is going to have to do. there is no center. there was no center under bill clinton. bill clinton governed from the far right of the democrats. thank you. host: will you vote for hillary clinton? caller: yes, i will vote for her now. host: even after everything you just said about her husband's administration? caller: i still like -- it was a

disastrous and ministers and for african-american men. they cut welfare -- host: we heard all that. we will go to andrew in youngstown, ohio. caller: i just heard the man talking and in some ways he is right, something he is right about what happened during the administration but what he failed to realize is that we had a republican controlled congress that sent the bill to bill clinton's desk, and bill was trying to work with the republicans so he signed off on the crime bill, which the republicans put on his desk. ok host: ok, loretta, should hillary clinton be taking questions from the media? caller: yes, but it depends on who is asking the questions. host: ok. caller: most of the media is biased. hillary would not want to answer my questions, because i think

she is a liar, she is a career politician. she wants to be the first woman president. she would never get my vote, never. host: and you are an independent, loretta. did you vote for her husband? caller: no, i did not. but i do like bill clinton. and i don't dislike hillary clinton. but hillary clinton is all about power and money. she is all for herself and she is a liar, and she did a very bad job as secretary of state. she caused the benghazi problem. they didn't protect the americans that were supposed to be there. i wouldn't do to a dog what she did. host: all right, loretta. well "the new york times" in

their piece this morning about hillary clinton taking questions from reporters after nearly a month of not doing so, they note this -- "according to most polls voters have not changed their opinion about clinton over issues like the e-mails were the form and to the clinton foundation -- foreign donations to the clinton foundation." that that is in "the new york times." "when asked about the $25 million about she and her foundation -- in income she and her husband looking related from paid speeches, she said she could still relate to middle-class and working class voters who are struggling. 'i'm running a campaign that is clearly stating we want to reshuffle the deck.'" ben, what do you think, should hillary clinton be answering your questions? caller: i'm sorry, greta, good

morning good i'm not a republican, i'm an independent, and i'm sorry if i got the line mixed up. however, i would like to remind everybody that in 2008, when sarah palin refused to answer questions, people fell behind her lockstep. now, i think our politicians should answer questions whenever they are asked. most of time -- most of the time they avoid answering questions and they run around the bush. but as far as hillary clinton is concerned, i think she has reasons to not answer questions based on national security. so it is really a two inch sword. if she does -- two-edged sword. if she does, she is screwed. if she doesn't, she is screwed.

host: mike in pennsylvania, what do you think? caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i have to give props to eric for putting in a little school this morning because i forgotten a lot of those issues with clinton and gingrich. but i really don't think that clinton -- i think she should answer questions. fundamentally i don't think she has the temperament to become president. she has this suspicion that runs deep in her personality and i think she shows that she has a close to take -- closed take on reality. i think she is not open. i think this is just a manifestation of that, the way she is handling the press. host: and mike, you are democrat so if not hillary clinton, then who would you vote for? caller: i would favor 70 like

bernie sanders -- somebody like bernie sanders. he is more progressive and somebody i could support. host: hold on mike, do you think he could win in a general election against a republican? caller: yes, i do. i think if people really look at the situation we are in in the country, i think the great disparity that exists, i think that somebody like bernie sanders offers not only hope but he offers solutions to problems that we face. thank you for your time. host: we will keep getting your thoughts on whether hillary clinton should be answering your questions from the media. she has, since she lost her campaign, answered -- since she launched her question, answer 20, if you count the question

from fox's a henry asking if she would take questions from the media. turning us is a staff writer for "the hill" on the senate this week. let's begin with efforts from congress to renew provisions of the patriot act. the house passed by a large bipartisan majority the usa freedom act that makes some reforms to the patriot act. where does that stand in the senate with two days to go until memorial recess? caller:guest: you are right, there is a limited amount of time to get everything in the senate done that they need to get done. majority leader mitch mcconnell has decided to allow the usa freedom act up for a vote. it is pretty unclear at this point if that could get the 60 votes it would need to be successful. host: if they cannot, what is the majority leader's plan then? guest: he has also brought up a two-month extension patriot act

as it currently stands and that probably has the votes it needs to pass. the leadership is looking for a backup plan on what they could do once they get back with they could scramble and get something done before they leave. host: if they could pass a short-term extension, if that gets kicked over to the house what our house lawmakers saying about passing a short-term fix or extension of the patriot act? guest: they have said it is not going to happen and they won't wait around to see what the senate does. they are trying to pressure the senate to pass the house bill. that is the only option at this point. guest: mitch mcconnell, majority leader, harry reid reid minority leader, came up with a deal on trade. what happens now this week on trade?

the majority leader has promised an open amendment on the process. is he going to allow time for a menace on the debate? -- amendments on the debate? guest: the majority leader file for cloture last night. you heard a lot of democrats saying this was not the robust open process we were promised and we have amendments we think are important that we will vote on. they are very much trying to keep this thing so that when they come back in june they have more time but mcconnell is adamant that they are getting this done this week. host: finally, the house passed short-term extension of the highway trust fund bill. if the senate going to do the same thing before they leave town? guest: that have the least --

the noncontroversial extension and i decide is happy about it but a mechanized -- and neither side is happy about it is what they have to do. host: more to come on that. jordain carney with "the hill," appreciate it. guest: thanks for having me on. host: should hillary clinton be answering questions from reporters? john from staten island, what do you think? caller: listen, think we are making too big deal about this. she will have plenty of time to answer questions. but greta we should have rough nader and ron -- ralph nader and ron paul. he was talking about cutting back the military budget and drawing back from our adventures around the world. we should have ron paul on and ralph nader and talk about the military budget, the surveillance budget, and a lot of other things that nobody is talking budget thank you credit

-- thank you, greta. host: all right, john. front page of "the wall street journal" has this story. "her staff scrutinize politically sensitive documents requested under public records law and sometimes block to their release -- block to their release. in one instance, her chief of staff told state department records specialist she wanted to see all documents requested on the controversial keystone xl pipeline and later demanded that some be held back. in another case, the staff negotiated with the records specialist over the release of documents about former president bill clinton's speaking engagements, also holding some back." front page of "washington times" this morning. "at the very time president obama, then-secretary of state hillary clinton, and other leaders were blaming spontaneous

protests for the benghazi attack, the defense department circulated a detailed intelligence report that said an al qaeda-linked group plan to the assault 10 days beforehand. its goal is to kill as many americans as possible. the defense intelligence agency report is contained in a trove of previously classified documents that the government watchdog group judicial watch forced to the administration to release under court order. on another terrorism development that has white implications today, one report in august 2012 predicted the rise of the islamic state, which was then emerging in syria and northern and western iraq, and is committing mass slaughter of christians, cards, and muslims." as many of you know, as we told you at the top isis able to take control of ramadi, and some in the papers are questioning the administration's strategy on fighting isis in iraq and whether they need a new approach on that. mary of fort washington,

maryland, a democrat, good morning to you. what do you think about hillary clinton's strategy of running for president and not answer questions -- not answer questions from reporters? caller: good morning. it is mary allen. she should do what she is doing now because we need to hear from her. we know the lamestream media does not represent the people. what they put out now is opinions. i think they should do fact checking. i listen to amy goodman of "democracy now!" you had her on. she is the greatest good the media is not running for office pit they put out what they want to put out, and maybe republicans should stop listening to fox cable news and start listening to her. the clown show that is going on in the republican party. but thank you. host: before you go, let me ask you this. some say she is talking to the

voters in small groups, but the groups that are gathered have to be invited by the campaign, they are not open, public gatherings where anybody can get in and ask her different questions. these are preselected people that get to talk to her. caller: ok, and that is usually what happens at the beginning of the campaigning. we've got plenty of time good i'm sure she will get around to talking to the uninvited pretty soon. but like i said the media does not represent the people. they usually needed to learn how to stop being so opinionated and give us facts, which they never do. some republican callers, please stop listening to fox cable news. i put fox cable news on rental control so i don't have to look at them because i have had it. host: do you think you get the full story by listen to "democracy now"? caller: yes, i do -- host: sorry pushed the button too soon. hi al. caller: good morning.

i guess the gruber bunches still going at it. yes, i will not vote for mrs. hillary, mrs. clinton, however she wants to be pronounced. lawyers -- we don't need another lawyer in this country. they are mind manipulators. like this last lady -- she will not watch fox pitt she would get educated on the bad parts. we need to know the good and the bad. she is not answer questions. for the trade deal -- but the time she gets to answer that it will be passed or not passed. this is how lawyers work. mr. obama done it all the time. i will not be voting for her. host: we will move on to a democrat. caller: hi. host: good morning, what do you think? caller: i think it is time for us to grow up in the united

states of america. we have too many issues that are interesting. i think hillary is answering questions that are necessary to be answered at this time. i think her concern is focused towards the people and healing this country. we needed jobs she focuses on communities and the small business and the banking systems . the excellent hard to get started on. i think she is answering the questions that need to be answered. too much -- we get too much information anyway through the press. because of national security some things need to be regulated. but i think she will do a good job, she is doing a good job. i think she has to be judged -- she shouldn't be judged by her husband's administration, although he did an ok job, too. let's grow up and stop bickering. there is a quotation, "when i was a child i acted as a child but we put away childish ways."

