federal plan to spend items host: the house and senate remain out this week for easter break. there are some names in the news including paul ryan. he is taking a trip to israel over the break. in the meantime, the easter egg roll is today. president obama and the first lady will be there. the president has a dinner tonight for the media in which he will speak. the presidential primaries continue to plow ahead. the next big contest is in wisconsin.

the middle class has been a major issue, the condition of the middle class in this country. the people at the pew research center that said the american middle class is losing ground. we want to get your thoughts this morning on what policy is needed to help the american middle class. byare going to break this up income. here is the headline to the poll. they didn't couple of months back. it's very relative to this campaign. people say the government

doesn't do enough to help the middle class. there are mixed views on which class the democratic hearty favors. this is a chart. they asked 1500 people which social classes do the republicans and democrats favor. said republicans favor the rich. when those same people were asked about democrats, 31% said they bring the poor. 32% say they favor the middle class and 26% say the rich. there are some overview points. there are now roughly as many adults in middle income housing as in lower or upper income

households. this is a shift from four decades ago. middle income americans were clearly in the majority. has of the household income shifted. if in a shifted from middle income to upper since 1970. these are the basic facts. ofs is all but of tape donald trump. >> we are being killed on trade. china is taking advantage of us. i have great respect for china. their leaders are too smart for our leaders. our leaders don't have a cool -- clue. the trade deficits are too much. no country can sustain that kind of trade deficit. it won't be that way for long. we have the greatest business leaders in the world.

we're going to redo those trade deals. it's going to be a thing of beauty. mexico is killing us on the border. they are destroying us in terms of economic development. companies are moving it to mexico. ford moved into mexico. closing up shop in chicago and moving into mexico. we have to stop. we are going to create jobs like you've never seen. we are going to lower taxes. that people think is the best plan they've seen. we're going to lower taxes for the middle class. the middle class has been forgotten. it was the predominant factor in the oneur country into we love so much and we are also proud of. we have forgotten the middle class. we will hear from hillary

clinton and bernie sanders. facebooka couple of postings. joe says the first call this morning is from jimmy in ohio. good morning. i thought i should stop myself. that donald trump is hilarious and i think he could turn us around. he's not a politician.

something, they take it out of context. he didn't say foreign scant live here. host: be specific if you can. i will give you an example. my mother has worked all of her life. she can't get to her money because the government has her money. host: you are alluding to taxes? is there a fair tax rate in your view? caller: there is for me. i don't have much. i am on disability. i am taken care of. it's people who work aren't getting taken care of.

there are three separate lines. we will them on the screen. caller: republicans ran in 2012 and 2014 on jobs. they've blocked every single jobs proposal the president put up. they voted over 50 times to stop obamacare instead of 50 times to past a jobs bill. now you've got trump who's running on jobs. about people to remember her months ago in a rally, said we did not need to have wages increase. you are not going to get out of the middle class.

go in the lowto class if you can't pay your bills. thank you c-span for giving me this opportunity. host: jonathan is in new york. caller: good morning. i would like to say i think we might be looking at the definition of middle-class incorrectly. i don't think it's based on income level so much as the relationship between employers and employees. when karl marx was writing his work, that's how he defined it. to reason it's important understand that relationship is the have opposite motivations. somebody who receives a paycheck wants to keep wages high. employer, theyn want to keep wages low because

they make more for them and profit. that's the real tension between middle class and working class. host: is there a specific policy that's in order? create i would say if we a more fair tax distribution. if there were fewer tax breaks for corporate welfare. exxon mobil doesn't really need all those tax breaks are in -- breaks. ordinary working people really do. what is your situation? youru care to share about living conditions? caller: i am blind. eyesight. my only income comes from disability.

regard, i am doing a lot better. a couple of years ago i was paying 70% of my income in rent. i was living in an unsafe neighborhood. recently, i managed to get into subsidized housing and i live in safe conditions. i understand how important the safety net programs are. the budget at hearings recently on c-span, they had a budget hearing that went for hours and hours. democrats were trying to get funding for basic services and

republicans kept finding excuses to say no. i really do think that one of more parties is clearly favorable to the working class. host: good luck to you. jonathan mentioned the markup over that happened, six hours or so. you can watch it anytime you want on www.c-span.org. bill writes in about our question. we have ebony on the line from north carolina calling on the over $50,000 line. intor: i am looking specific policies, the flat tax rates.

i think that's something to look into. is highersalary cap than what's been calling and so far. i just take it something we should look into. if you are in the $250,000 tax bracket, the rate should not be anything close to what people are paying underneath. i think that's unfair. donald trump talk about how he is creating jobs and that's great. bringingtrying to push jobs and have the middle class needs to be helped. i'm not seen that they have actual implementations that they would include. what is the actual plan? makes me flustered to vote for them. host: we have 20 more of your phone calls coming in. the is a piece based on thresholds.

is $250,000 a year middle-class? just to qualify as middle class has been up and down. >> it is about an economy in which the top 1/10 of 1% now own almost as much as the bottom 90%. economy where the 20 wealthiest people own more 150th than the bottom million people.

about an economy in which one family, the walton family this one walmart, family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people. what a rigged economy is about is the wealthiest family in this country paying their employees wages that are so low that many of those workers have to go on medicaid and food stamps. it is the middle class that pays more in taxes to pay for that medicaid and food stamps. family, get walton

off of welfare and pay your workers a living wage. host: we have more from facebook. we have a call from diane in arkansas. caller: i just woke up and i haven't even had my coffee. this is so simple. the early 90's

when they were going to pass nafta. we called in. everybody was against it. not one person called in who wanted it. we were right. it's ruined the country. we lost our jobs. our kids haven't been able to get a job like we used to when we were teenagers. parents haven't worked. the whole country has changed in the last 20 years. host: what happened in your view? caller: they took our jobs. host: just nafta? is there more to it? basically, we need our jobs back. we need good jobs.

people who worked in factories don't want to be cdnas. everybody can't work as a nurse's aide or take calls on the telephone. people want to work. it's bad now. it will take time. we were the government was wrong. i was against trump. i vote some republican. it makes so much sense to get rid of this silliness that's going on in our campaigning. trump is the only one talking sets. the government cannot do it. they have to get out of our way and let us work and bring our country back. i took a trip this last summer. i didn't realize. i live in the ozarks.

how trashy oure country is anymore. the roads are horrible. everybody was tattooed. it didn't look like our country to me. people have got to get back their work ethic. but jobs have not been there. host: it sounds like it's time for you to get that coffee. caller: it sounds like i've already have it. host: thank you for calling this morning. she mentioned donald trump. the washington post had a piece about the rise of donald trump. the pew research center provided some valuable insight. there is little doubt that what has happened to the middle class has created the climate.

we're asking you this morning what you think the government should do. but policies are needed to help the american middle class? in california.r it's very early there. caller: good morning. what i would like to say is as far as government policy goes, our government has not decided that the microcosm that is the economy has to be protected within the global market. you do not allow an influx of

illegal immigrants into this country to depress the wages. that's what's happening. the other thing you do not do is producerporations to products in other countries and then come back and try to sell it to us on the cheap and act like it's cheaper now. i don't have a job. i don't care how cheap it is. if they want to make it in another country, sell it over there. don't get back to me and i'm unemployed. these are the two major things the government needs to do. they need to protect our people. we need real education. of just game playing educated enough kids to work in corporate america and let the rest of them hang. rail how would you define -- real education? what would need to change?

caller: we've been gearing our youth to be corporate acceptable, to become part of the corporate machine. the reality is 55% of the american economy is based on small business. we should be training our youth to go into trades or small self-employed, there are always going to be people to employ. we should not try to employ them or train them just to be unemployable but to be employers. educatione type of the masses need. money, i havehas money. you don't have people on welfare when people are working. people can't make enough money nowadays for basic housing. clean, sanitary living conditions.

no jobs for the youth. all of the illegals are working in the fast food joints. host: we have people waiting on the line. let's watch an ad. it's a hillary clinton ad from late last year. >> it takes 300 americans working for a year to make as much money as one top ceo. it's called the wage gap. republicans will make it worse. they will let corporations write their own rules. hillary clinton worked to close the wage gap. do higher minimal wage and lower taxes for the middle class. she will get the job done for us. move on to michigan. thank you for calling. caller: hello. believe a value added tax

system would be a good start. i think there should be some trade sharing and cap the and copyright laws. i think that favors the corporations. you are calling on the line for under 24,000. tell us more about yourself. caller: i am the son of an immigrant. he was on the board of directors at ford motor company. he went to the chrysler corporation. how are you faring on $24,000 in year? there has to be a minimal amount of living income.

if you had a value added tax system with a minimum living wage, you could easily compensate a tax form. we are going on to jerry in illinois. tell us about yourself. caller: i own my own business. i've been very successful. i do earn enough money that i am out of the middle class. the thing that bothers me as much as anything when it comes the government is doing things and why it's theyng the middle class is have a system of taxation which is horribly unfair. pay farorations often more taxes than small business

owners pay. i am talking about actual money. taxral electric paid less than i paid personally. taxed at a corporation rate. factorse so many other that they throw in. that's written for by the large corporations. host: on to twitter. some major news was made it

concerning the minimum wage. california is moving the minimum wage to $15 an hour. they have struck a deal to raise the statewide minimum wage to $10.50 an hour next year and then gradually up to $15 an hour. the governor came to that deal with lawmakers on saturday. we have john on the line from milwaukee. welcome. caller: good morning. i am reading a book. can we establish a caveat? stealing is taking something from someone that you would not want taken from you. host: why do you bring that up? caller: would you roughly agree?