it is time for capitol hill in washington to grow up and start doing the job that the people have sent them there to do. host: all right, look at the reaction from twitter. cbs tweeting this out -- "for the first time in 28 days, hillary clinton addresses the media." pew research center treats this out -- "a timeline of hillary clinton's favorability ratings over her career." in october 2013 it fell 249%. "chicago tribune" says "hillary clinton adding to" that city for two days of fundraisers. politico saying that she will "visit florida missouri, texas in may and june." she will get outside of the early caucus states and headed to the other states mentioned there in may and june. also this morning, "usa today"

saying that "clinton will complete her to her of the primary states with another two to new hampshire this weekend than a visit on may 20 72 south carolina -- may 27 two south carolina. the campaign says it will be a continuing process where she will be on the road and listen to voters and then trying to a more concrete, polished rollout phase of the campaign. we are in the phase where the first priority is making sure she has those conversations." that is what the clinton campaign says about her strategy to talking to these small groups. illinois republican, you are on the air. good one. -- good one. caller: democrat. good morning. host: democrat. caller: i listen to your program every morning and i enjoy most of your guests, but i have issues with some of the people in some of the reporters -- and

some of the reporters asking questions and you give out soundbites. if hillary says the moon is green, by the time the reporter gets to it the moon is green. i just get sick of it after a while. and then you get people that call in with the little hate in the back of their voice. she didn't do anything to them. give the lady a chance to have her say and quit hounding her. she will tell us what you need to tell us in due time to leave the benghazi junk alone. host: take a look at what carly furey and i had to say. she is running for the revolt -- carly fiorina had to say. she is running for the republican ticket and she said this about hillary clinton not answer questions from the media. [video clip] carly fureyiorina: since i

launched my campaign i've answered her record of 372 on the record questions. hillary clinton has answered 8 since april 12. i've gotten some interesting questions. for example, is a hotdog a sandwich? or am i criticizing hillary clinton because i'm a woman? i'm criticizing hillary clinton because i come from a world where a title is just a title and talk is just talk, and actions speak louder than words and people want to know what is your track record and what you actually accomplished? if hillary clinton is going to run for the presidency of the united states, she is going to have to answer some questions, and we are going to have to have a nominee who has the courage to ask her those questions. host: carly fiorina presidential candidate republican, talking about hillary clinton not answer

questions from reporters. she did so yesterday. her total since launching her campaign, 20. we'll go to gregory, an independent caller. what do you think? caller: good morning. well, if benghazi an e-mail that all the opposing forces have on her, i think that they are making her look good every time they make that admission. and in due course, if she combines forces with bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, her husband, and dr. stein, i don't think questions are necessary especially if she supports our current president with the new fast-track notwithstanding. i'm completely against the new fast-track, but if everybody is honest with themselves, nobody

agrees with everybody about everything. host: ok, gregory, on this issue of the e-mails folks are saying that they want to know who she was e-mailing with and who was e-mailing her. one person that has come up is sid blumenthal. "the wall street journal" editorial board writes about that this morning. "'the new york times' reported on e-mail records showing that he was on the payroll of the clinton foundation at the same time he was being paid by groups helping mrs. clinton presidential run, at the same time he was advising a u.s. business seeking libyan contracts, the same time he was secretly advising clinton about libya. the news raises questions about whether mr. blumenthal's work with mrs. clinton at state in

anyway benefited his private dealings, or how any of it fit into his work for the foundation. house investigators now intended to interview mr. blumenthal. let's hope they can uncover more about this pal of hillary's job as unofficial political and foreign policy advisor to a secretary of state. the broader point is that this is how the clintons operate, on the edge of the law, mixing business and politics, the personal with the official." here is how hillary clinton answer the question about receiving e-mails from her friend sid blumenthal. she was asked by jeff zeleny about this, if this is something that she would continue to do if she were elected president. take a look. [video clip] hillary clinton: i have many, many old friends, and i think it is important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you get into politics and

to understand what is on their minds, and he has been a friend of mine for a long time. he sent me unsolicited e-mails which i passed on in some instances. i see that that is part of the give-and-take. when you are in the public eye and in official positions, you have to work to make sure you are not caught in a bubble and only hear from a certain group of people. i will talk to my friends wherever they are. host: hillary clinton answering questions about her relationship with sid blumenthal, who was e-mailing her and giving her advice on libya when she was secretary of state and he was on the payroll of the clinton foundation. questions about that in the newspapers. also on capitol hill today, and house administration committees having hearing about capitol police and the safety and security come overall security status of the u.s. capital. this is after the geiger counter -- gyro-copter was able to land

on the lawn of the capital. we will have coverage of that on c-span3 this afternoon and c-span radio. friday on "washington journal," we will talk to the pilot of that gyro-copter. douglas hughes will be on "washington journal" and take your questions and comments. we will go to kerry in akron ohio, an independent. caller: hello, and thank god for c-span. i think she should answer all the questions that are posed to her. if we are going to give her credit for having a white body of knowledge in political service -- white body of knowledge in political service she should have well formed opinions are just about every issue thrown at her. and i'm urging black people to not just be democrats without even thinking.

i think we should give bernie sanders a good look, and despite what al sharpton says supporting everything democratic, give bernie sanders a look. host: ok -- caller: one more thing. even her response about the e-mails was disingenuous because she is saying just the e-mails "that i didn't do away with" can be released. but thanks to c-span. host: all right, we will go to andrew in naperville, illinois. caller: good morning, how you doing? host: good morning, go ahead. caller: all right, this is my point of view. hillary clinton is a lawyer. she is looking at it like -- i have my tv muted so i will go ahead. host: go ahead, intruded caller: andrew. caller: when all these e-mails

were coming out, she can't for a member on that stuff. she is going to wait. what's that stuff comes out, she will answer those questions. you have republicans you have people out there that want to indict her, they want to make her look bad. we have got to wait until all that can come out and then we will go ahead and ask those questions. host: all right, andrew. some other news -- "los angeles times" this one, courtesy of the newseum "big race for working poor." "as many as 800,000 workers could benefit." "detroit free press," "get the airbag recall gross to 34 million vehicles." that on the front page of

"detroit free press ." "times-picayune" out of louisiana, "bobby jindal enforce a religious freedom bill that effectively died earlier he plans to sidestep the legislature there on that issue ." many of you are seeing the news reports about the motorcycle gang in texas and the murderous fight that broke out there. this is from "the wall street journal." "the justice department estimates there are still 300 outlaw motorcycle gangs in the u.s. one of the gangs involved in the texas melee, the bandidos, is among the country's largest, along with the hells angels." in "the new york times," "four

cancer charities accused of fraud." this man pictured here is president of the cancer fund of america and is accused of misusing funds under four of his charities that he ran on that. tim, independent caller. should hillary clinton be answering more questions from the press? caller: how you doing this morning? i think she should answer the questions, because when you run for president, everything is on the table, and if you are not answering questions, then that means you have got something to hide. like she answered the blumenthal question perfectly. that was perfect how she answered it and i felt a lot better after she inserted. but what she -- but when she ducks and doctors, it shows me she has either not made up her mind that were there is something she is hiding. but she knows how to answer questions so she could answer

them and put that clown show over there on the republican side to that with all -- to bed with all this benghazi carap. host: this is from "the washington times" this morning. "bill clinton, george w. bush and other former presidents who earn lucrative speaking fees and drop other income would no longer be able to count on tax dollars to pay for their post-white house office space and staff under a bill in the house. the house oversight and government for committee that measure tuesday to limit taxpayer dollars for expense including travel, incurred for ex-president's her on more than $400,000 a year." susan in hampton, virginia, a republican. caller: good morning. i agreed with that gentleman from georgia just now. he took a lot of my steam. i think it is sweet that she

stands there and says "i want the state department to release all my e-mails." she had the dog on server in her townhouse in new york. we don't have our hands on her server. as far as benghazi, we wouldn't have all the information we do if it wasn't for judicial watch. hats off to them. but hillary clinton stood at a memorial and blamed benghazi on that film, and the government knew 10 days ahead of time that they were planning an attack. this is what our government does to us. they lie and they hide. thank you. host: susan, republican in hampton, virginia. we believe the conversation there for now. we will switch gears and talk about mental health in this country could we will talk to representative tim murphy, republican of pennsylvania, army psychologist, talking about our veterans in this country. later, representative charlie rangel, top democrat on the ways

and means subcommittee on trade. we will talk about that debate happening in congress as well as other news of the day. we will be right back. >> this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies: influence an image," we look into and harrison, letitia tyler, and julia type. and harrison never set foot in the white house because her husband, william henry harrison, dies. letitia tyler dies and the president remarries julia tyler, the first photographed first

lady. this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "first ladies: influence an image," examining the public and private lives of the first ladies from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. and as a complement, "first ladies," available as a hardcover or e-book at your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information, and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout of capitol hill, a look at congressional committees, the

president evident, federal agencies and state governments. what are your copy today -- order your copy today, $13.95 with shipping and handling, at cspan.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table this morning as congressman tim murphy, republican of pennsylvania, vocal leader on mental health issues in this country. the house veterans affairs committee along with the senate veterans affairs committees having destroyed hearing today ahead of memorial day looking at issues related to our veterans, mental health, of course, being one of the biggest ones. what is the status of health care for our veterans when it comes to mental health? guest: well, it is improving but it has a long way to go. you have two parts. one is the department of defense, where walter reed provides in support for people who are struggling with anxiety,

depression, and how we support them. and then it transitions to veterans. veterans affairs in the last 10 years -- they still have delays but they say in the mental health area there is a three-date lag which is better but when we have emergencies someone needs to call right away. there is still a problem where we don't have enough providers -- not enough psychologists social workers trained to understand military experience and ethos. that is a serious issue. you end up with the concern over continuity with the person not seeing the same psychiatrist each time i having delays in follow-up appointments. a lot of work that needs to be done there. host: with ptsd and other mental health illnesses coming out of serving in iraq and afghanistan and other places them what kind of treatment is there for our nation's veterans? guest: well let's take that about ptsd, because it is oftentimes misunderstood. you have are parts of anywhere

from 15 to 25% of combat veterans may have post-traumatic stress disorder. i want to walk you through this quickly. when a person is in combat or intensive training, they should have stress. if you don't have stress, something is wrong. after that, it is normal to have post-traumatic stress. if you have been through a terrible expense of combat and people die or you have been wounded yourself -- this has been around as long as there have been battles, and that is part of the process where the soldiers, whether it is around the campfire or someone talking in the evening going over those experiences, that is historically valuable healing process. but veterans say that anybody can be broken. when it is so intense and so overwhelming, a single event over time, sometimes they just can't shake it. and people have nightmares, with the sweating, anxiety, panic. what has to happen in those circumstances is sometimes a combination of medication and very targeted psychotherapy.

it is important to stand for this veterans and other people who may be listening -- this is an talking about your childhood. -- this isn't talking about your childhood. there is focused, evidence-based treatment models, one where basically you about the experience and it doesn't have to be the intense expense, but talking about them. it is important that the brain itself, the limbic system, the part of the brain that assigns motions to memory -- when you are dealing with something that is traumatic you think about it over and over and over again you play that you take sometimes hundreds of times a day. that links that emotion so strongly that that becomes the dominant and interfering emotion. when it interferes with life that is when it becomes a disorder. by talking about the experience but this time teaching the veteran relaxation techniques or otherwise of replacing those negative emotions with calmer ones, that is part of it. the other is cognitive behavior, really helping them understand.

they don't have to catastrophize, think in terrible terms -- i will never get over this, it is my fault, i feel guilty. instead, think of more positive things. this is a troubling experience but i can move on and memorialize the memory of my unit by being good, by being positive, by helping other people and it is replacing those negatives with positive thoughts. that being said, it can take weeks or months of work. we know that when you are in treatment and you are working in some cases with medication, you can and do get better. absent that, some work on their own and get better and it is a positive experience. but denial and ignoring it can be a great concern. host: as we noted at the top the lawmakers on the house and senate veterans affairs committee are having a joint session today where they will be hearing from multiple veterans service organizations, mental health likely to come up, as well as other issues facing our nation's veterans. we will have coverage of that.

go to cspan.org at 10 i clock a.m. eastern time. we will live stream it on our website and show it later. congressman tim murphy, when it comes to mental health, whether there is mental health parity is there mental health parity for our nation's veterans? guest: no. a great point here. part of that parity, particularly with the department of defense and veterans affairs -- a bill i'm doing is enhancing access to treatment act, which tries to fix it just on the medication level. a doctor who is an rv or a -- army or navy or air force dr. can't prescribe medication for a service member, and then they leave the military and go to dva and the v8 may not have the formulary, the list of drugs -- they go to the va and the v.a. may not have the formulary, the list of drugs. my bill is to say that you are going to carry these things. there was a famous case -- the

clay hunt suicide bill, where his mother testified in front of the veterans affairs committee a year or so ago and disrupt the medication he was on, and when they went over -- described the medication he was on, and went they went over to the v.a., they didn't carry it. when you are on a psychotropic medication, the time to be careful is when it is tapering off. going cold turkey becomes a concerning time. as the mother testified, he struggled with that and killed himself. there is no reason we ever want a veteran to get in line for a psychiatric medication. my bill says that we have got to carry those things. don't say "let's order it in the mail and see what happens when it gets here in a couple of weeks." no, it needs to be there. my gosh, if someone is doing well on medication, keep it, and

the reason for this, greta, is there is a number of antidepressants and antipsychotics, but not everybody reacts the same to those, and particularly in terms of side effects. when you are at risk for diabetes etc., the idea is to find the right drug that fits for that individual's body, the metabolism, so you are minimizing side effects. again, think of this, when a person has side effects and says "i don't want to take this medication anymore," they stopped taking it and problems occur and they don't go to other appointments. we know that the veterans who commit suicide, vast majority are not in treatment. make sure people stay in treatment. host: we are talking to congressman tim murphy about mental health of the nation's veterans in the general population as well. here is how we have divided the line.

host: health care in the united states, that is what we are talking about. let's show our viewers some numbers from your office. over 11 million americans have a serious mental illness including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. our government spends $130 billion annually on mental health. the u.s. has over 150,000 in patients in psychiatric -- psychiatric beds in 1955, 40,000 in 2015. 20 to 50% of inmates have a mental illness. what has happened since new town -- newtown other instances

where people with mental health issues have gone on shooting sprees? what has happened in washington to combat that? guest: initially, there was a phase of let's look at what is in their we undertook a year-long investigation that became a longer-term one. building -- we would reintroduce that. with modifications. the issue is, we realized, when all those psychiatric beds closed in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, there were very few places for people to go. we needed to close down those asylums. they were wretched places. they started off as a good idea that they became people -- places of abuse. what has happened is, we have

traded the hospital bed for the prison cell. or the other aspect, you have so many homeless who are mentally ill, untreated and when someone has a crisis, they tend to be picked up by the police and taken either to jail or to the hospital, and if they are educated, they are tied down to a gurney. they are given a sedative, that is inhumane. there is -- there was a trend back in the 1970's when the court got involved in patient's rights. people were being abused. they did have a right. we should never say you are undesirable. as someone mentally ill, it is an illness, it is not an attitude. it is not a non-consensus reality. people with dementia or with a brain injury, we do not question that they have a brain function problem.

with mental illness, even if they are talking about people believe they are the messiah or the angel gabriel or the cia is after them, it does not mean they are well. they have a right to get better. they have a right to treatment. we have switched this around, and you see court cases in the 1970's continuing where judges say it is not illegal to be crazy. imagine that -- and we say it is not illegal to have a heart attack. it is not illegal to have cancer, so go ahead and have cancer -- we would knew -- never do that. we have such bigotry about mental illness. in the courts. they have gone on this progress road saying, you have the right to be sick and weak will not do a darn thing about it, and congress has followed that with stupid medicaid rules that say you cannot see 2 doctors in the same day,. . we will not let parents get

information about their adult children so they can help. it is bizarre. what we have to do in washington d.c., his changes approach so we are being compassionate and understand this is an illness. we will reach out and provide services and help you. otherwise, we continue to choke off the very people who need it. host: after this morning, you're heading to capitol hill, have 100 families who have loved ones suffering from mental illness -- why are they here? guest: to tell their story. my bill to help families provides the words, they provide the why. the hernandez family from california who could not get their son in treatment. he comes home and has a baseball bat and knife and against stabbing his father. his father fights back. his son is in jail. you have other cases that are famous, where families -- a

university in california or arizona, families who wanted to get their family member help and they kept being told no, you cannot force someone into treatment. their parents said they are paranoid delusional -- no, you cannot force them into treatment. they do not have a will -- you cannot see them the same as other people. you had the shooting of gabby giffords and the one in seven barbara and arizona. -- santa barbara. these are stabbing, suicide, hangings. terrible tragedies. we want treatment before tragedy, do not make our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters have to go to this point where they are falling apart. host: how do you legislate that? guest: saying, for those people who have a history of violence and incarcerations, many states

-- about 46, have assisted outpatient treatment, and our bill will stay -- say states will have that -- to have that we will put money in that. you have diminished capacity, and we want to make sure you stay in treatment. when this is done -- when this was done in your 80% or 90% satisfaction rate. -- when this was done in new york. reduce homelessness by 70%, that is what we want to see. guest: athens georgia, go ahead. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] that stigmatizes mental illness in that way. host: it is very difficult to

understand you. i think you're talking about the statement of depression. -- the stigma of depression. guest: i'm sorry, i could not hear you, but the stigma is similar to what other illnesses had in the past. we did not talk about cancer, we certainly did not talk up breast-cancer. now, we have a race where 40,000 or 50,000 people show up nfl players put on pink gloves and pink shoes. we are not there with mental illness, and a large part is the only area of medicine where it is defined lawyers and enforced by police. if you call and said, i'm having chest pains and they took you to jail, you would not do that. there is such a gross misunderstanding among the legal community and medical community to understand this is a brain illness. who wants that?

when we get to the point people say, i have a problem, i am anxious, depressed, i can call and there will be a doctor and that person will treat me and i will get better. the stigma a rhodes. -- you rhodes. we are stuck in old concepts that the person is possessed or evil or satanic. no, it is an illness. host: a mental health worker in all many, new york am a good morning steve. -- albany, new york. caller: i want to commend the representative and topic. i am a social worker and i have seen the depression and discrimination that my clients have experienced as a consequence of these stigmas against mental health. it is incredibly deleterious and i work with children and i would suggest starting at such a young

age, you do not want to label them. as the representative commented the psychiatry dominators how people are labeled and linens itself to people being overdiagnosed or -- host: i think we got your point. at what age do diagnose mental illness? caller: -- guest: we are getting better at it, about 50% of marriages by age 14. -- emerges by the age of 14. much better at it than we were 20 years ago. more effective medications are coming out all the time. it is critically important to diagnose it at a young age. it used to be seen as a repurchase kid -- rambunctious kid, we need to dig deeper.

do not let them go through years of being teased and bullied. because they are strange. find out what is going on. the key, and i remember hearing this from parents at an elementary school, they said teachers know when kids are having problems. i know where to help them. we do not want to take them away. once we can provide interventions and treatment, but focus on that. there is a program we authorize and which federal agencies are focusing on. it improves the prognosis tremendously when you intervene early. we know that denial is not a treatment. it causes more problems. we need to admit the problem. host: charles in connecticut. caller: thank you for c-span.

i was wondering -- i am a war veteran from the iraq war in 2008 two 2009. i have been suffering from ptsd since that and have not been able to find any kind of psychotherapy or pill that will really help me for the long run. it is not an easy answer. guest: let me ask you a question -- have you gone to the va? caller: yes. host: have you tried asking for different providers -- because you have to find the right match? caller: i have talked to many people and they tell me the same thing. just start your life. start your life over again. host: thank you, so much and thank you for your service. this is not just a situation of suck up and move on, it is also

understanding you have to move on, a person in the midst of ptsd, you have three choices this is what i tell people i work with at walter reed, you can be victim, you can think about the sad and terrible experiences and live under this giant boulder. the second choice is to be a survivor. say, despite what happened, i am moving forward, i'm getting on with my life. the third choice is to be a survivor. -- thriver because of what happened to me i will be stronger, faster, better smarter. although we are concerned about ptsd and continue to work on it, the vast majority of veterans move forward and are stronger, faster, better stronger. we should celebrate that employers should not be afraid. we want to make sure we continue to give that veteran hope. sometimes you have to find the right match.

there is a document tree called "that which i left destroys me" and it will be available free on memorial day. a powerful look at 2 veterans, one an army ranger, one a delta force, no slackers. it was supposed tracking them became four years of filming, because their lives fell apart and then you watch them get back together, one became homeless, the other became addicted to painkillers. it is a marvelous thing. i want veterans to look at it. you will see the struggles and say, they hung in there. part of these experiences is normal. you have been through trauma. it is normal to be fearful and worried that have anxiety and not want to be around people. do not see it as a disability. it is not a death sentence, something you can move forward and have since of hope. host: can you be a survivor and

a survivor without drugs -- and a thriver without drugs? guest: what i was describing before about reprogramming the brain, if the anxiety is so severe you cannot function, it lowers anxiety. you do not want to continue to be on sleep meds. the antidepressants can be helpful, but on their own they are much less helpful in conjunction with psychotherapy. if you are able to continue on with other therapy, that is important. you have to make sure -- whether a civilian, someone who understands the military mindset, that is a big part. host: a doctrine florida, mental health worker. -- a doctor. caller: i am glad to talk to tim

murphy. i congratulate him on his presenting this problem with the mental health. nobody seems to realize in the united states how big a problem this is. the issue i have with everything is that they recognize this as a psychological problem. but it is not a psychological problem -- what it is is -- as the representative said before -- in the system, a sudden -- there are pathways and when they are disturbed because of a chemical setup produced, they create new pathways. these new pathways result into

what i call the script screw syndrome. every time you try to screw the screw in you end up in the same group. -- groove. it is not the medications -- they are taking people then categorizing them into -- the medical field is categorizing these people and labeling them with all sorts of names and diseases. they are basically the same problem. and if we continue to treat only the symptoms, like a patient who comes in with fever, and you just give them aspirin. you will never be able to treat them. guest: that is a great point. you cannot treat them

symptomatically. you have to help them. there is the component -- when i sit down with service members and explain to them the neurological functions. there is a great set -- psychiatrist at walter reed, you ask plain that to him, i cannot tell you what a relief it is like this is my brain that has made new links. by the time you walk through the meadow a millionth time you will see it for centuries, we have to start new pathways, the pathways of healing. relaxation, talking about how they can be valuable. you add that i logical component and psychological component of stress. medications cannot be the be-all, end-all. diagnosis should not be a wall, they should be a dork. let's identify -- they should be

a door. we should never let it be the endpoint. host: david in florida. caller: how are you doing? good morning. tim, let me ask you a couple of questions. there are 22 soldiers they kill themselves every day. 22 times, every year -- over 70,000 soldiers have committed suicide in the last 10 years. i know that congress is doing a lot. you are complaining about 4 people in benghazi. for i don't know how long. with the benghazi meetings you people have. the fact that they are dead is appalling.