host: it's your chance to talk. go ahead. caller: i believe that stealing is taking from someone else. i am reading the book called freeunch. how the wealthiest americans have enrich themselves at government expense and stick you with the bill. it's been out for a while. book, theead the stealing is phenomenal. stealing. when you look at the people that are stealing, they are all white. somehowred to me that our white people, our european heritage people genetically are inclined to steal? think of how they accomplished this country with taking land from native americans.

think of what they have taken from african americans. are calling for those making under 24. describe your situation if you can. caller: i will be 80 years old in may. i am retired. i'm in pretty good shape. i still work area i can't name it, but i work for a company that is one of the thieves as far as i'm concerned. of dollarsillions every year and can't retain people. i mentioned to my manager the this day, can you consider everybody iswhere a sharecropper while they are raking it in off the top? is whitehe problem people are genetically inclined to steal.

theyif we understood why have to have so much money and they need more. host: thanks for calling. we are asking you about government policies. the you think any are needed? fromdea sprang forth different headlines. the middlepolls say class is losing ground. they are no longer the majority and they are falling behind financially. the government is not doing enough to help the middle

class. republicans are seem to favor the rich over the middle class and poor. there are mixed reviews on which the democratic party favors. we have gloria on the line. caller: good morning. because i'm not sure what tax policy should be put in place. i feel the middle class is so broad. 250,000 is considered the upper echelon of the middle class. 100,000, but over 50. i live comfortably. government did do something wrong when they opened up nafta. when i called my local companies like comcast or any other large

business, i reach an operator orated in india or mexico another foreign country. those could be jobs that americans could have held a. youth,as educating our the government is trying to do something and put something in place that makes college more affordable. because there are no jobs for the qs as far as factories or those jobsservice, are hardly available. given free education, whether it's a community college or a state run college, that is something that needs to be given back. of thehave been left out

table. i don't know what tax policy could be put in place. i feel like i'm not considered middle-class even though i'm not i don't feelss. like i'm in that upper echelon. i don't want to buy a new car. i feel like i can afford another bill. i keep my car and try to keep it running. it's paid for. i am trying to my daughter through college now. she is going locally to a state college because i can't afford her to send her of state. i have medical bills that are affecting my credit. that never used to happen before.

medical agencies can affect your credit line. there are a lot of things affecting the middle class. haven't heard anything from donald trump that's productive. hillary and bernie are both people i would consider to be the next president. host: the easter sunday bombing is making front-page news. this is the wall street journal. this is in pakistan. it killed at least 65 people. you can see two women here morning at a hospital. group claimednt responsibility.

this is in pakistan. they were just celebrating the day. this was in a park. pope francis on the washington times. this is at st. peter's square. he sent a message of hope. this is the washington times. the new york times, you've heard that the syrian army has captured at ancient city. this is palmyra. they did this yesterday. army het assad and his took this from isis. that's the front page of new york times. we will go back to taking more of your calls. this is joe from virginia. he is making between 24 and 50. caller: good morning. peoplend of sad that have adopted that identity

politics mentality. thepeople who benefit are two divide us. i do understand why people don't see that. anything else? host: thank you for weighing in. ray is calling from tennessee. caller: i am 77 years old. i worked 28 years. workingd out in 1960 for a union. the unions made the middle class in this country. i don't care what anybody else says. when ronald reagan became president and started destroying the unions, every president after him destroyed the unions. you will never bring the middle class back. i don't care how many jobs you bring back to unless they are

unionized, the wages will day what the corporations want them to be. we have to make money to support the blacks. thank you. eric is calling from washington dc. caller: good morning. the was so funny heard white people have to make money to support the blacks. that is ridiculous. i don't understand people. we don't need you to support us. we just want to hand up. we don't need you. it kills me. i've been working since i was 12 years old. it blows my mind. i'm a construction worker. do myg as i know how to trade, i do it. i agreed that the unions did make it so we can make a better

living. i hear these people with these talking points and it blows my mind. i don't need that guy. host: you are here in washington. this is the town where so much policy gets made. our policies needed to help the middle class? i think -- when you are a capitalist country, the government is run by money. the money makes the policies. people don't seem to understand that. i make a fair living. you should be graded on the best of your ability. fast food, $10 an hour is fine. you should make a living doing it. you should be able to advance yourself. host: joe is in staten island.

are you there? minimum wage jobs don't have to pay taxes. politicians would make less money. host: that was joe. compared to europe, the middle class has it made. we have the usa today. momentum versus mass. bernie sanders claims victory. he beat hillary clinton quite

handily, trounced her. these were the primaries and caucuses over the weekend. when unpledged superdelegates are included, her lead stretches 1004.2 to his from chicago, the mayor has upended his top search and he has been looking for a new police chief. he evaluated the three finalists. two key factors emerged. the low morale and the increase in homicides. both of those dynamics led him to the main sources.

johnson,g to be eddie a veteran african-american cop. he has a reputation for holding community incentives. of eddiea picture johnson right there on the front page of the tribune. back to your calls. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is a great topic and i appreciate it. i want to talk to some of the older viewers. i don't think people realize office, webama took owed 400 billion in student loan debt. now oh 1.4 trillion. we have added $1 trillion to our student loan debt.

mean to theoes that youth and the country at large? caller: it's sucking a ton of wealth out of 44 million us citizens who should be starting families,s, forming buying houses. we are looking at a cataclysm in the next couple of years on this. that's too big to sweep under the rug. i would suggest that congress outrightously about forgiving giving this debt as an economic stimulus method for the middle class, at least return the standard consumer protections to these loans that the been stripped away. people don't realize that student loans are the only loan in our history that is typically vacated of bankruptcy protections, statutes of limitations, fair net collection

practices. every other kind of debt. it's something that no other generation has had to face. host: this is a shot of senator mark kirk. he will be the first republican to meet with merrick garland. they will do that tomorrow. is likely to face questions about the nominee on his i would work. liberal activists will push for the hearing.

we have just a couple of minutes left. marcus is from california. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. can you hear me? ok. politicians split this country, mostly through race lines. the people in the south will not vote for democrats. they have gerrymandered the districts. the rich own this government. we all know that. we are playing in a rigged system. they divide us on the race card. now for thisd

country to get together. i wish people in the south would areize the republicans playing them for suckers. i feel sorry for them. i wish they would vote for their best interest. mentionedhould have the tonight we will start landmark cases series. it's a replay of the 12 part series we had several months back. tonight is marbury versus madison. each night, we will air a different discussion on a different case. editcase is from 1803 establish the constitution as the supreme law of the united states and the supreme court's power to review -- judicial review.

at 10:00.night it is a 90 minute segment. other. have all of the you can watch these at www.c-span.org. this is last in virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to say one thing about social security. here,ave people come in never worked here. old people. right away, they get social security right now. american people who have worked all their lives have to go to lawyers and everything else to get on it. they never get off social security. i understand the have people. they go back home and live like a king.

that's one reason why the government spends so much money on poor people. the majority of it goes overseas. why do the americans and their young people to fight and they send there's over here to buy 7-eleven's. host: that was johnny from virginia. thanks for all of your feedback on the phone and by social media. you can continue to leave your comments on facebook. next, patrick tucker is a technology editor for defense one.

also, a former head of the cbo. he will talk about the cost of the proposals to the port all of the 12 million undocumented immigrants. we will be right back. >> tonight on the communicators. bob goodlatte of. he talks about some of the good technologies and technology. by politicos report.

>> encryption is an important thing. we have to find our way through this by continuing the effort to strengthen encryption. you only need to look at the problems we have had with foreign governments and criminal enterprises and hackers stealing millions of documents from government agents and credit card records from retail establishments and financial we need to move toward stronger encryption. >> watch the communicators tonight on c-span two. tonight, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life. our series explores real-life

stories and constitutional dramas behind the significant decisions. said this isall different. politicaltution is a document. it's also a lot. we have the courts to tell us what it means. it is the ultimate anti- precedential case. the supreme court said they should make the decisions about the states. >> marbury the madison tonight at 10:00 on c-span. >> washington journal continues. tucker is the technology director for defense

want to talk to us about cyber technology and national security. to start with a piece of tape. in front of reporters he was describing a new first time in warfare cyber command capabilities. with respect to cyber, this is our use of cyber which we have talked about generally. we've tried to interrupt and disrupt isis command-and-control. we want them to lose confidence in their networks. you overload their networks so that they can't do alln print we want to these things will interrupt their ability to command-and-control forces.