but after all these years. america, what is going wrong when 7030 men kill themselves every year and you people do not even know about it. explain that to me -- explain that to the american people how well you are taking care of the people -- host: -- guest: i got it. we are aware. of those 22 people who die and a, five are getting service from the va, the rest may not be in service. there are a large group of vietnam veterans, a lot of these issues people have may also be linked with aging. 40 years, 50 years after a combat event, is when you see increases in medical issues. we have done a great deal with regards to more funding, shorten the waiting list at the va, and get more providers in the systems.

what also is happening, unique to this war, many are surviving that did not in past wars. automatic brain injury. many people -- more dramatic brain injury. someone has been exposed to a lot of blasts, a lot of explosions. that can affect the brain. we are doing a great deal. we do not leave anybody in the field in the military, we leave nobody behind. that means, in benghazi, we do not leave them behind. if someone is in baghdad or afghanistan, we do not leave them behind, but we do not leave them behind when they are in the united states. that is when the military community recognizes these problems and where they get worse we died in. -- dive in. we do that as veterans and as a nation, as military. it is a family. as a nation we will continue to help.

host: pennsylvania, leslie, you are on the air with congressman tim murphy. caller: good morning, congressman, thank you for bringing a bill like this about here it is critical and you are right on about how you're talking about mental illness. i have bipolar psychotherapy problem and i am on medication. my son has odd and personalized -- personality disorder. i had been in psychotherapy and my point is that you are pursuing all government funded or subsidized health care or options for people to seek and i realized some people do not have the private care route to go. you should try and support people like myself who have private insurance, but we want to pursue doctors in our network

as well as the medications. i got a letter from saying -- saying the quantity of my medicine is now going to be curtailed, because of insurance. cutbacks. guest: thank you for your call. thank you for your courage. we need lots of people like you to say i have this illness and i'm facing it head on. a bill we passed a few years ago , took five years to get regulations that. it is not universally applied throughout the state -- it is supposed to be. whatever your illness, we see behavior medicine as illness and you are supposed to have parity. i cannot imagine a doctor saying, we have this cholesterol dedication but we are going to hit that cut it in half.

we know you need insulin, we will save money and reduce that. you would not do that. same with psychotropic medication. there should be parity of getting it. we are dealing with the caps of number of inpatient days in a lifetime absurd. we would not do that with any other illness. host: who is fighting back? guest: insurers are saying it is expensive. but, treatment is much better. getting people doing productive things works. we have a dump government rule, people with disability payments can only work enough to remain in poverty. maybe you are backing at a grocery store, putting up shelves in a warehouse. but you make too much money and we will take money away from you -- why not let them make independent, they become productive citizens and taxpayers. these demon of knowing they are doing something well. that is part -- the esteem of

knowing they are doing something well. guest: -- host: south atlantic, ready. -- south carolina, randy. caller: if they are going to take this problem serious, they need to change the way the prism systems are run. -- prison systems are run. i did 23 years and for you to say you do not leave anyone behind in the military, that is good and fine, but the prisoners, they are being left behind. guest: you bring up a great point. comparing 2 people, one with mental illness and one without who ends up being arrested for something, the person with mental illness usually does a four times longer sentence. because they get imprisoned and the prison may not give them medication or we want to try something else and the person struggles. they get abused i other inmates

and in fights with guards. they have new charges because they struck a guard, they are put in isolation, and instrument -- inhumane situation. that needs to stop. if someone has some -- has done a crime, they do the time. my solution is to keep them out of prison. that is not right. we should be avoiding that by getting them treatment ahead of time and not waiting based upon this 18th-century concept that we cannot force you into treatment unless you threaten to kill yourself or someone else or unless you try it. that is bazaar. if someone's brain function is deteriorating, we need to prevent them from going to jail in the first place. host: georgia. caller: i wanted to ask him --

does he believe mental health facilities should be privatized because in the state, in georgia, the funding has been spent -- split between private clinics and public clinics. the private clinics gets a lot of funding from the state and sometimes the private facility will be in the same complex as the public facility. the private facility can take and choose who they want to treat. if they do not want to treat them, they send them to the emergency room. that is wrong. are you in favor of privatizing -- guest: that happens in a lot of areas where medical care, where people who can pay come into one system and a push them away. i think that is bad. that is one of the things medicaid has which was the 16 federal.

-- better rule -- 16 bed rule. they will not pay if the hospital has more than 16 beds. it is set up by medicaid and we want to eliminate it. have a separate but equal system. have parity throughout the system. the issue being we want to make sure people have access to evidence-based effective treatment. states that have gone into this -- let's close our own institutions and set contracts. if they do not monitor what happens to people, homelessness goes up, incarceration goes up. if they are not monitoring those , they may think they are saving money when their spending a heck of a lot more. how can someone in a prison year after year, far more extensive than providing outpatient treatment. host: billy, miami florida. caller: i am so happy to see your program this morning.

real quickly, you have a large amount of people that were gay in the military that were, every 10 years the military went through and did a sweet to find out who was gay. -- did a sweep. they would give you undesirable discharge. when you came home you had to register with manpower, the way to find out what kind of discharge you got. so many people that were stigmatized by this, as soon as your employer found out, that you got an undesirable discharge, given to people that are child molesters, drug users rapists, as soon as your employer found out you got an undesirable discharge, you are discharged. can you imagine the stigma of that? that went for me and i had the strength to fight and go to the

review board in washington and have my discharge overturned. trying to get help from the va with that kind of stigma, they look at you as, we will help you, but we do not want to. it has taken the most 10 years to get into the program where you have a dysfunctional. i thank you for your help and your help. guest: thank you for your courage to serve and to fight and right a wrong. that helps us as congress. the families on the hill today are telling their story of how are trying to help members of congress be aware of their problems. where they have been wronged and they dealt with this -- with the prejudices and are moving forward to help change it. people end up stronger, faster better smarter.

they say i will turn this into a strength. if there is a message i want people to hear, we can turn this into strength. i wish we could cure every case of major depression. it is not there. just like we cannot cure every case of cancer and heart disease. we can do a lot better. host: one last phone call. larry in indiana, a mental health worker. caller: i am glad to be able to chat with you today. i wanted to share, my wife is a marriage and family therapist she had opportunity to meet with military folks who have ptsd. in my own experience, i am a veteran and i think something that would be helpful is to educate veterans and let them know they have benefits. example, i did not realize even though i spent 4 years in the navy, i had real medical benefits available.

until my father in law told me. i met several people, a neighbor who has diabetes. he was paying over $700 a month for medicine. although he was a veteran. i told him about that. he went to the va in indianapolis, the greatest facility in the united states. he has been treated there and now pays $12. he had no idea. guest: a great point, our nation provides a great many benefits for veterans, whether it is in the cemeteries to psychological care and i hope you will contact -- talk to your members of congress. if there is a message from today, let it be a message of hope. be grateful to our veterans and continue to serve those who serve and for those dealing with

mental illness, we will help them. talk to congress about the crisis act when we reread -- reintroduce it. we have to save lives and turner of lives. -- and turn around lives. host: this discussion will continue on capitol hill later on when there is a bicameral midi hearing. hearing from veterans groups about the state of our veterans in this nation, we will have coverage on c-span.org. -- go to c-span.org for more details. we will talk with charlie wrangle, democrat of new york and the top democrat in the ways and means subcommittee on trade. later, our spotlight series with a look at a decent bloomberg businessweek on the growing business of birthing tourism. we will be right back. ♪

>> for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. be he so vile, this day so gentle his condition. and derailment in england shall think themselves accursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood. drone from my countries was him -- bosom should be the more that streams of foreign gore.

>> director of the shakespeare library talks about shakespeare and how politicians use quotes from the famous playwright in their speeches. >> sometimes you have to go with the music of the word. the poetic images, the sound of the rhymes and the way in which you are able to linger over a long phrase and stop and keep going. he is using the rhythms of the language, something shakespeare did so brilliantly. so he can take english and put it into high gear at one moment and slow down. that is something shakespeare lets you do if you are a politician. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> parting is such sweet sorrow, and it really is. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color

photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today, it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. "that's >> "washington journal" is next. host: charles rangel is the top democrat on the ways and means subcommittee. what is your stance on trade -- the trade deal? guest: i am waiting to see what this package is going to be. if the president can include infrastructure and a bill that would allow the workforce to be trained, i think that should not be a partisan package, that would be america speaking about

-- and about time for the congress and president to work together. that has not happened. i am surprised because people say that the negotiations is secret. you and i know that the multinationals are involved in calling the shots. in order for us to say it will be successful in the future, the exporters and importers have to guide negotiators. we note there are trillions of dollars to be made in the future in dealing with these 12 countries. what happens with the other structure -- -- infrastructure, why can't we have the multinationals say, in order for us to be successful, we need bridges and roads. and, the workforce. we know the jobs are not there because they would have said it. it seems to me, if we can come together in a bipartisan way that people would know that trade does not mean loss of

jobs, it could be an exciting plus for our future, but they will not put a package together. right now, when you say trade people do not think about tpp they just think we lost jobs on nafta, we do not want to lose any more. it should not be trade. it should be trade infrastructure and a workforce that can be competitive. host: any inkling there would be included in a deal to get house democrats on board like yourself that would include infrastructure spending? guest: you say spending, i say investment. i have talking about the future. what we want to do is set the stage for 10 or 20 years from now, the multinationals, it appears at this point would be the beneficiaries. nothing about who would earn what -- beat economist at it,

give america an advantage in terms of trade. america are working people. if you do not talk about what is in it for them, you are not going to be talking about whether investments are protected. they do not talk about the jobs or infrastructure. most importantly, the average american -- if he see's this train going by and he says i do not want it, i think they can say, there is a lack of productivity technology, what about my kids? we need all of these things. it is not a democratic issue, it is an american issue. if they will separate these things and say, trust the president, he will give you a better deal than nafta, then we have to have an unusual party vote where republicans are supporting trade multinational corporations, and democrats say,

no, not this time, what does it mean to the guy in the street? host: this is what the white house says -- 12 countries participating, a market size of our most 800 million consumers $305 billion in world exports a year by 2025 additional 100 free $4 billion in u.s. exports -- additional $124 billion a year. guest: how did you miss jobs? jobs mean i can go home to my just -- district and say, maybe not you, but your son will have an opportunity in high-tech to be able to compete against any country in the world. we have to have an agreement that tilts -- at least makes us competitive. the fact that you said the best you could find, and you excluded jobs, that is a problem democrats are having. host: on the senate side, they

have brokered a deal with democrats on moving forward with trade. they voted last week -- currency many galatian, moving forward on trade promotion authority. they are making their way through this trait debate. -- trade debate. if it comes to you in the house with some of the worker protections, possibly currency medivation, would you vote yes? -- currency manipulation? guest: if jobs and education and infrastructure are not included, i am not going to give a free check to the multinationals. they believe that what is good for the multinationals is good for america. who else could better determine whether the trade agreement will be successful except importers and exporters? the way the trend is, the ceos

will be making the money and the employees will be losing jobs. why is it that they are reluctant to put this together? the multinationals know exactly what is in that trade agreement. they have to. if they did not, i would have a problem with the negotiators. host: you are the top democrat on your committee, and the one that overseas trade, have you got to the room where you can find out what is in this trade deal? guest: i know what is in the trade deal and i can tell you not only have i and other people gone but i'm saying, mr. president, republican leaders if it is good for the country what is it you think members of congress really want? a boom for the economy yes does that mean jobs, yes. show me the jobs.

the jobs should be there. when you say infrastructure, some engineers may get excited but people in the community say i think i can do that. if you say, the technology of the future that we are missing in order for us to be competitive in the future, we have to do a better job. is that a democrat or republican issue -- i think not. is it necessary for trade -- you bet your life. i hate to see, in the last few years of the great president's term, him not being able to succeed and have the authority to sign off on a great trade agreement. i cannot think of one positive issue that the republicans can go into in 2016 and most of the candidates that they are putting up look like a "saturday night live" review.

if they can come together with the president and say this is good for the country, good for america, let's come together and do it. host: hillary clinton, when she was secretary of state called the transpacific partnership the goal standard of trade deals. now she is finding problems with the trade proposal. some in the democratic party are saying you need to be more clear, madam secretary, about where you stand on these trade deals -- are you one of them? guest: i say we all should find out and have a more clear impression as to when the deal is cut, what will be in the deal? i cannot begin to tell you the number of democrats who are opposed totpp -- to tpp that

would say they would vote for a minute -- for it in a minute if jobs were included. if hillary clinton is saying the same thing -- you could be portrayed, most democrats are portrayed, but they are talking about fair trade that includes jobs. if only be multinational know what is in the agreement, if we cannot look and see what is in the agreement, that is not what gets us -- that is not what the constitution is about. members of congress should be able to explain to their constituents what they voted for and against. i cannot see how hillary clinton could before or against the bill went members of congress do not know what is in the bill. host: here is senator elizabeth warren. she was asked it secretary clinton does not oppose the

bill does she endorse it. >> what i think you are asking -- the answer is it matters to millions of workers across the country and matters to millions of people who have to brave the air -- breathe the air and drink water, millions of people who will eat food in the united states. yes, the trade deal matters to me. >> is a big enough to sway for you back? >> i am saying the trivial matters. -- trade deal matters. guest: how does it impact workers? you think people in main street, the united states, are going to look at this and say, in the future we think is good for america or are they going to say , how does it affect me?

mi going to lose jobs again, or gain jobs. where is the roundtable -- the business roundtable. you asked any of the multinationals, and they say they cannot succeed without an educated workforce. and without infrastructure. why are these things amended. -- omitted. you can talk to anybody in the cabinet and they would say you are right. there is no one to challenge what i'm saying. on either side of the aisle. republican say, don't you believe we are going to do it? put it in the package. legislatively, it is impossible to do. i think, if the republican leadership, and the democratic leadership, like they did under doctors fix, and the doctor it -- the president is bringing them together, what a way to wrap up what has been a terrible congressional session with the

president and the congress. this would be -- even if people never knew what was in the bill, they would say this is the right thing to do, to be working together. host: charlotte in florida, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. congressman rangle, appreciate you, as you have been in the fight for a number of years. as we have seen, capitalists seem uninterested in capitalism. supporting the development of market created innovations. i am delighted to see your going to bring forward the whole of this. if we are so concerned about energy, about putting energy for with a trade deal, why not marry it with infrastructure. ? which would create investment or

our country. here with young people, who he graduated tens of thousands in the past weeks, who are going into the market with no opportunity. we have now supposedly capitalists who are supposedly the marvel for us. we know in the past 14 years, we have had a devastating 1% tax cut regular tour rollback, which have repeatedly reassured us would usher in an era of boundless prosperity. it has ushered in the worst economic disaster. an ongoing evaporation by austerity budgets. what it has done is create less innovation, less investment in our people, and somehow we are focused on processing of some

agreement, rather than brokering and bargaining or -- for infrastructure that creates true innovation and investment in this country for our children. host: sounds like she agrees with you. guest: she did not mention, the pulse of the economy -- more people trying to hold on to the middle class. in terms of the disparity between the incomes -- 90% of the wealth and less than 1% of the people. people in the middle have the desires -- they want to save and have a better life. they buy from the local store. we have to find some way whether minimum wage, increase in education, to involve them, not just the tycoons. you can see what poverty does in

causing so many communities to blow up. where education and jobs is the solution to those problems we have. and we continue to have. somebody has to protect the middle class. why not this trade bill? we need a vehicle to do it. i am not saying it is a silver bullet to stop riots. people are looking forward to a future, they will not be on the road to the jails. law enforcement would say, make my job easier. put these communities in schools and back to work and why not use this trade bill? it meets all of the things america needs, including a shot in economic arm for the middle class. host: independent caller, michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. congress and rangle -- congressman rangle, they

promised all jobs and it would be so great for america. i do not think the was dry when chrysler moved there wiring division from chicago to mexico. thousands of jobs were lost. i have been listening to c-span and the congressional hearings, nobody brings up those jobs lost. a lot of democrats and everybody who voted for nafta. that is what we lost. guest: the painful thing is, a guy 40 years old or 50 years old, lose their job, they lose self-esteem, the ability to purchase and they lose the heart of america. not just jobs when you see a factory closed down and the people move to mexico or other countries. what keeps america as strong -- if you have not made it -- the hope that you can. if you have made it, there is no

cap what you can do in this great country. we are losing that. capitalism does not provide fiduciary relationships to the workers. that is where americans have to protect them. capitalist means the fiduciary relationship is with the shareholders, make the money. nothing wrong with that, as long as you share it. i do not know whether henry ford was with the workers, but he wanted them to have enough to buy his cars. that makes a lot of sense. host: flint, michigan, david, democrat. caller: hello to representative rangle. i am asking him please hold to your guns, do not give the president that authority. i love the president, i think he has done a great job on health care and other things. i think he is dead wrong.

do not go along with it. i'm going to call my representative. flint has been devastated by all of our jobs leaving here and going overseas for years and years. now there are hardly any jobs and the young people cannot find anything to do. stick to your guns. host: kevin mccarthy, the majority leader in the house said yesterday they have the votes, when trade promotion authority comes to the house possibly in june, they have the votes. guest: you are talking about what people think is in the bill. you are talking about a bill that no one knows what is in it a bill that does not have jobs and it. and you need to have a reverse party vote, i have not seen anything like this in the 4 decades i have been in congress. republicans who fought this president down the line, are suddenly going to support him in this. if i did not know what the bill was, just to see the republicans

saying they thought, there must be something wrong. what are the democrats asking for -- you hear them say they are against trade promotion authority, true, you see -- you hit them say they are against the transpacific partnership. but if you asked one of them, suppose this trade agreement could show you that republicans and democrats really want to have the infrastructure to make this work -- suppose they told you minimum wage and education benefits would be included. what would you think about it? no one would challenge me. if i am wrong, i want to hear it. there is no one listening dashboard no one on the floor no matter what party, that does not say we need a more high qualify workforce. no one can say that one of the greatest cases we have in this country is a crumbling

infrastructure. no one can challenge the president and say there are countries out there we should set a standard for and participate with. you have one that is saying the multinationals are right and does not include the people, i do not think this is the way i want my president to leave office. and i thought to be within -- faught the last couple of years, i had no idea he would have such political opposition. this is a turnaround. an opportunity for the president to say everything people supported him believed in. with those who didn't, show me the republican or tea party person that does not say we need bridges and airports that support our economy. they may not care about health but they have to care about jobs. host: did you vote for jack -- nafta?

guest: no, and i can see the results of nafta. in communities that rely on certain traits collapsed. -- certain trades collapsed. let's be realistic, there comes a time in everyone's life, if you miss that train you cannot get back on. if you're old, a car pension is not there technology, youngsters coming on board. when you miss it in middle-age, you miss it for life. the transition of authority hardly makes up for broken families and broken dreams. host: michigan, don independent, you are talking with congressman charles rangel. caller: thank you for having me on. good morning, mr. rangle. i love that word challenge. i would like to challenge you and your memory. stimulus, shovel ready and $1

trillion, and the percentage used for infrastructure, 3% or 4%? i wanted to mention that you to jog your memory. if you want to do something that helps america -- let's get rid of the federal tax system in place, put something in place that does not have any kind of subsidy and let the private sector and people go ahead and solicit the world. thank you, mr. rangle. guest: i have no problem with reforming the taxes and. -- the tax system. unfortunately, most multinationals do not pay that tax rate, there are loopholes to pay less than their employees for their income. if the corporations -- and he is

a lovely private sector, let them come up with a plan to put in infrastructure. when you are dealing with how to educate a country to meet the challenges of the future, we have done in times of war. take women, minorities, and everybody else left aside and saying, we need you now. we are reaching that point now where you see what is happening in asia, with our competitors what is not happening in our high schools, now is the time to put a brake on it and say we have to take a look not as republicans and democrats, and not as government and private sector, but together so that america comes out ahead. host: north carolina, our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask the question, it is my understanding that the proposal or agreement will be available for 60 days for people

to take a look at and make comments. then congress has the option of voting yes or no. i do not understand -- if you can see it at that time, and when you are negotiating a deal, there are a lot of things that bother me -- you do not want to negotiate it in public, you have to have some type of way of doing it without everybody being in their. at some point, you will be able to make comments to the public and make a decision. the second point i want to make -- this president has created more jobs i understand within the past few years than the past 16 years. why would he, at this point want to sign something that would take those jobs away? guest: the congress has the

authority to negotiate. they change as you cannot expect 535 people to negotiate. the problem we have -- when i was chairman of the ways, we told the president, we give you the authority. make certain you protecting workers. if you make certain that happens, we will give you the authority to negotiate. that was a yes or no vote -- the yes or no vote was not as important. the present will not give you assurances that 20% protection you want is not going to be in it. it is not fair to have an up and down vote. we should be able to participate. what makes it so secret about what the devil we are doing. it will be 1000 more pages. reading it and you only have a couple of hours and going back home and exciting it is not it. -- explaining it, is not it.