new.is something that's it's not something you would of seen in the gulf war. it's an important capability and it's an important use of our cyber command. command waser established in the first place. host: bring us up-to-date on this effort. this was a historic admission that they were using offensive cyber case abilities for the larger campaign. that was very much created to do this. we don't have a window into previous operations or using cyber capabilities. this is key. he is pointing out that the

future of cyber warfare in connection with other forces looks like this blended effect. they want to disrupt the command-and-control of isis. it's going to be a global organization. it has to be able to communicate on different channels at the same time. disrupting that for the purposes , that disruptsg their ability to communicate as they coordinate forces to defend territories they have taken. we know that is something that is part of the current offensive against mosul. that is taking place right now. something that the u.s. is capable of providing that is key. when he talked about this being

the future of, the first time this has happened, we know with certainty lots of different offensive cyber capabilities are going to play a larger role in the conflicts in the future and not just against terrorist groups. largerre in a much conflict, isn't interesting program. it's called planet x. expert -- plan x. they might use different aspects of signal intelligence and hacking on the move in a jeep to is where these urls are in these users are. they might be used in planting ied's and that gives you a sense of what tour should be knocked

on our which door should be passed. it's almost like the gods and exit this story. it's almost a magical capability. we will see a lot more of it are in. host: we have the numbers on the screen for our viewers. patrick tucker is our guest. we should ask about isis. how would you describe it? guest: what we know is there able to use consumer available communications techniques, some of them very secure. they are manufactured and designed by people around the

world, less and less in the united states. they are trying to create propaganda. they are not that great at what we think of as hacking. they probably can't take down a bank or commit sophisticated acts of cyber espionage or destruction. they might have an intent to do so, but their level of capability is not in design so much as in the use of technology that is already available. they are savvy users, not so much elders. -- builders. host: what is the u.s. cyber command? they are conducting offensive operations in how did that get started?

how is it performing? guest: that's a very good question. i'm not sure when it started. it'st does with the nsa, like the dual hat arrangement. cyber command is in charge of protecting u.s. military networks. creates as part of that a creative ability. if a fleet realizes a cyber attack, they can respond by disabling that attacker. that is one thing that cyber command does.

in the event that a major cyber infrastructure, cyber command would have a role to play to dhs. is michael that rogers. they collect signals intelligence. piecesok at different and phone records. they understand the use of electronics on the ground and what it yields in terms of intelligence. said thate have should be broken up. you should have a civilian as the head of the nsa and a military officer as the head of cyber command. 2009 is when the cyber

command started. it's a relatively new thing. you're on with patrick. caller: how are you? i have a question. the government has had in place and weong time criminals find out what they know in order to make us safer, like the catch me if you can guy. as the government recruiting hackers from the darknet in order to help us be better prepared for potential hacking? guest: that's a great question. to theicky to reach out

defense department announced they were going to sponsor a bounty program. the was announced at conference in silicon valley. you get money if you can find vulnerabilities in defense systems. the process of discovery is incentivized. not hand-picked by the defense department. it's considered a great way to motivate the discovery of different intrusions. it's something that tesla is doing right now. they have a bug bounty on their cars. they are moving very quickly to self driving cars. , the way thething

defense department or government handles this sort of thing. way the defense department or the government typically handles this sort of thing. this is an insular institution. one of the aspects of the is pushing against that, attempting to involve people outside of the traditional defense contractor role, reaching out in a deliberate way. doesn't feel like they need the defense department as a client. host: harvey, good morning to you. caller: how long has the military been using emp's to communications on the

battlefield, whether it is the internet, any kind of electronic communication? electromagnetic pulse, it is an aspect of electromagnetic warfare. was an aspect of world war i, not so much jamming, but the understand enemy radio signals, something they were doing as far back as world war i. it is just using different aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum to affect communication and as more weapons have electronic communications -- electronic components to them. about this most recent announcement about the use of cyber on the battlefield.

the electromagnetic spectrum is a tool you can use to achieve devices to collect intelligence. they go hand in hand. case sense thehe deployment of radio. host: congress approved the first major cyber bill a while back. here is a headline from the hill publication. there i am trying to -- are a lot of different bills thathave different aspects touch on how we use cyber communications in different ways. there was a hill dealing with

the electromagnetic spectrum and who should be in charge of that. is a passage from the story. there has been a push to get different companies incentivized to share different data they receive related to intrusions, with dhs, so dhs can act in a coordinated be betterp everybody prepared for the threat they perceive. people in the privacy sector or that work in privacy advocates the were worried about that because the information -- the president mentioned of the state of the began 2015 was where he

talking about that. some of the data can be collected and isn't germane to cyber security. they were worried about that. dhs, not at the head of dhs, but within science and technology, were suspicious of the idea that all of this shared data and putting it in one place is not a great way to organize it or disseminated or make use of it. they don't like the responsibility following -- falling on dhs. they question the logic of it. other people point out you have cybere some sort of

information sharing. we will get to the iran hacking case. let's hear from maryland first, democratic caller. why is cyber command under dhs rather than dod. dhs is not the most impressive department of the government. host: it is part of dod in concerns of a major attack. your concerns are not unique to you. a lot of people have questions whether that is the best agency to serve as the leading agency and the effect of a catastrophic cyber attack on u.s. infrastructure.

with people in the legal community and they said part of the agencyle, making the lead agency was then you have one agency that is legally accountable and it is ace billion agents it. it is the lawyers opposed to the technologists. saye is a lot of -- people the dhs, the best i have heard is that they have gotten a lot better. hardly the best endorsement. pages14, dhs released 800 of highly sensitive data related to a specific vulnerability affecting aspects of u.s. infrastructure. when they responded incorrectly a a foil request about -- flaw common in some aspect of some google product.

a small request turned into dhs releasing 800 pages of really critical info to the public. why is this agency the leading responder that deals, that dod has to work under? let me remind folks, the numbers to call, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. robert is calling from eugene, oregon. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three questions. protect command is to , theation's cyber network dod networks, why did they let noncritical information get

hacked? why is cyber command under dhs when there are multiple intel commands? comment.a main reason the fbi and all of those cannot get darknet is because they will not lower their standards to get -- to from black cap programmers [indiscernible] cyber command is part of the defense department. in the event of a catastrophic cyber attack, dhs takes the lead and dod cyber command works with them. they are part of the defense

department, headed by an and ball. their primary job is not to protect the networks. it is to protect the dod networks. part of that is developing means into adversarial networks and developing this stuff soldiers can use. who is protecting civilian networks or private networks, that is a different question. dhs has to respond. independent companies have to protect their own networks. we put that onus on them. be ablelike we should to receive federal funds for creating cyber defenses, especially an aspect of infrastructure.

there has been something industry and the government have been talking about. host: here is a little bit from loretta lynch. talking about one hacking charge against an iranian defendant. is charged with illegally containing -- to the bowmanss dan enright, new york. undergoing maintenance and had been disconnected from the system. would have given the defendant the ability to control water levels, flow rates and outcomes. host: you have this piece

recently, why the military can't go after iran. guest: this story is not isolated at all. he is an employee. one of two cyber security firms in iran. he used a sophisticated google , looking for different , differentlfunctions devices, different pieces of hardware that were distributed and found a flaw sitting in this dam.

if not for the fact that the dam disconnected,lly he could have open the gate and caused flooding. cannot respond to that. it is weird. , according to of an sense, was the act foreign nation state doing reconnaissance. this was foreign recon on u.s. infrastructure. the department of justice is saying we know these companies work for the iranian revolution at -- the iranian revolutionaries. what suffices as evidence for that was to put in an indictment against an individual is not enough for the military to mount some sort of cyber retaliation.

gray area.s new offervulnerabilities smaller nationstates. cloakg as you can somehow or obscured the chain from the -- somebody in a position of authority giving that order to the defense contractor to do the, attribution back to nationstate is going to be something that is tricky, even if it is common sense. an act of foreign reconnaissance by a nationstate is going to result in an indictment. that is not going to go anywhere. the foreign minister of iran has said we are not going to be extraditing to the united states. it is a replay of what happened with the indictment of five

members of the people's liberation army of china for cyber -- for attempting to steal information from different u.s. companies. don't have a military theonse to it because justification for the military to get involved, the amount of evidence they need, the proof that it was an order from a nationstate, that is impossible to find. we are talking to patrick tucker. our next call is from robert, ocala, florida. good morning. a question on cyber security and who controls it. isn't the military limited to outside of the united states? i don't know if i want the henri -- it i want the army monitoring

outside and inside. that's a good point. the department of homeland security is the leading response agency in event of a event.ophic we are supposed to have a little bit of concern about the united states military playing a role , looking at the intelligence, information related to u.s. citizens. sisa allows that. of companyhe sharing -- go state -- dod can share that with foreign militaries.

that is another concern that privacy advocates have with that piece of legislation. that line between the defense department playing a role in domestic affairs, when it comes to cyber, there are some barriers. those barriers are being eroded up orting to the way you determine the sister legislation -- the sisa legislation. the hill writes the bill and encourages companies to share information through the department of homeland security. edwin writes the problem was cyber security is that it opens the door for big brother to spy on the american people. is that a common concern? we interact with devices all the time. sensor nodend a

collecting information about me and sharing it with different third parties. we are going to face a bunch of questions about how much we want to share with the government and that is going to become a more and more common question. we feel ok sharing a lot of information with our devices, naturally, we are more concerned about sharing that with the government. usefuln be incredibly for intelligence collection. that is something the government does to keep us safe. questionhis trade-off that is going to come up in the transactional framework over and over again. it is right. the more devices we carry around with us, the more potential flaws that exist.