the fact the resident has been successful in increasing the job market is spectacular, but what did he start from -- where did he start from, a fiscal disaster, and economicrevolution at this time and we need it. we need it for our multinationals, we needed for our workforce. but what has kept america ahead of the rest of the world has not been the numbers, not that we are smarter than anyone else, it is our creativity and ability to really have an edge on what we have in technology. we can afford to lose it. again, whether it is republican or democrat, what is wrong with having a package that includes all of these things and get on with it? because the president will tell you, you can have trade unless you have infrastructure. you can have both of these unless you have a workforce. so, i'm hoping -- and there is

something people in the congress that is working with the white house, working with the unions, working with the business people, trying to get this to come together because they don't want to say no to this president. host: denise on twitter says tpa, must address currency manipulation country of origin and isds. we are talking about train with congressman charles rangel. here with us for about another 15, 20 minutes. congressman, i will get back to cost, but first want to ask about cuba. you are promoting free trade with cuba. to normalize relations with that country. argue with free trade for that country and that would free-trade of the transpacific partnership deal? guest: there is a lot of difference between free trade and embargoing a country. from having any business transactions with the united states over 50 years.

that is really an act of war. but i can tell you in a short way, i recently had the opportunity to be with the president of the united states at the organization of america costs meeting -- of america's leading in panama. when i came into office, most of these countries had dictators in them. to be able to see 34 democracies their -- there you had the thing god you lived in this hemisphere where we were moving forward. the one country that was not a democracy was the government of cuba. that had been excluded. and then they were shaking hands with the president. and it was reported that president castro said that the pope could convince him to go back to the church, and there's

no question that these democracies and south america are able to do a much better job and make it a democracy out of cuba. so trade and relationships between cuba and the rest of the world, which they enjoy, and can only be a good thing for america and a good thing for the hemisphere. and, therefore, a good thing for the world. host: here is a headline -- u.s. and cuba are close to opening embassies. they are meeting again in washington thursday to be finalize a deal -- to finalize a deal to open embassies. they say there are other ways to attack the president's broader plan and normalize relations with cuba. guest: republicans have to find

some way between 2016 to say yes to something. they have been so effective in saying no to everything that the president wants. so if they are willing to hold up in attorney general's confirmation in this country the fact that they give him a hard time on cuba does not surprise me, but i say this. this trade deal and jobs gives them an opportunity at least to go into the campaign with one positive thought. they don't have the candidates, they don't have anything they attempt to count -- to accomplish in the eight years they have been there, so it just seems to me that -- get over it with cuba. let's try to make this hemisphere one where every country is a democracy with free-trade and look into equality of life for all of its people. host: david has been waiting in

new york, and independent. caller: yes, representative rangel, i would like to know if you listen yesterday to elizabeth warren. the president challenged her and said that you would not know -- there is nothing that ever happened, but in fact, i think she named for five things. but the one that really stood out to me is off of nova scotia. canada has been sued by the trade pact, and now they have to open up all their fishing zones to other countries. what happens in the united states when the same thing happens and the whole eastern seaboard and possibly the gulf of mexico suddenly has a thousand fishing fleets come in their and decide they are going to take whatever they want? what is the united states going to do? we can't sue, we can do nothing. so you can read it. just think, that is just one. host: congressman? guest: it always surprises me

that people can tell you what they don't like in the trade agreement, and at the same time say that what is in the trade agreement secret. so obviously i didn't hear the senator say this but it has been my considered opinion that no matter what is in that agreement, those people who are against it are against it. and those that want to see better opportunities, as i do, can be able to say -- the manipulation against currency is not in the trade agreement. and the people are saying, no. i'm telling you with all the objections we have, nothing beats an american believing that they can have a better quality of life, a better education, and a better job. the other things are serious issues, and they can be negotiated. but losing a job is a -- is a shot to the american dream.

gaining opportunity is what this country is all about. host: another viewer says, tpp is going to pass, so move on to the next fights like fixing public schools, free college roads and bridges, etc.. let's move on. caller: high. -- hi. thank you for taking my call. i'm wondering if there is any discussion on regulating trade lenders? -- he wanted people to be able to buy his cars. i think that is a great incentive for companies generally, but i don't hear much discussion about credit regulation. i think as long as we have the ability for the middle-class especially, but for to run up thousands and thousands of dollars in credit with, you know, really little accountability on the part of the credit providers or the individual, we have a problem with regards to providing that

sort of incentive to pay workers well. guest: you know, i couldn't agree with you more. this whole idea that we can negotiate openly defies common sense. if manipulation of currency by china and other countries has affected jobs in the united states, so we lost them. what associate good about that? if american investments are not protected under the trade agreement or other people think they are, why can't that be openly debated? what make an agreement that we have 60 degrees -- days to look at that -- days to look at so secret that we can debate it now? you can't have it both ways. either it is secret or he will come -- or you know what is in i

don't care how dedicated you. i have never seen a more dedicated servant and he is, but he does not know what america can export or what they can import or how we can have an economic edge. who knows this? it is not the guy on the street and certainly not the academic community. it is the guys involved in trade, the multinationals. they know. and they believe what is good for them is good for america. that is the best measurement we would have. all we have to do is say that, listen, it may be good for you and it may be good for america but include education, the working people, include the fact that everyone should share in with the president and other people said should be a great economic boom for america. host: outline for democrats lou.

california. caller: high. mi on? host: you are. go on -- i had. -- go ahead. caller: yes, about the corporate and -- corporations -- we should do advertising to buy america. guest: -- the government of controlling the future it would just seem to me that this is the nothing secret about whether or not our environmental conditions are protected. not just by american a law -- law, that international law and

trade organizations. we should not be going at this thing blindly and accepting the fact that because it is complicated that americans are too stupid to understand it. why wait until it is concluded and they give congress, not the american people, 60 days? newspaper people, tv people should be able to debated in language that the american people understand -- to debate it in language that the american people understand. host: we will go to california next. patrick. in independent color. caller: hi. since the get-go, globalization has really been a surge for slave labor around -- a search for slave labor around the world. you can't make all the shovels in china because somebody in every country needs to make a

shovel. we systematically try to find a way during the time that we dismantled america to keep the american consumer buying, by giving a wealth -- to real estate, which destroyed the real estate industry and destroyed america, basically. and now we have come to a point where we try to create jobs. i am in the film industry. they didn't create jobs. they took 4/5 of my job and give it to people in new orleans and atlanta and chicago and every place else where the world was falling apart. we are not creating jobs, we are spreading the same jobs out. host: that is patrick in california, congressman. let me go into robert. then i will have you respond. democrat, robert, good morning to you. caller: good morning. now that it has been 20 years after the fact, i would like the congressman rangel's opinion on

nafta. host: who has benefited the most from nafta? guest: i can tell you that i think the mexican people have benefited greatly. those people don't have the same work standards that people who are working in or near poverty. obviously, the closer you get to slave labor like we had when our nation was built, the more profits you make. i would rather not be negative about that, but in saying, -- the previous speaker and i have a lot in common. i could spend the rest of my life improving things that this great country has not done. but the fact remains, this is the greatest country in the world. nobody is asking to leave it. everybody wants to be able to come -- become an american.

so, what country in the world that speaks out loud publicly and give his views as to what changes you would want? what country would allow him to say this and to check his representative and give his views? when it comes to racism, economics as it relates to disparity, when it comes to so many things in terms of education and job opportunity hey, i will spend the rest of my life trying to improve this country. but don't knock it. host: we can take a few more phone calls here for the congressman. al in portland oregon. go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am. i want to ask why the more liberal part of congress hasn't contested the -- the constitutional transgressions of the supreme court? we have these tremendous arguments about the president walking over the constitution.

host: give us an example l. -- al. caller: ok. in citizens united, i do believe, where they gave the citizenship to corporations. host: ok. guest: well, it is outrageous. but under the constitution, we have to change the constitution if we want to change the way that we find public -- fund public office. i think that is one of the most damaging decisions that the supreme court has made. of course, you have to say how do you become a judge under the supreme court? which party is in charge? and the fact that there is a swing in terms of what they think. heck, i never thought they would have the voting rights act and the civil rights act passed by any supreme court. we have a long way to go, but the citizen's decision has been

detrimental. host: fort lauderdale, florida. frank. an independent. caller: hi, how are you doing? i would like to ask congressman rangel about it, and -- about a comment related to cuba. they were talking about lifting the sanctions against fidel's regime. and i was at what washington university for a couple years. i am 69 now, though. but one of the things i am thinking about regarding that -- a wise person who wrote to the miami heat road, i think it was, that the sanctions did, in fact, work because it kept castro from expanding into other countries. one thing i like to ask you is -- since castro and vietnam occurred right around the same time, is that if you feel that

you know, knowing what ho chi minh did -- basically interested in uniting his country, ok? in the case of castro, i think he was more outward looking, as far as the world goes, so that, ok, maybe we ought to lift the sanctions. i believe we should. don't you think in the past that fidel castro, in fact, was more -- i don't want to use the term aggressive so much -- but he got involved in a number of other places in latin america. how do you feel about this? guest: well, the countries that he was involved in were seeking defendants. i don't think he made a substantial difference, but i would be on the same side as he was, in terms of providing health care for those people who were called terrorists then, but after they become freedom fighters. you know, nelson mandela, up until a few months ago, was on a terrorist list.