at the same time, encryption is a means of keeping that secure. that was a key aspect of this debate. andtechnology community intelligence all have different and overlapping interests and perspective. host: the government said they found a third-party to help them with this problem and they may not need to go to battle with this problem. we know who the third party is? guest: there is speculation it is an israeli firm. it seems like the leading technique this company would use. it is mostly speculation. of the reason the fbi withdrew from the fight is

because they don't want to disclose the third-party or the means of access for this phone apple would want them to. how you go about doing this just lastk that month, the fbi was saying we have no ability or do. jonathan said darcy has written a piece that talks about how they might go about it. and you the iphone remove the flash memory chip, copy it, then you can do your boot force attack attempts on copies of the chip. copyake the most delicate of the phone and you make loans of it and attack in as many times as you need to until you figure out the code and then you love the code back onto the phone and you crack the phone. the fbi would want to use that

in other cases. rose has been very patient. democratic line for patrick tucker. thank you for taking my call. [indiscernible]

host: thank you for calling. the connection wasn't the best. do we have a way to make out her general point? guest: sorry the connection was not great. i think it was a good question about the amount of information we collect on visitors to the country and how to use that information to make us safer while respecting privacy. that is the question that is going to be plaguing all of us in the future. -- it describes the future of transportation security. moment ofving the security further away from that checkpoint? pre-check program is an example of that future, where instead of having a bunch of

people that don't have names except for what is on their paper, showing up at one location with a bunch of metal --, understanding people that are going to show up at the airport, this is the key to reducing lines at airports and achieving much better airport security. pre-check program is a means to voluntarily give information about yourself to the government, to help them move through checkpoint security. big structured data for security. that is the future of all of this, how we are going to have to decide who to let into the country, you have two different political sides talking about we ,ust not allow anyone in

another side saying we have to be compassionate. ofhnology exists to do a lot to accommodate more people who want to come into the country in exchange for more information about them. carlos, massachusetts, republican. the mute on your remote if you can. are you there? we will invite carlos to call back again. keep your television sound down, we will be able to hear better. deanna, wisconsin. caller: if they want assistance , betterpay for

technology or whatever, protection, whatever, i am simply going back to congress. people be aware that congress is the one helping and there arews so many times some of these big -- these bigrge companies were your charge cards are have big breaches. because of that, you are in jeopardy and you have to be careful yourself in all of this and you might see a one or two page line in a newspaper about theseompany was hacked by people and then it goes away. you toompanies force give out information about

yourself because they send out these privacy things and say this is what we can do and you cannot and we can do and you cannot. people don't pay attention to those because they don't understand them. charge card companies, banks, insurance companies, are giving out information about us right and left and that is ok. when it comes to our federal government, who we want to protect us, we get upset. if we need a few pieces of information to help protect us. this does not go back to congress and loss that they are creating. interesting --an people pointing out they are at axiom, the subject of some congressional inquiry, that take

whatever information they can acquire on individuals and use it for marketing purposes, those days. astounding these the privacy act prevents them from collecting and sharing lots of information that is identifiable back to a particular person, but different third parties -- we voluntarily give them personal information all the time. aboutl different voluntarily giving information to the government for arguably better purposes. it is an awed trade-off. there was an interesting poll that came out, showing how transactional privacy has

become. we are talking about the smartphone generation, who understands that every time they open up their phone, they access different apps, they are giving away information to parties they cannot necessarily see. the information could come back to them in the form of better services. laws, we are best and we feel nervous about one group party having it, but we allow another party to have it without knowing the ramifications of that. because most people are regular , if you can entice them to give more information and you tell them what the information is, you will feel better about

it. they have a right to understand what third parties are accessing information. that is something encryption place to that. that is something folks are talking about more and more. a little bit more about what is going on in europe. in the u.s., the demand for iphoneelp unlock an opened recent -- opened a heated debate on privacy. after attacks in brussels last week, governments are pushing greater access to people's digital lives. things are changing over there, as well. a long time, europe was the standard for how to

create legislation that is more consumer focused and far more privacy focused. wereook in germany, if you in germany and wanted to go on facebook, facebook would have to give you all of the data they had on you and that is something that helps them come better at consumers when u.s. ask for that. it is not something the u.s. wanted to mandate. it was something that was part of european law. time, when you look at the reaction of many governments in europe, to the disclosures about nsa activities from edward snowden's leaks, this is not the way we want to do things. this is the birthplace of this entire encryption debate.

do consumers have the right to have secured communications? for more than a year now, you are seeing intelligence agencies willing to cordon eight talk to u.s. intelligence agencies. that was the first intelligence agency to intelligence agency coordination, that kind of post snowden event that led us to where we are today. now you are seeing increasing pressure on governments. governments like belgium, these wonderful, super liberal about -- governments, asking them -- was there some part of an investigatory effort before this? why was it not coordinated between different parties in a more proactive way? was it not correctly used? that will happen more and more. independentis an outside of d.c. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have a common and question. i think that in the case of apple and the fbi, the national security issue should be allowed. the whole purpose of national security is to protect the american people, right? also, when it was enacted it was invaded eastern. handsuld be placed in dod . not in dhs, where they are an organization that has its tentacles in so many other agencies. athena we heard earlier in the segment. we are running out of time. i want to bring up an article you wrote about facial

recognition and how it might stop the next brussels. tell us more. this is fascinating. i wrote this on a data we learned of the terrorist attacks in brussels. using facial recognition to defend against this endemic would be dependent on a couple of things. exists in aalready database. that photo matching with one randomly collected on a checkpoint on the way to the airport. given to an officer, maybe on the charge of the road to the airport in a way that would defer that person on their trajectory somewhere else. this is something the department of homeland security talks about. something the military has been looking at for a long time. the fact of the matter is that the technology exists to prevent what we saw in brussels.

facial recognition of this point is more events and people realize. the military in 2014, folks that i talked to in the defense said that they could identify a space in a moving car -- a face in a moving car from 100 feet away. it would be moving slowly, but potentially moving towards an airport. that was state-of-the-art two years ago. today i was talking to someone on the day of the attacks who said that facial recognition cant now from 30 feet, we do iris identification. facial recognition is one standard, but iris recognition really is the gold standard right there under dna. if you had had a camera in the that they were in on the way to the airport and you had done that identification as he was being deported from turkey for

ties to terrorism, or any of the other interactions they had with law enforcement -- which were several that you could have created that. but is that the world we want to live in? we are not sure yet. host: one last call. david, new jersey. democrat. if you could be brief, we are running short on time. are the top universities in the united states for training and a degree for cyber security? guest: that's a good question. you know, i really like the way that the big cyber security work goes at m.i.t.. they have got some great researchers there. the data can be reverse engineered pretty quickly. it speaks to how the future of hacking, carnegie mellon, and stamford are amazing institutions.

in the defense department with cyber commands, that will serve you well. carnegie mellon and stamford are amazing. there's a ton's springing up all the time. patrickr guest has been tucker. thank you for your time and insight this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take another short time out. we have just under 90 minutes left of this edition of "the washington journal." when we come back, douglas holtz aiken will join us, president of the american action forum. about trump and ted cruz, wanting to deport all undocumented immigrants. find out how congress plans to spend $20 billion in 2015 from danny vinik . we will be right back.

♪ is in primetime time on c-span two. starting tonight. each night will feature a series of programs of topics from politics to education. medicare and national security. tune in for booktv and prime time. this week on c-span two. c-span, then supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span stories -- series "landmark cases." the 12 part some of the most significant decisions in american history.

>> john marshall declare that this was different. the constitution sets of political structures. but it's also a law. if it's a law we have to tell what it means. >> it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? >> tonight we will look at the case that established the constitution as the supreme law of the united states and affirmed the supreme court's judicial review in marbury versus madison, tonight on c-span.org. >> this year for the student cam contest the students produced documentaries about the issues they wanted them to discuss during the presidential campaign. the economy, equality, education , and immigration were all top issues.

thanks to all the students and teachers who competed this year. all the winning entries are available online at student cam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. us now, douglas holtz aiken, former director of the congressional budget office, 2003 to 2005, good morning to you. we wanted to ask you to talk about this report here, about removing all undocumented immigrants. it is something that we have been hearing about on the campaign trail. particularly from donald trump and senator ted cruz. remind us and our audience what they are saying, those candidates. guest: they are saying that we should deport all of those who are here illegally.

in twoays he will do it years, that's his campaign promise. we decided to do the study, as we have been involved in economics and budgetary implications of reform for quite some time. these systems are more economically oriented within the budget. to deport it cost everyone illegally? it would cost a lot. $400 billion to $600 billion. it would take 20 years. i was surprised to do these claims that it can be done cheaply and within two years. how many undocumented immigrants are in this country right now? 11t: 11 million -- guest: million. host: what else have you found in terms of what this would take? guest: there are four steps involved.

you would have to apprehend someone illegally, you would have to detain them. number three, you would have to go before a judge and have them find them to be here illegally. the last step is to deport them. what we did was follow our noses and walked to those steps. about 85,000 new apprehension officials and police, if you will. that's a lot. we had 85,000 new on top of 100,000 federal officials at the moment. you would need 300,000 in the detention facilities. you would have to have another 1200 quarts and 30,000 lawyers. to get out of the country you are looking at something like 31,000 charter buses and flights , also its of logistical arrangements the need to be made. here is donald

trump talking about this issue on the campaign trail. [video clip] trump: dwight eisenhower, people like him. i like ike is the expression. he 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country. moved them just the on the border. they came back. move them again, be on the border. they came back. didn't like them. move them way south, they never came back. [laughter] dwight eisenhower. you don't get nicer, you don't get friendlier. they moved 1.5 million people out. we have no choice. we have no choice. host: douglas holtz aiken, reaction? a million, 11 million are here illegally. scale is roughly 10 times that. right now the immigration and

customs enforcement agencies detaining about 250,000 illegal immigrants each year. only about 11,000 are situated saye the federal officials -- someone is here illegally, let's go get them. ae vast majority caught for speeding ticket, they run that information and find out they are here illegally. there is a lot of detention and deportation being done almost by accident. assuming you get roughly the , we think is underestimates the scale of the problem. it will take a lot of conscious effort and change the character of america. if you think about the kinds of workplace raids that would have to take place to find people, intrusions into schools and homes. the social fabric would be different. obviously there is a big budgetary cost. people forget that this is about 6% of the labor force. i'm an economist.

do it in two years and you guarantee recession. value take this at face would dramatic implications for our economy and budget. host: let me remind viewers of the phone numbers here. this is a special set up. host: we look forward to you calling in and telling us what you think about this. we have pat on the line. a democratic caller first. caller: what is the cost of keeping immigrants here? lots of jobs lost. the housing costs in some areas are spiraling because we see a

surge of immigrants here. is becoming very unaffordable to buy houses or rent in our own communities. education costs are going up. i recently saw grass where they were talking about this populations. , onlyts in the area 143,000 were like white. i knew immediately that the mexican people were coming up. our schools. i would also like to know about the section eight housing you they are in section eight housing. when they have their american and children there is tons of welfare associated that. are those costs being studied? guest: there are studies of those costs. that's not the subject of what we did. what you typically find is a very mixed picture. the budgetary stresses on biggest on the state and local

budgets. many of those undocumented and illegally are paying taxes. security and the like. there is economic net gain in some cases with budgetary stress for those who have young children in a social safety net. let's hear from maria in california. republican line, good morning. guest: -- caller: thank you so much for having me. the federal government has failed to keep up with the and the amount of people who have entered the united states illegally. it has decreased with many continuing to get that immigration. we would like them to move forward and at least try to be an american citizen.

be an american and taken america -- the values we have offered them and not take advantage of us. guest: there are two different issues. crossing borders, illegal immigration, the naturalization and assimilation into traditional american culture. one of the duplin's is the assimilation part. great wave of immigration has brought concern over those people are not like us, are they going to become like us? that has been a pressure throughout history that we have ultimately dealt with in each case. host: let's hear from ted cruz. guest: how do we --[video clip] cruz: we should build a wall, triple the border patrol, and federal law requires anyone illegally here who is apprehended should be deported.

>> would you look for them and get them out, would you do that if you were president? we have law enforcement that looks were people who are violating the laws and apprehend them. bill, -- >> this is important, very important. i use this same example. tommy o'malley from county cork, ireland, over here, he overstays of visa and he has a couple kids, he's settled into long island. you and president cruise are going to put him on a plane back? guest: -- ted cruz: you had better believe it. host: reaction? guest: that's a good example. most people who think of it illegal immigration as coming across the southern border, half our student visas coming and staying. kids working, kids in school, you would never know.

actively going to find them is going to take a lot of resources and a lot of effort and it is going to change the character -- the suburb of the place with a person was living in long island. they can read the details of this report on your website? guest: host: yes. the number of attorneys processing undocumented immigrants would need to increase from 1400 to roughly 32,000? 17,000minimum of chartered flights and 30,000 chartered bus trips added each year. the beginning part of this that i wanted to point out, as our guest touched on, this plan would take at least 20 years and cost $400 billion to $600 billion. would congress ever approve that? don't think so. particularly to ratcheting up to getting it done in two years?

the ramp up that that would require? this is an and norm's budgetary stress at a time when we really have big problems already. ofs in a norma's expansion the federal government at a time when a lot of people are saying the government is too big already. host: bill o'reilly asked senator cruz about isis. reports say that do this, personnel would need to increase from just under 5000 to just over 90,000 positions. immigration detention would increase. 10 times more than there are now. immigration courts would have to increase, as we touched on, to over 1300. one of the touches on the sector of the economy that would be ,ost impacted us were to happen talk about agriculture and construction first. tell us more. guest: seasonal industries, typical magnets for those here

undocumented. general, legal and illegal, has concentration in low skill and low-wage workers. there's also retail sales, that kind of play. host: retail, dining establishments, tricking establishments would be affected . as far as the economic cost, in two years it would shrink the reducedrce and bring a gdp by one dollar trillion. those are hefty figures. numbers.g again, those are all ballpark. doing our best to get a sense of how big this proposal is. taken at face value, that's a bigger decline in production and income than we had in the great recession. guest: elizabeth is up -- host: elizabeth is on the line from green town, pennsylvania. independent, calling in as an undocumented immigrant. good morning. caller: good morning. host: tell us your situation,

give us a comment or question. go ahead. caller: i myself am an immigrant from columbia. now i am married to the american guy who brought me here. i understand the system of illegal immigration. i know that people are paying from el salvador, hundreds, guatemala. paying $20,000 to a coyote to bring one person to the borderline with mexico. the immigration authorities provide a temporary that cost that amount of money, say $15,000 to $20,000.

now 20 years here temporarily with the visa? work.g that they can ,f they don't succeed with that simply terminate the visa and send the back of the countries. of the people here are working on these things illegally. they pay taxes. you don't believe they do, but evenare not allowed to buy [indiscernible] guest: a common story. using a paid smuggler to bring someone of process them across the border.

it was at peace with the temporary visa system. yes, there is a security peace there. enforcing fiscal security at the border. there's also the strength of economic traction in the united states. if you have a temporary visa program you basically have something that allows release for those pressures and keeps the borders more secure. the opinion of james on twitter -- i am opposed to deporting them, but it is their penalty before forfeiting their right to vote forever. the head of the serving aso 2005, domestic -- demented -- to mastic director economic policy for the john mccain campaign, working for george h.w. bush.

as part of the national council of economic advisers. republican line, good morning. caller: the problem i have spoken to from folks in my circles is that individuals fear that the face of america's changing, you know? a lot of folks don't want their counties to be like counties in .exico or other countries they want america to be america, essentially. if you pour enough of one thing into a jar, the properties of the jar change.

the influx of undocumented individuals change the composition of the communities and lots of folks i spoke to don't want that. but i am against deportation. areas, theck to the fights that these individuals come from. like we out folks here and abroad. placesut them in better werewe found that they here illegally. the held that they got out of, i'm on the fence. i do feel the pressure and the stress that individuals face when they think that their communities are changing because of the overflow of a different element. on the future and the

face of america, it's that theng to note male born population doesn't have enough babies for the population to stay the same size. that means that we are littered -- if we shut down all immigration, america would shrink. it would be a lot like japan. which is getting old and smaller . if you fit that, it says that all future population growth, all future labor force growth, the face of america is going to depend on the immigration choices that we make. this is a very big issue. the second thing is a lot of the people have mixed emotions. i don't want to condone illegal immigration. i shouldn't. people broke the law. but i don't want to deport them. level ofhe appropriate punishment for a clear violation of the law that doesn't say hey, it's ok?

chester, connecticut, christina. hello, good morning. you guys are totally over complicating the entire issue. it doesn't have to be that extensive. self deportation would happen if employers did not hire people. not hire people that had proper documentation. i believe that we have a visa it has been overstated at the border. we don't have the personnel to do that. as for america shrinking, it is. it must pick and choose who have come back. other countries do the same thing. you have become the citizen of another country unless you pass elements.ount of

i think we should have that as well. how many have been here illegally from the h one visa overstay? are the employers know that they have expired? how can that be if not? self deportation, we assume that the minutes as the announcement is made that we are going to ruthlessly enforce law and deport everyone here illegally that about 20% of people will literally leave. idea thaters are this self deportation is a real possibility for people. it is true that we have no great capability for visa overstay her's. it's something that people regularly point out and it needs to be part of the reform. a system that tracks entry and exit. there in principle if not practice. we have also made great improvements in employer verification.

the next step would be to have a fully functional electronic verification system so that employers are not put in the position of making a tough decision about whether these documents are real or not. they would have a place to go. i think that that would be an important step towards forcing the immigration laws. but it doesn't fully solve the problem of those here already. host: massachusetts, independent caller, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just read an article this morning on bloomberg about free trade and the fear mongering around immigration and everything else. one thing that's to -- stuck out from the article is that it took more americans to research -- more mexicans have left the u.s. since 2005 that have come into the u.s. in the past 10 years or

whatever. on top of that, i think that free trade is the only option. they do the parallel in the effectiveout an worker in kentucky that lost his job at a company and a mexican woman who gained a job making the same motors in mexico. it is,g and short of this has been going on since the industrial revolution. they lost territory to mexico and in central america. the matter is what a lot of jobs that have been gained? higher manufacturing jobs are still growing in the u.s.. people payeason why this money to go to russia or china, anywhere else in the world. thank you very much. guest: all true. surveys indicate that outside

the u.s. there are roughly one billion people who indicate they would move to the u.s. if they could. as an economic magnet, you cannot underestimate the .mportance of e united states it's also true, one of the things the caller pointed out, there is a concern when immigrants come to the u.s. that they start competing for jobs. the reality is that in a global economy, the competition is already taking place. you are competing with persons across the street, state, or ocean. moving them to the u.s. legally does not change the nature of that competition. it allows us to take advantage of the entrepreneurs coming into the pool. there's a lot to be said for thinking hard about the system that we want, to take it of those opportunities. this from twitter -- there are limits to human powers and there will be no deportation because of it.