so when it comes to the embargo and cuba, it is just dumb. no one country can have an economic impact on another country. but if i was a farmer and had manufacturing, the export of picks and rice and chicken, and not a mouse away was a country that was buying them, it would seem to me that the more people that have a relationship with each other, the less problems they have with each other. but i have never heard them say that castro -- we kept them from invading other countries. and there has been a lot of things said against communism that i agree with, but i never consider cuba if it is a free world. host: texas, johnny. an independent color. caller: yes, ma'am. thank you for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a comment real quick. the comment i am hearing is you keep coming back to the infrastructure, to the -- [indiscernible]

and we have heard that before. i understand that you are advocating for the president's decision; however, i think we have heard it too many times. and the other point, you mentioned about -- [indiscernible] so, the kind of dynamics of the whole situation -- is it yes or is it -- bs or is it real? cited but it that way. guest: no, don't leave me. these. host: oh, he is gone. guest: it is only when they had democratic regimes that it made a heck of a lot more sense to come together and rebuild their economy. so this is a job that is in progress that we have to do. and the fact that you heard enough of me -- not the first person who has said they have heard enough of me on civil

rights, on jobs, on equality, on women's rights, i'm gay and lesbian rights, because i love this country -- on gay and lesbian rights, because i love this country so much and i have the opportunity to fight for the things i believe in. but that doesn't mean that just because somebody has heard enough from me, they have 34 other people they can listen to. host: here is "the hill" newspaper -- you cannot challenge the 2010 full house censure over ethics violations. the judge saying there that rangel must vindicate his reputation in the one court that can hear his claim. guest: the lower courts have said that the constitution makes it abundantly clear that the conduct of a member of congress is to be observed only by members of congress. and excludes the judiciary from

politically interfering. what we taken to the supreme court is that even though the constitution doesn't say that the rules that are crated by the congress includes due process we believe it does. so the court says that it didn't say due process, and we can't help you, or get out with the congress and your constituents. we say that -- the writers of the constitution, when it says that the congress can have the rules to govern the conduct of its members, those rules must include to process. we will see what the supreme court has to say about it. host: you are going to keep going? guest: of course. host: what kind of legal fees have had to pay so far? guest: that is the good thing. those who really want to get answers to that question and make contributions -- they can make out to be since to it because i have an outstanding supreme court lawyer that has taken this case up on the merits

of the case. but my expenses continue to increase, and even though i am not running for reelection, some people will say, what do you need the money for? i wouldn't have thought about doing it -- contributions can be made because this is an historic role. when the constitution says that only members of congress can determine the rules as it relates to the governing of its members, did they exclude due process or didn't mean that it should be included? because there is no question, the court doesn't challenge the fact of the wrongdoing that was done by the committee. they are just saying it is none of the business. host: representative charles rangel, you can find it on thehi ll.com. spending the necessary money to natalie fix our highways and bridges, but modernize them and make them practical for the 21st century is worth the fiscal

head. you can find more from the congressman there. thank you, sir, for your time. guest: thank you, greta. host: coming up next, we'll take a look at a recent piece in "bloomberg businessweek" about tourism. we will be right back. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering this spring. we will close out may at book expo america new york city, where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. then, the first weekend in june we are live at the shop -- chicago tribune printers row lit fest. that is the spring on c-span2's booktv. this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies," we

will look into the first -- lives of three first ladies. anna harrison never set foot in the white house because her husband dies after a month in office. letitia tyler becomes first lady when her husband assumes the presidency, but she passes away just a year and half later. the president remarries julia tyler, who is the first photographed first lady. this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies." from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at it a cut p.m. eastern on c-span three. and as a couple that to the series c-span's new book. presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue today with our ongoing series of taking a look at recent magazine articles. today, a recent piece in "bloomberg businessweek," written by susan berfield," the tourist baby-boom. we are talking about birthing tourism in this country. susan berfield joining us this morning. let's begin with the 14th amendment that has given rise to this birthing tourism. why is that? guest: well, the 14th amendment decrees that any child who is born on american soil becomes an american citizen. the only exception is a child born to foreign diplomats. so that -- you know -- people who are coming to the u.s. to give birth, some people consider

it that they are taking advantage of a loophole. other people considered a sort of unintended consequence. host: how is it working? this industry. guest: so, there are -- you know -- women from all over the world , my story focused on those from china, who come here. they are often brought by services that are based here. they come as tourists. they usually stay for three or four months, so they arrive a couple months before the delivery. in the case of the chinese women, they stay for about a month afterwards. the services often provide them places to stay, they give recommendations for doctors and hospitals, and most important they help the women get u.s. passports and social security cards for their kids. host: how big is the industry? guest: well, it is hard to know for sure.

it is unregulated and there is no real statistics but there is kind of educated estimates that up to 36,000 women came here as birth tourists in 2012. host: and how much are these women willing to pay to these companies to navigate the visa process, to navigate the citizenship process for their babies and also get the hospitals to have their babies? how much of a paper all of those services? guest: yeah, you know, there are a range of services, as you might expect. so great deluxe services, where the women get extra attention. they also stay in very nice apartment complexes to the ones i visited were in southern california. those women were paying $50,000 or $60,000. some may pay a bit more, some less. but, you know, they are paying for the peace of mind of having someone to call on if you have any questions.

and for many of them, they are unfamiliar with the u.s. medical careone there to answer questions about that is really helpf host: we are talking about the 14th amendment and the tourist baby-boom. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. you can also send us an e-mail and aweet @cspanwj. we are talking about the 14th amendment. susan berfield wrote about it for "bloomberg businessweek" in the most recent edition. susan berfield, who are these families? why are they choosing to come to the united states? where are they going? guest: yeah. so, the families are generally well-off. i mean, $50,000, $60,000 is not

something that everybody can pay. so they are generally well off. what i found is that these families think of the u.s. passport is kind of one more advantage they can give their kids. so, private schools tutoring, music lessons, and a u.s. passport. it gives the children ultimately a lot of freedom. more choices. and in some cases, it may help actually in terms of admissions to certain international schools in china itself. host: and so what about long-term? is there a goal of having the children go back to the united states and possibly the parents somehow get to the united states? guest: right. so, for many of these women, yes, i think the hope for their kids is that they may come to the u.s. for college. and then when their kids turned

21, they can petition for their parents to get green cards. so, yeah, if you are a long-term planner, as many families are this -- 21 years from now, the parents, too, could become permanent residents. host: so how are these families able to obtain a tourist visa to come to the united states for this purpose of delivering their babies in the united states and giving u.s. citizenship to their children? guest: right. it is not illegal. it is legal. to come here with the purpose of giving birth. what is illegal is to lie about that purpose. either when you are getting the visa or when you are entering the u.s. so many of the services will coach the women to apply for a visa early in the pregnancy. so they are not showing, so there may be fewer questions to

answer. they will also coach the women to enter through cities like las vegas or honolulu because the customs officials there are no to be a little easier. los angeles, a window to be pretty strict, ask a lot of questions. so most of the women who i wrote about did it come to eckley through los angeles. and -- didn't come through los angeles. one of their selling point was how many women they can get through the process and in the country. if we can get you into the country, we do make any money. so they -- you know -- i would say they often misrepresented the full intent of their trip. on the other hand, if they were to say to a visa officer, i am intending on going to the u.s. i am pregnant. i would probably give birth there.

the main concern would be -- can the woman or her family pay for any medical care they are going to receive in the u.s.? then will there go home -- will they go home when the visa is up? host: so, if the women can prove that, they are allowed into the country. these officers also have a lot of discretion. while they don't have to let get anyone -- in anyone who is pregnant, they also don't have to turn away anybody who is pregnant. host: our first phone call comes in john. john, what do you make of the 14th amendment in this growing industry? caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. host: good morning. caller: thanks for disclosing this kind of thing. it has actually been readily available. what do i think about it? the 14th amendment was really

for savory -- slavery. so this is really a distortion of the amendment. really, it should just be challenged by our lawmakers. there is really a difference of opinion. numer -- numbersusa.org -- they talk about this for quite some time. this has been available. the immigration service -- it has taken them years to act. i think the acted, you know, even reluctantly. obviously, the president probably opposes it. who knows. but the one thing is that the republicans -- it seems as though the republican party with jeff sessions of alabama is the most sane, has the most sane immigration policy. and he is really the leader of the party, as far as, you know,

for american citizens. immigration can benefit american citizens as opposed to benefiting foreigners. host: john, we will take your point. to john's comment, this tweet -- the 14th amendment needs to read in context of the time it was written and for whom. the constitution is not a living, evolving document. what about the interpretation of the 14th amendment? guest: the are certainly a lot of groups who feel that, you know, overall immigration policy in the u.s. is too generous and that this allows people to choose if they want to be u.s. citizens rather than the u.s. government choosing. over the years, there has been, you know, legislation that has been introduced to restrict the scope of the 14th amendment. there are, you know, there has been some discussions recently in the house in particular.

and the idea would be to make it so that this is called birthright citizenship. so citizenship by birth, rather than that the u.s. require one parent to be a u.s. citizen or a permanent resident, or to have served in the military. and that children born to them are the only ones who are guaranteed citizenship. that has never gotten very far. and, you know, there are plenty of people who believe that the 14th amendment should remain intact. though, this is a very interesting immigration issue. the numbers overall i still relatively small. but obviously, it is a contentious. host: tuscaloosa, alabama. marvin. an independent. caller: hello. i just want to thank the lady for writing this article in bringing this to the attention of the american public.

i think we have heard some thing about this, but maybe not in this kind of detail. what it shows to be as obvious, and that is that these people are taking advantage of america, of american taxpayers, the benefits were never intended to be abused like this. it needs to be stopped. that is why we have congress to pass laws. it may be complex to do it, but it is obvious that this needs to be changed because the law was not intended to be abused like this. host: susan berfield are these families or companies taking advantage of u.s. taxpayers? guest: well, most of them returned to their countries. you know, the women who i wrote about all were intending to go back to china. so, you know, it is not as if they are going to leave their kids here.

and if the kids come back here for college, i have heard that there is some concern that they may, you know, come back a couple of years early and establish residency and then try to get in-state tuition. i mean, that could be the case. but i guess i don't see -- i didn't see a lot of evidence for that so far. host: do they pay for their medical bills? to the cover the full cost of going to the doctor and delivering their babies here? guest: so, these women pay for everything in cash or with credit card right on the spot. the doctors who are involved in this in southern california insist on being paid in cash or credit card really before they even begin the prenatal care. and the hospitals as well. so the women were receiving reduced rate because they were paying in cash, it seems. that is something that i

understand homeland security investigations may be looking into in the future but the investigation that is underway was focused largely on potential visa fraud by the women assisted by these agencies, and then tax evasion and potential money laundering by the agencies. they were looking into payment fraud. host: we will dig into a little bit more about the irs cracking down on this birthing tourism industry, but first, jim in ohio. a democrat. caller: hi. first of all, i'm a retired american history and american government teacher. on this very issue, it was passed because of the decision of 1857 when chief justice -- ruled [indiscernible] -- could not sue in the federal courts.

so the only laid can overturn a supreme court decision is to amend the constitution. when it was amended in 1868, it says all persons born and naturalized in the united states are citizens of the u.s. and subject to u.s. jurisdiction. all these clowns than the republican party talk about -- a law would not do it. you have to amend the constitution to change it. host: susan berfield, what do you make of that? guest: i think that is right. as i understand it, the intent with the members of congress who brings these up is to make it kind of legislative statute which would then kind of paper the way or maybe forced away to supreme court case where they would review the issue. host: bill in silver city, new mexico.