on "the wall street journal" they took part of what you wrote and wrote about the cost. "taxpayers should get ready to pay for these plans." they do right at the end of the piece that defenders say that they would save tens of millions on social services for illegals, paling next to the economic and human cost. all of this suggests that deportation would be one more campaign promise that fails once it hits the wall of reality. any thoughts? guest: we were happy to have someone notice our study, obviously. i don't disagree with that sentiment. there is no question, as i mentioned to one of the callers, state and local governments bear the brunt of this expense. but one of the things that the u.s. has done better than other places, particularly europe, is integrate immigrants into our economy. so, deporting them would be a big cost. roy, rockford, republican

caller. caller: hi. that woman stated what i was going to stay. employers, they have to follow the law and they are , the peopletever would leave this country if they had no welfare. as far as people not wanting to do their jobs? away the welfare, there would be people to take those jobs. you have to work to survive. i guess that's about it. thank you. i'm actually far more sympathetic to that than you might realize. we will adjust to whatever the labor force might be. i would go simply to get a sense of the magnitude of doing it so fast. tom, republican caller, good morning.

caller: i think i cut the gentleman in a lie. he said the united states was going down in reproductive and if we didn't have immigration we would just disappear? that's crazy. growth, growth, growth, growth. we are using so many resources in the united states. we have got to slow the growth rate down more than other bowlries that just need a of rice or beans to survive. we are destroying the planet. this gentleman says we are going to disappear if we don't keep on tonging in more immigrants lower the wages? it's insane. past.d to get e-verify if they don't have the jobs, they won't come here. i'm not against immigration, but it illegal -- we give one million legal immigrants citizenship every year.

we are a very generous country. we need to get rid of these illegal aliens. host: can you remind us of the history of the e-their five? systemthis electronic has been proposed any number of times and is steadily being implemented in the united states . the goal is to instead of having your show up and deliver a drivers license and set up another set of identification, you have this electronic system that of -- employers can check instantly. it would put everybody on a level playing field. every employer doing that, you don't have to worry about taking the time to check a person's credentials. it will be part of the future almost regardless. beverly, north carolina, you are on the air. hi there. beverly: i just wanted to say this -- i keep hearing people talk about mexicans coming across the border in doing this and that.

i wanted you to know that there are more spanish speaking people besides these mexicans who are here. they are coming in through miami. these are the islanders. they are here. they meet up with their relatives and they disappear. they stay out there visas and when they are up, they disappear. thatnk you are looking at order and are not looking at other places where these people come in. there are so many of them in georgia. they are all over the place. you go to the stores, there they are. are not mexican. i think really you are looking at the wrong people. no disagreement. the mexican border has been a flashpoint in this discussion for years now, but the reality is as one of the other callers pointed out, we had an outflow of illegal immigrants from mexico.

shifts to honduras, thatmala, other places have come through the border -- remember the children, a big episode. and there are sectors to the economy that could be heard. if you go to places where low skilled immigrants work, it's retail, its construction. it's also where low-wage americans work. those of the low-wage sectors. host: should anyone hiring illegal labor be fine to cover welfare cost given to the illegals? been a touchys issue for the business community. did i know? they seem to fine. that's why there is so much pressure on him e-verify. -- on an e-verify.

host: tom is on the line. caller: good morning. i got a couple of radical suggestions that will probably make me sound like a republican, even though i'm not. the number one thing that needs done is to change the anchor baby law. that should be obvious to everyone and that can be done. the next thing is -- we have these countries that are continually in turmoil that are always sending refugees to us. all right? if we can't get the united nations off their butts to do something about that, we go invade the dam countries ourselves. that would be cheaper than what we're doing now. two fairly radical proposals. one would require an amendment the constitution. citizenship in the united

states, called anchor babies. i'm not going to handicap the chances of that. overseasd is some military ventures. i don't think you will have much appetite for either. host: do we expect to hear more about this on the campaign rail? guest: yes. if you look at the republican primary, it's been pretty thin on policy, to say that graciously as i can. the listing that has come up has been international relations of this type. international trade issues. i expect the same going forward. texas, republican line, thomas. caller: good morning. gao andep into the uncovered a lot of things that when it comestant to hosting hard-working pay her taxes. there are $120 billion in excess

money going overseas. programs for immigrants that are here. immigrants that have not become citizens. $120 billion. $140,000 per person to social security and other , this is all on that basis. if we don't curtail what's going on as far as the amounts of money leaving the country, not to mention the jobs that have artie laughed, we are in very serious trouble. i meet some hard action. i know it's a hard pill to swallow, but if we don't do something -- and i mean fast --

we are all going to be in a very big, big problem financially. we ought to get out of the wto. since 1994 they have been our most deadliest enemy. that is why our jobs took this long to go overseas. here, byhite china is the way, with the power to take these jobs. we have an imbalance in trade going on. throw in the refugees and immigrants, people coming from any side coming to this country and overstaying their visas and just disappearing, like one woman pointed out, it's just unbelievable. we've got a put a stop to it. the borders, the money leaving the country, we've got to get our jobs back. do you do it? the last three things you have laid out. it's simple, you close

the borders, stop immigration, stop the inflow of refugees. that's the first thing. get out of the wto, that's the next thing. get out of nafta, that's the next thing. these trade deals, these partnerships, these are disaster. i'm a republican. he got up there in said -- from that itey -- he said was so secret that he thought it was a communist country. you couldn't taken note or swipe down anything or see anything. you couldn't have pictures taken. and then you went back down to the room. the secret room that they had. you could not talk to other congressmen about what you just read. >> in no particular order, on the transpacific partnership, a very big deal that's very controversial. for the first time, it's up on a website.

with every line before they take a vote. that's perfect. the way these things are done, they get one shot and they can't amend it. the money coming out of the united states is not in illegal immigration issue. they send money back to their families. those moneys are one of the most important economic forces in central and south america every year. the flow of money coming back to this families is probably one of the biggest sources of economic prosperity. loath to tell someone here illegally what they can do with their money. host: good morning, jeanne. for taking myyou call. it's another nice, spring day in southwest virginia. i have a small, one man policy shop geared towards technology.

with policy,deal it's things that are rarely as you see them on the surface. this immigration debate is another one. we talk immigration we always wind up talking about -- the word low anchor, because they are important people, but servers, people that take our food, etc.. we also find out that the real money behind this are the high-tech ones. whatever immigration laws get passed it over to them. people, these computer people, engineering. they are the actual force behind it. i will argue the fact that this has been a good example. i was flat out cold by my hr person. bey said they only hire h one these engineers because they were cheaper. agoone here a few minutes

texted and they conduct -- totally ignored it, confirming what i'm talking about here. what do i tell engineering students who cannot get jobs who are now competing with -- for those visas that are being brought in by people like , cisco, etc., i've got my tv turned down but i see you smile. to my kids strapped with student loans, it ain't funny. if you would like to comment, i would like to hear the comment about how we get off the phone. population,ration those are two focal points. one, talking about the low end, there are a lot of high school immigrants in the united states. not just health professionals. anytime it comes up you get

these different interests raising their voices. to date, we haven't done really big immigration reform. most people have always thought that you have to do the big, comprehensive bill. there's now the school of thought that says maybe we have to go through sector by sector to do smaller pieces weather does appear to be a legitimate immigrationlled where people worry that it's not exactly right and some companies have attempted to abuse it. there is reform there, let's see how it plays out. host: do you see the small pieces passing in this presidential year? i don't. but it's genuinely important to continue to have this conversation, however unpleasant it becomes at times. in my career, 2003 at the budget office, every year we looked at these issues. every year we have come to face

the reality that we built our immigration system on family reunification and refugee asylums, honorable principles. is an enormous component and we haven't upgraded our laws to reflect it. brett, searchlight, nevada. thank you for calling. >> thank you, sir. this is simple. i'm an official from the border patrol -- i saw on official from the border patrol on c-span. they talked about what bad shape the borders were in. they were explaining. they had 154 coming in at one time. my question is, i know that not all undocumented immigrants will wind up in prison.

how many do we have there now? what does it cost to keep them there? how much will it cost to deport them? will they come back to the country a second time as offenders? thank you for your time. we have all of these facilities, as mentioned, to do the job asked by donald trump and ted cruz. we have to make it 10 times bigger. take the answer, divide by 10. 5000 officials out there trying to defame people. we detain 250,000 per year. --t's the skills things now scale of things now. host: last call, kansas city. artemis? caller: i have several points. said thatll, someone

they are taking the high skilled jobs as well. experience.had that i have a phd in cell biology and anatomy. my husband had a phd in biophysics. -- first he lost his job because of the immigrants coming in. in academia, they get those , supplies,s equipment, and their salaries. they come in to take those jobs. so, he lost his job. soost $2000 off of my income that my boss could pay for the people coming from europe. that's her he was from. and of course the people from other countries. they started to hire people from other countries because they know their language and their culture and it's easier for them

interact with them. secondly, we can take their possessions and order to pay for the cost of the program of deporting them. we do that with people who sell drugs, we take their possessions . we can do that with the illegal aliens. with thewon't do it legal ones. but if they didn't, you know, break their visa at some point. , their salaries are effectively about one third higher than america's because of the taxes they don't pay. for sales tax, but there is a whole lot of we didn't don't pay

and that has been an ongoing thing, americans having smaller and smaller families because they cannot afford to live. host: final thought on any of that? guest: i'm sorry obviously to hear about their distress, but some of it sounds like legal immigration. i'm not sure that this is a problem of illegals here. i certainly don't think that there is this massive tax evasion that people are concerned. people show up at a job, payroll and income taxes are withheld. they pay sales taxes when they buy things. it's hard to find a way for a new legal immigrant to evade our guest hasxes

been dubbed assaults a can, former head of the congressional budget office and president of the american action forum. thank you for your time this morning. one more time out and then we have a 35 minute segment or so with danny vinik, who will talk to us about the congressional plans to spend $300 billion on currentlyperating without formal authorization from congress. be right back. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," bob goodlatte and, chair of the house judiciary committee, talking about the key issues in technology, encryption, privacy, surveillance, and e-mail. he's joined by the politico

technology reporter. a good and important thing and we have got to find our way through this area not by but byng encryption continuing the effort to strengthen it. look of a problems we have had with foreign government, with criminal enterprises, with just plain hackers stealing millions from government agencies. millions of credit card records from retail establishment, from financial establishment to know that we need to be moving towards stronger uses of encryption. tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with ." exploring some

of the constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall said that this was different. the constitution is a political document. but it is also a law. if it is a law we have the courts to tell what it means. >> it is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? the supreme court said that they should make the decisions. >> tonight, looking at the case that established the constitution is the supreme law of the united states. marbury review madison, tonight at 10 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is danny vinik, assistant editor at

politico, with this story that has this headline that is worth yourng into -- "meet unauthorized federal government." what are you talking about? guest: programs and laws with unauthorized appropriations. money that congress spending that certain committees have not authorized. we can get deep into the weeds about what that means. much of this is deep into the legislative wordsmith and how we play with these things. there are three components to funding and program. the first one is called the enabling statute. congress passes the law that creates the program to exist. it lays out what it does, who is , who had responsibilities in terms of the government to do certain things.

that's laying out more specific lands and the details about what the year-to-year responsibilities are for the program. each year you want congress to ,o this authorization conducting oversight and revisiting each of these programs so they don't just continue onwards. a little bit of a weird to set , likes existed at the end 1789 when congress created the war the arm and. it was created and funded separately. reheat the funding and policy directions secret. one up, the other down. with policye time

arguments in another area. amazingly, you write, $300 billion in washington rims are running on autopilot. significant money. what kinds of things are we talking about? guest: everything from the fbi could -- fbi to the federal elections committee, which hasn't been we authorized's 1984. an incredibly long time for a program to go through without being reauthorized. that doesn't mean that they aren't spending money each year and looking at how much should be spent on it. they are actually doing that. not being ignored here, but this process was being put in place so that they would have a look and decide if they were things they wanted to continue with. you can see how it was pretty

dysfunctional. five of the six members expired. it is a symptom of congressional neglect. we will get to the details of the why of this in a moment. phone numbers on the bottom of the screen -- we will get you your calls in a compliment. other republican senate committee that it they spoke of the need for congress to address this. [video clip] >> when congress utilizes an authorization it is creating a federal solution for anita. overtime needs change. technology evolves. inevitably congress creates more

programs, many of which are duplicative of existing programs. congress must re-examine what we are actually funding in order to improve or eliminate government programs not delivering results. by taking a closer look at these , we will have more funding flexibility to boost important priorities. this is probably the best way to creating new duplicative programs. the problem is, we are not doing it. host: for lack of better phrasing, when did the system sort of start to come apart, danny vinik? guest: it's been very gradual. there's no where where you can pinpoint this exact moment in time. but over the years, just to give a little bit of perspective, in the early 1990's 10% of discretionary spending was on

unauthorized program -- programming. there was not at any point some gigantic jump. over time more and more things have fallen by the wayside. you can kind of see a connection you can see the correlation between the increased partisanship and polarization in congress. host: we don't see these individual authorizations come up the way they used to. it just doesn't work that way anymore. a few people are worried that the centralization of power in congress has also contributed to this. committees don't feel like they are going to have the authorizations taken up anyways. makingto the trouble of hard decisions when your leader might not even decide to put it on the floor and all your work was for naught. politicalven lead to backfiring if you put certain programs forward.

the incentives are not aligned. host: we saw mike enzi in that clip. who else are the leaders? rodgers.thy mcmorris she has been pushing this pretty hard recently. she has introduced a new bill called the usa act. unauthorizedwith appropriations would slowly decrease their fundings over three years. after three years if they were still not authorized they would cease to exist. the goal is to actually put some pressure on congress to do something right now. but the problems is if you skip this middle step which is what's happening right now, the courts that the appropriate process itself is enough to legally keep these programs going. that's why you have hundreds of billions of dollars being spent

on things that have unauthorized appropriations. to flip the script. if the authorization is not in place they do not get the money. it puts pressure on the committees to actually go through the process. host: if the court says it's ok, where's the pressure to change the process? guest: there isn't any. that's the problem. once in a while a scandal will hit. you will have sudden fire alarm oversight. , oversightpoint hits doesn't happen because there is not any political consequences for not doing it. host: we have lots of calls coming in for danny vinik of politico. he is an assistant editor. tom is on the line from new york. i think we are a small government. i honestly think that we shouldn't be spending $300 billion. i remember in 2014 they approved

a $1 trillion spending budget. where we getting this money from? we should be spending on things that matter like the military. not on agencies that don't matter in our government. i believe in small government and i'm a minimalist. host: any thoughts? guest: $300 billion is a lot of money, but we spend trillions of dollars every year. i think we need some perspective on what the actual size of the federal budget is. i think there are a lot of things in that $300 billion that the caller and most people would consider pretty critical to the government. the fbi, the state department. there are a lot of areas where you might be able to find links to cut, but you have to look at a more granular sense. is in texas. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

want to say that i feel like a lot of the proms we are having is because we have gotten so far away from the constitution itself. i believe everything you are is inting -- discussing the constitution. i'm scared. i'm concerned. the only one i hear talking about returning to the constitution is ted cruz. thank you. host: that takes us back to the beginning of this conversation. guest: back to 1789 when congress first past the war department. it is true that the goal of this was to put in -- to make sure that congress does this oversight and continues to go through the process. that goes back to the very beginning. i think the caller is right that we have to -- it has deteriorated over time. are: congressional staffers

quick to point out that not reauthorizing an agency is not conducting any oversight. committees hold hearings and undertake investigations into different programs without --ard to the alteration authorization status of the program. elaborate on that. thet: the fact that authorization has not been happening does not mean that there are not hearings that take place. it's important to keep in mind that they are still working on these things. there is not complete neglect. havingsy to think that an unauthorized government means no one is paying attention. people are paying a lot of attention even if the authorization process does not happen. john kerry testifies on the hill all the time even though the state department has not been reauthorized since 2003. i talked to a former nasa

administrator. nasa has been authorized off and on. he said, i had plenty of oversight. agency to agency. the overall system was to force this to happen in every situation. .ost: democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002. we are talking to danny vinik of politico. we are talking about this headline. more than 300 million of washington's programs -- more than $300 billion of washington programs are running on autopilot. hey there. caller: hi.

i'm 88. a world war ii veteran. and moretched more programs become entitlement type programs which are not reviewed. thatthough you state there are some technical reviews, the finances are not reviewed. i would suggest that the possibility that all finance law, all finance involved laws have a sunset date that would require them to be reauthorized. --t would automatically well, nothing is automatic. that would help not having unauthorized programs. i'd like your answer. host: while we have you, any particular programs you've been interested in most over the years? i retired as the navy's

director of science and technology. the programs that i was involved with were always authorized. we gave them specific funds. required. and we had those programs authorized. of course, there was always some porkbarrel that runs. that's really i think less of a problem. the ones that concern me are the that i findcially , as the gentleman said, the fbirams that required like and cia and other security programs, which i believe tend to get out of control. host: thanks for calling. is the idea of a sunset -- has it ever been in place? guest: it is in cathy mcmorris

rodgers braille -- bill. the appropriations would not be in effect anymore so you would have to go through the process. about the is talking mandatory side of the budget where the funding and appropriations continue automatically. the $300 billion is all discretionary. go through the appropriations process each year. a lot of people want to have congress take a stronger look at yearly reviews on the mandatory side -- medicare, medicaid, social security. those go automatic each year. the bill wouldgs do would set up a commission that would look at these mandatory programs in more detail. host: what's the level of support for her bill? would not expect action anytime soon. there is significant support among the republican caucus.

in the house budget committee report that came out last week they included a section on unauthorized appropriations that said these are a problem and we need to take a closer look at them. the problem is there's not a ton of bipartisan support around it. democrats are not quite interested in doing this goingng over the -- through these policy processes again. one of the outcomes could be if there is a stalemate on policy decisions that the money doesn't get spend. that is a big risk for democrats. they are in a position where they could stop these bills from going through. that's probably why there has been less support. someone on twitter wants to know, what our unfunded liabilities? guest: they are long-term costs and spending that the government will have to do that doesn't have a direct funding stream attached to them. securityabout social that go decades past when the trust fund will have monday --

-- money. on twitter, carol says get rid of all expired programs. most are wasteful and redundant. bob is calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is about the debt. -- i read this in a book of steps -- stats. if we were to lay a $20 bill on the table every second of every day of every hour of every month of every year it would take 32,000 years to pay back the current debt. what can we do about that? host: any thoughts, danny vinik? guest: the debt is fairly high right now. but the deficit year-to-year amount we have spending greater

than revenue has been falling considerably in the last few years. in some sense there has been a lot of movement to reduce the deficit. at the same time i think it's worth looking at interest rates which is how much the government has to pay for funding that goes beyond how much revenue it is taking in. interest rates are extraordinarily low. there isn't much cost. future itis in the could rise. at the moment it's hard to look at current interest rates and consider them particularly dangerous. roger in kentucky. independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to commend the young man for some wonderful reporting. his generations of reporters to get this straightened out. because most of the reporters that have been around on the big outlets don't talk about this. so i hope you young man and your

generation are the only hope to let people know what's going on. i'm an independent. i don't think there's a democrat or republican that's for a bloated out of date government with waste and fraud that's going on. it more onwe expose shows like this then hopefully your generation gets out and tells people what's really going on in washington, d.c. at least we can take care of that. i don't think any american is for that. i don't think any of us want to support a wasteful out-of-control government. with a like government programs or not. i just want to thank you for what you are doing and all the best to you. will i'm glad to be doing this segment itself because it is a pre-granular issue. unauthorized appropriations. a lot of people will hear that and go to sleep. i'm glad we can drum up a little

bit more -- and i think republicans are interested in doing that. they have been pushing hard on it as well. host: is speaker ryan pushing this? guest: he has not talked a ton about it. allowing individual lawmakers and the committee chairman to have a little bit more power to move through these bills is one thing different lawmakers are hopeful about. going back to regular order to allow the process kicked back up again. host: what is the size of the federal budget right now? about $3.6 trillion. host: gwen in michigan. caller: thanks for taking my call. when you say expired programs, it just means that they are not authorized, but they are essential programs and that's why they continue to have the oversight over them.

now you say that there's a bill where -- if it's not authorized to going to just phase out. so it seems to me that we do need to take a very hard look at what the programs are. you mentioned social security, a lot of government programs, maybe food stamps. -- even theow federal trade commission. will programs for people small businesses. a lot of things that are not being fixed. --0 billion is not just for nowuestion is, why are they going to phase out programs that are not authorized. it seems to be around about way

to get rid of a lot of the social programs that the middle class and low income people need. could you answer that question for me? and keep. -- thank you. guest: yes. social security is on the mandatory side of the budget. this is just discretionary things. the number of things in the $300 billion is very vast. there are things for a few million dollars and there are things much more significant. there are things people think are critical and things they roll their eyes at. for example, the national weather service, the ftc. some of these get reauthorized and some do not. last year we saw no child left behind reauthorized. it had expired. you want to think of what the legislation would do, i would not necessarily consider it

would just end all these programs. that is the ultimate stick at the end of this. the idea is to put pressure on lawmakers so they actually do the oversight and we don't have to use the stick at the end. host: and a is on the republican line -- anna is on the republican line. caller: i've been trying for five weeks. we talk about the social security going broke and medicare and everything. i'm 80 years old. that's the only thing i depend on. if obama would keep his hands out of it than we might have enough to last us for a while. and another thing is i don't think we should have the responsibility of feeding the children their breakfast, their lunch and now they want to have their dinner? i said, there's an awful lot of them that may be needed. -- need it. and there's an awful lot that

don't. trust they get food stamps. the housing subsidy. the food stamps. the medicaid. when i go to get my prescriptions, one of them cost $1020 and $.99. that's my heart medicine. and $.75.one is $999 i watch these illegal aliens go up there with the little card and they handed to them and they get their medicine for free or a dollar or two or whatever. i think -- we have to get rid of this and and the president needs to stay on the ground a little bit more and stay in the white house. waspends, the first term $250 billion for travel and vacation. about the plans for the corporations when he first went in there and now look

at the way him and biden go flitting off wherever they want to go at taxpayers expense. host: thank you. some clear advice. guest: i will take the social security part of that. social security running out of money -- right now the trust fund is scheduled to run out of money in the early 20 30's. the government can always put more money into the trust fund moneynd new ways to raise so social security is there for people after that year. there is a lot of concern because the trust fund is supposed to be what funds social security. congress is going to have to take action because most people don't expect that when the trust fund runs out people are just going to give up on social security. host: we have time for a few more calls with danny vinik of politico. he is assistant editor. our guest has worked at the new republic and his work has also

appeared in washington monthly and business insider. he is educated at duke university. this is his first time on the washington journal. we appreciate you joining us. here is a tweet from someone who calls himself slave wage earner. does congress audit the pentagon? each year, defense spending gets funded through the discretionary budget. each year there is the national defense authorization act for defense spending. it has been reauthorized 54 years in a row. it's the one authorization that is just about guaranteed to get through. billion of600 spending in it. given the loving money that floats around, there is a ton of interest in everything that happens in it. policy decisions are made in it. congress looks at the pentagon

but you are also facing the fact that every congressman have different interests and pet projects and agencies they think are going to do best. the person is talking about waste and fraud -- it depends on whose side you are looking at. william is calling from virginia. he's an independent color. -- caller. know why would like to startedtarted -- va collecting dna for homeland security and who authorized it and who reimburses the v.a. for collecting that? host: can you help us with that? guest: not really. i'm not really sure what the caller is talking about. host: can you be more specific? congress -- the v.a. was

told to turn over the dna from the veterans to homeland security. and i want to know why or who authorized it and who reimburse the v.a. for the dna? host: not sure we have the answer to that at this table. what them not sure caller is talking about. in terms of my story, the authorization is really about the funding mechanisms involved in the congressional process. it's less about individual agencies making policy decisions. i can't speak to what the caller is concerned about. host: kristen in illinois. democratic caller. good morning. are you there?

i don't think we have kristen. let's try tony. kristen, i'm sorry. i just heard her voice before we moved on. let's hear from tony in idaho, republican caller. caller: hi there. thanks for taking the call. i'm a businessman. i have been in business for going on 40 years. i've had to maneuver through the government dealing with government bureaucracy. it seems like to me that there is just an inordinate amount of these programs that come up. they are making demands on business all the time to supply information or comply with different things. in my estimation it's all redundant and most of it i don't think that it's founded on anything except supplying the government information. the other side of this coin is not what the government is

spending, it's what it's costing private industry and business to comply. that's a significant cost. the other thing that i would like to see happen and i don't understand why and i think that the legislature has fallen off their responsibility by not doing it is just a couple simple things they could do. zero based budgeting. thing incommon business. you start a program that has to be justified every year if it's going to be reauthorized. the people responsible have to andly their rationale requirements and why it's needed. that doesn't happen in government. these programs start, the self-perpetuate. reauthorizing, some department gets started, no one

really questions whether or not the department is needed. it. just reauthorize pretty soon something that is 10,with five people 20, 50 and nobody is ever questioning it. the redundancy that results is tremendous. i think we have a government that is almost -- it doesn't know what its responsibilities are. it's just this involving machine that is going on and nobody is responsible. self-perpetuates. i know nobody wants to hear about budget amendments, but with -- what would solve a lot of this is zero-based budgeting. that's basically my comment. host: remind us what that is all about. guest: that is where you would

start each year with an empty budget and you would have to justify every program and agency would have to submit what they want to spend. you would go through the process of putting a budget together starting from scratch. every year would be doing it completely new. where through a process every agency and committee would look at budgets, put forward what they think each agency should do. the next year you do it all over again. that really affects the mandatory side of the budget. social security, medicaid medicare. each year you would be going back through and looking at these different programs and having to rethink them. host: is their support on the hill for that? guest: on the republican side there is. is not something you will see anytime soon for democrats. they worry it is a backdoor way to cut spending. there is less interest among them. host: andre in minneapolis.

independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i'm glad that you all allowed me the opportunity to speak to you. i agree with a lot of things that have been set by the callers. i'm an independent. i used to be a democrat. i'm a veteran that was a small business owner. i'm now retired and my sons are running our business. one of the things that i'm very disturbed about with the democratic party as well as the republican party is the wasteful spending but -- all of us as americans need to understand when we talk about debt, something we actually own. think about me, think about my family, inc. about my culture. think about americans. our debt has never been paid.

we care not to have medical cards and receiving free medical services. we don't care to be looked down upon. but until america pays its debt to this culture of people, what relief today have? we can debate this issue, but we and the there was talk talk comes every now and then about reparations. but no one democrat or republican is sincere about this. i believe wholeheartedly our economy would become vastly we sincerely -- if we are going to cut money, how about we put it into reparations for this culture of people? host: thanks for calling. final thought. reparations,ms of it's a very controversial subject. you don't hear much about it on capitol hill. incomes of more among scholars and writers online -- it comes

up more among scholars and writers online. concerned about the dead and we wanted to cut spending, using that money elsewhere is not going to actually cut anything. but reparations come up a little bit. it is something that probably deserves more thought than it gets. host: what is next with historic? -- this story? guest: it depends on if the republicans want to push hard going after kathy morris rogersvi' bill. they can try to put some pressure on them. host: to read more, politico is the place to go. here is the story. , more than $300 billion of washington programs are running on autopilot. the author of the piece is danny vinik. he has been with us for the past

40 minutes. he is an assistant editor at politico. thank you for your time. appreciate all your participation in the show today. we will be back at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow with another edition of the washington journal. now it's off to the new america foundation, where they are going to take a look at student learning in this country. they will talk about standardized test, accountability, university standards. this is live coverage on c-span. enjoy your day. >> good morning everybody. is kevin kerry. i direct the education policy program here at new america. we all appreciate you coming here on a rainy spring morning in washington, d.c.