an independent. caller: hello. host: morning. caller: good morning. i agree. it is all because of the 14th amendment to allow previous slaves to be citizens. here down in southern new mexico, it is quite common for mexicans to just come across the border illegally, go to the hospital, have their baby and the hospital will deny them service, and then returned to mexico and now their child is an american citizen. once the child reaches school age, that child is entitled to go to school in america. so what we have along the border , the state of new mexico pays for buses to drive down to the border towns to pick up these children that are officially american citizens, drive them up to towns in southern new mexico, where they receive preschool.

another thing -- receive free school. and another thing i was told from a doctor is that if i get a call at 3:00 in the morning, i don't even bother to go to the border towns. i said, why don't you go? he says because the odds are overwhelming that the woman who will have the baby is for mexico and she will not pay me. host: ok, bill, got your point. michael in d.c. -- a republican. caller: i was just going to say i lived in south korea for a couple of years. and it is known all over south korea that this policy exists and that this is a part almost of matriculation into the dual citizenship status of the citizens of korea if they want

to live and they want to move, have some upper mobility, this is what they do. this is part of the process. but i had a question in reference to -- i don't see anything particularly wrong with this because, for instance, and south korea, if you speak fluent korean they give you citizenship and you can go to the universities there for free. i have a lot of friends who live in different countries like singapore, korea china, and i have lived in these places for a while. actually, i was going to go to the university over there. and i went to the department and everything and they asked if i speak fluent korean, you can go to the university and you don't have to pay anything. so, there has to be some exchange of policies from country to country but in some regards, these countries are open too.

they just have different requirements. host: susan berfield, a couple points there. but this is widely known in a country like korea. is it widely known in china, the country you focused on? also, talk about is this really such a bad thing? guest: well, it is very widely known and out in the open in china. so, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of these agencies. the advertised, hold seminars, there are blogs, a lot of use of social media, so yes, it can be a legal practice. yes, it is out in the open and i'm sure the same is true in south korea. there is different -- probably each country operates a little differently, but it is out in the open. and, you know, in terms of

whether or not this is a good or bad thing, you know, one lawyer i spoke to -- no, he was representing some of these women, but he was saying that this is how america has gotten a lot of kind of geniuses. he mentioned -- as being a british tourist baby way back. so i think that people wanting to be american citizens, these women, you know, could and sometimes were coming to the country legally. unlike the previous caller who mentioned undocumented women coming, these women are coming legally. they have the means to pay. and, you know, they think an american passport is very valuable. host: susan on twitter says this, they are born here and return as wealthy, well-educated adults. the u.s. wins. what is the downside? but gary on twitter says, a party who runs on a platform,

bending -- on a platform of amending the 14th amendment would get massive support. you are next sheila. caller: hi. you know ladies, i used to watch a program called "the invaders," which i thoroughly enjoyed. as for though, right now, that title -- meaningless with what is happening here. it is not enjoyable at all. we have too many people here already. let these women stay in their own countries. we don't need them in the type of invasion. we need to crack down -- with this overpopulation, we have too many people here already. host: sheila, the homeland security department and the irs are cracking down. susan berfield, tell us how. guest: yes so homeland security and irs agents in southern

california began in investigation into 2014. they got an anonymous tip about one agency in particular that was operating in irvine california -- irvine california. they expanded the investigation to two other agencies. they used surveillance, undercover informants, and they -- i should say undercover agents -- and they developed a case that eventually allow them to conduct raids on more than 30 of the apartments where, in this case, the chinese women were staying. and also the homes of the operators of these agencies. they collected a lot of documents and materials. much of it is an mandarin, translating it. there is a federal grand jury. and they are trying to build a

case against these agents using the women as material witnesses. the case would ultimately be tax evasion and potential money laundering. host: tax evasion by who? guest: by the owners of these agencies, and money laundering -- the women are mostly -- will be mostly granted immunity. host: why is homeland security during this type of investigation and that the fbi? -- and not the fbi? guest: well, it involves borders and border protection. when i spoke to homeland security, in southern california, he made the point that while this is a small number of people and obviously by no means the biggest threat that america faces, you know, it

points, in his view, it points to a vulnerability in the system. and the issue of visa fraud generally is one that will lead security takes pretty seriously. -- that homeland security takes research sleep. host: and on twitter -- the law is the law. j in oklahoma. jay, what do you think? caller: i really curious as to what began the draw of this whole thing? what was the spark for them to want to come over here in larger numbers and have these little groups doing it? is it something that is new because of our immigration laws being the way that they are now? and the other question i have is she said it doesn't affect the taxpayer, but you mentioned there is tax evasion and stuff. so it does directly affect taxpayers, whether those

particular ladies do their actions. let's stick with the laws in that area. guest: sure. when i was speaking about -- i was speaking about the women and their use of public resources you know, the question of tax evasion is a separate matter. there is a way for them to operate legally, perhaps this should be regulated. many of the lawyers i spoke to suggested that, but the women themselves are not involved in the tax evasion. they are paying what they are asked to pay. in terms of the u.s. immigration laws and why we see or what we think we see an increase in this, i think it has more to do with the economic development in some of these countries. and also probably the political situation in some of these countries. in china, in particular, there has been a lot of flow of money

generally, and also people, if they can, out of china to make a secure place for themselves or to put the money in a more secure place because of the potential for political instability there. so i think that is in the background. and i think there is more, in this case, chinese families. but you could also say russian families. there is a growing middle class. and these women -- they want to do everything they can for their children. i think they believe one of the best things they can do is to get an american passport for their kids. host: the story is in the latest edition of "bloomberg businessweek." here is the cover for you. susan berfield wrote the piece. and inside the magazine, it is called the tourist baby-boom. bringing chinese women to the u.s. to have their babies has become a growth business and homeland security is cracking

down. gene in delaware, and independent. caller: hello. i wanted to address something that kind of relates to this, all these international students who are coming and their families come over. why is it that they get away with everything? they drive a legally, they know it. they have been given all the information on what is legal and illegal in their native languages. and they really don't care. they know they are going to lead. the families come in and have all kinds of medical procedures done and they never pay. there is just every kind of fraud that is going on with these kids. they know -- host: gene, that is a separate issue. gene talking about the aging student population in this country. we are talking about women coming to the united states to

give birth to their children here. there are coming on tourist visas, pursuing a legal route. not overstaying on the visas and returning to their countries. paying up to $60,000 for these birthing agencies to help them navigate the process. sharon in minneapolis, a democrat. caller: good morning, worst of all. the question i have was since i live in minneapolis, there are quite a few some ali and who come over here -- quite a fewsomalians -- few sonalians who come over here. i wanted to ask if she found out about anything just mirroring another adult and being able to stay here and that is that it's? because i know seven people that have done that -- . -- -- several people that have done that. guest: i didn't look into that

for this article. my understanding is that that has been going on for a really long time, but probably in pretty small numbers. host: here is a quote in susan berfield's piece -- we didn't hurt anyone, we just found an easy way to stay here to give birth. mike in atlanta, georgia. caller: hey, greta. it is an honor just the good view. you are like the cake correct of cable tv -- the katie kouric of cable tv. the question for your guest is that the american people should know, they are coming from all over the world, but i think the bigger thing is we don't want to mess with changing the constitution. i think the question is, do you want a high and immigrants coming or low and economic immigrants coming -- end

economic immigrants coming? if they met the man, they let them in. but you don't want to go around messing with the constitution and all that kind of stuff, you know? real quick greta, i only watch c-span when you are on. what happened to that african-american girl that used to be an announcer? god bless you, greta. host: i am not sure who you were referring to. yes, c-span was at the white house correspondent's dinner. to mike's point, could this industry be regulated? guest: i think it could. you know -- [laughter] it has kind of, you know, grown in areas in southern california where either there is, you know, already a sizable chinese-american population. there is also kind of, you know,

center dot in irvine -- centered down in irvine, they are renting apartments. they are providing meals and transportation. you know, the medical care is -- i know doctors and hospitals -- so i don't think it would take a lot. but it would certainly take care of these problems for the chance that the operators themselves would be trying to avoid paying taxes or to do anything else to screw the rules. so it doesn't seem like it is that hard of a thing to do. host: thousand oaks, california. ida is watching us -- thousand oaks, california. ida is watching us there. caller: yes, when these kids reach -- [indiscernible] guest: there is a process.

i am sorry i cannot give you any more details about what is exactly involved, but it is not an exception for these kids. that is the way the system is set up. host: barry, sterling, virginia. caller: good morning, greta. thank you. my mother was a registered nurse and got her american citizenship in 1961. in 1962, jets came out and it cut the travel time down. and she knew she could smuggle pregnant women into the country and tailor-made girls. that is what she did. and she used to make what thousand dollars back in 1962, and she was charging 2500. and she would do about 10 women a year. what they would do as the child as soon as i got old enough, they would send them to private

school or military school. once the kid became americanized, they could get a job, work appear, and eventually bring the parents and everybody. i told my mother one-time that these women must really love their child to go through all the pain of being thin girdles and everything. and she laughed at me and said, you know, it is a retirement plan for these children. host: ok, got your story. on twitter -- how are chinese putting the money here to a child? are they setting up trusts in a child's name? paying taxes on that money? they come here, the get with, they get that u.s. citizenship then what? guest: well, you know, -- i mean, without speaking about the flow of money out of china, i wasn't speaking about these families in particular.

but this has really only been going on in a way that would have been able to look at it for a couple of years. so, it is kind of speculation as to what these families are supposed to do -- going to do with these passport. at this point, we just have the family that i've spoken to and what they have said they're going to do. but these are all families of means. my impression of them is that they are willing to pay. they want a good education for their kids, wherever it may be. a nice place to live. but in terms of the particulars we don't know how that is going to work out yet. host: you write in your story about these families, some of these families paying $50,000 $60,000 to come here. when the homeland security rated one of these apartments, they found $100,000 in cash.

is that right? what is that cash for? why did they bring that much with them? guest: that was in the home of one of the owners of an agency. not one of the women themselves. so, you could presume that that was money that -- it is unclear exactly. the investigation is ongoing. but there is a lot of cash change it can't. host: so this $100,000, that is what the dhs is looking to win a look at the companies, the money and whether or not they are paying taxes on the money? guest: absolutely. and they have bank accounts in the u.s. and because house were, so yes, they are looking at all of that and trying to -- trying to determine how many customers these agencies have had, how to have paid, and how much income these companies have actually reported and pay taxes on. host: we will go to miriam. a democrat.

the house is about to gavel in, so if you can make it quick. you know what, sorry about that, the house is literally about to open up the doors. i'm going to have to leave it there for now. susan berfield with "bloomberg businessweek," thank you very much. you can find a piece in the latest edition of "bloomberg businessweek." that does it for today's "washington journal." be accurate tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time. we will bring you now live to the house. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c. may 20, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable