visit ncicap.org] announcer: next, "newsmarkers." then a hearing on the data breach of equifax. later, a look at the white house response to the mass shooting in las vegas. this week, we are joined by california congresswoman linda sanchez, vice chair of the house democratic caucus, she also serves on the tax-writing committee and is the former chair of the congressional hispanic caucus. and to help us we have sarah wire and ed o'keefe. sarah: i wanted to start with the shooting in las vegas.

after the shooting in orlando, the democrats really try to push and nothing changed. is this moment different and what can the democrats do? rep. sanchez: it is different. it is the same tragedy that tends to repeat itself and democrats have limited then use by which to force action on some sensible gun violence prevention legislation. the sit in galvanized attention on the issue and i think it was impactful, but we have to use different tools and strategies for different situations. because we do not control the agenda, we are not able to set hearings or schedule specific pieces of legislation for the floor. there are limited avenues we have available to us, so we are pushing in ways we can. we are reaching out to republicans to see if we can get members on the other side of the aisle to stand with us on

sensible measures. we will continue to do that, but like many things the republicans have been hesitant or not willing to pursue, you know, public sentiment can help move the ball down the field, so to speak must the we are looking for people to stand up and voice their concerns and their desire to see sensible gun violence legislation. ed: one of the more striking elements of this is very quickly this week several republicans suggested they are open to discussing this. some went so far as to say that they support senator dianne feinstein's legislation that would ban one of the accessories used by the shooter in las vegas, believing it is so obscure and clearly contributed to such a lethal event that it should be banned. what do you make of the republican response, which is

clearly different from what we have seen for previous shootings? and would it make sense for the democrats, instead of releasing or reintroducing the reams of proposals that you often do after these situations, to just focus on what feinstein is proposing, realizing there could be a legitimate chance for a bipartisan agreement? rep. sanchez: clearly we are heartened to see that republicans have expressed desire to support that legislation and we will seize on every opportunity we can to try incrementally to address the problem. we are certainly willing to work with republicans to try to build the consensus and make it happen. up until now, it has been difficult to get them to acknowledge there is a problem. and i think legislating based on the last incident is not always the most helpful way to legislate, because each a

situation is different. it takes many different types of action to really curb a problem. and believe me, gun violence is an epidemic as deadly as the "crisis, yet until now most republicans have been unwilling to acknowledge there was a problem. ed:ed: how do you get gun owners to trust you on this issue? that this is not a slippery slope toward taking away all of the guns? what is your message to them? rep. sanchez: we recognize there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but that does not mean it is absolute. no right is absolute. freedom of speech is a right, but you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. and many responsible gun owners are now waking up to the fact that they can be part of the solution if they are willing to stand up and buck this black and white world that groups like the nra have forced us into, whether you are broken or effect on.

that is not the case. we are talking about people allowed to have firearms, but doing it in a responsible manner. if you look at cars, they can be deadly, yet you have to be licensed to drive into have to carry insurance, and your car must meet certain safety standards. i do not think it is unreasonable to address the epidemic we really need to look at many different ways in which we can make sure that the wrong people are not able to have access to guns, so those who are severely mentally ill, those with a history of violence or convictions for things like domestic violence, felons, violent criminals, terrorists -- you know, i think the majority of the american people believe that we should limit access to those groups, yet we have not been able to see the republican leadership step up and allow us to address any one of those things. sarah: you said it congress

should not legislate to the last disaster, but in a situation where republicans are giving an inch with a bump stocks, should democrats be willing to take that little bit? rep. sanchez: democrats welcome mat and we are willing to work with republican counterparts, even on the most incremental changes that can prevent deaths. absolutely, we are willing to do that. like i said, we are looking at one piece of the problem and there are many more and we are happy to start with that piece, happy to work with republican colleagues to address that. as if gunsed: -- notas if guns were complicated enough, immigration is also an issue, especially for those in your part of the country, all over the country but especially in states like thefornia. we are expecting issue to intensify with the administration releasing ideas on what exactly could be done to not only address the more immediate concern about the future of the so-called

dreamers, but also immigration policy in general. when it comes to possibly resolving the status of people who are protected by the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, how far are democrats willing to go on that agreement? what would be unacceptable to your caucus, if called upon to vote on an agreement that couples resolving the docket issue -- daca issue with border security measures, which appears to be the principle of of the agreement that was struck last month? rep. sanchez: i think the agreement was an agreement to try to reach an agreement. i do not think there were specifics in bedded in the casual conversation that was had, but i will say it is interesting to me that they, the republicans want to pair border security with a resolving the daca issue, because dreamers are

not a threat to national security. they already live here in they have been fully vetted already and they are some of the brightest and most talented young people in the country and they want to contribute to this country, so i look at that and i look at a clean dream act as something that has overwhelming support across the country, regardless of political party, and also has a lot of support in congress. i believe if the speaker would schedule a clean dream act legislation, there are enough republicans that would join with democrats to pass it easily. we there is sort of now, oh, want to pair it with border security. i am interested to see the proposals, because apprehensions at the border at the lowest point they have been for decades. there is not an overwhelming problem at the border. we're wasting precious resources

on things like a wall, a medieval solution to a modern problem. it just is not smart use of our taxpayer dollars. the hispanic caucus has been very engaged in the issue and they are meeting on a frequent basis to talk about what types of proposals might be put forward and what kinds of things we would agree to work on, but there are nonstarters and the wall is one of them. ed: what is another one? rep. sanchez: increasing the potential -- but it must be the consensus of the hispanic caucus and these conversations are ongoing. sarah: with only five less -- are democratsft, in a position to say no to proposals? rep. sanchez: of course, we have the leverage of popular sentiment. everybody across the u.s. has an opinion, but poll after poll shows the vast majority of americans agree with allowing

daca recipients to stay in the country and they want to see a fix for it, so i think the pressure will be ratcheted up, much like the health care debate. once constituents begin voicing their opinions to the representatives, i think it creates a lot of momentum. time is a finite issue, we have a short amount of time to resolve this, so i think the pressure will continue to increase and hopefully push republicans to act, because it has been a major impediment, the speaker, regardless of him touting his religious faith and empathy for dreamers, has been unwilling to schedule it for a vote. i believe if we scheduled a vote we could easily pass a clean dream act. john: you raised this issue with the president recently? what was his response? rep. sanchez: his response was, he believes these talented

individuals should be allowed to stay and when he was asked whether or not he would personally engage on the issue, and try to impel the republicans in congress to really work on the issue and move it forward he dodged and was even a set of with whether or not he would be vasive with whether or not he would be involved. so i'm not sure we can rely on them to give us a vote on the bill. john: former president obama has an opinion on this. do you think it would be helpful for him to be more involved than he has at this point? rep. sanchez: i know former presidents clearly tried to step out of the limelight and resume as normal a life as they can. personally, i would welcome president obama getting engaged and trying to help galvanize support for it.

i think we will need support from all corners to make it happen. we have been dealing with republican obstruction of the bill for years, and with time running short i think it would be, i would certainly welcome president obama's engagement. sarah: what has your relationship been like with president trump? have you met with him often? i have not -- rep. sanchez: i have not. when i was invited to sit down and discuss tax reform, that was the first time i was invited to the white house. i was a number of members there and our interaction with limited, but i tried to raise the issue of dreamers. and the woefully inadequate response to the humanitarian crisis going on, and also throw in my two cents on tax reform. so it was, i was kind of curious because he opened the meeting by

saying what a great bipartisan effort the tax reform was, but for us it was the first time the democrats had been invited to discuss it with the republicans in the president himself. ed: you met with the president officially to talk about taxes, and you are a member of the ways and means committee. same question as it was on gun control and immigration, in what way are you hoping the democrats can influence the debate that is driven primarily by republicans? and what would be the top of my concern for the democrats -- mind concerned for the democrats if they achieve changes to the tax bill? rep. sanchez: i believe comprehensive tax reform is a heavy lift. in this set of circumstances in which republicans favor the go it alone approach where they hide in a room and there are only four people writing a bill,

they do not let their own members see it, i think they will have substantial problems. they did it with repeal and replace, and they were never able to bring across the finish line and i really believe you have to have a bipartisan effort in order to get tax reform done. we remain and -- end, committed to working with our colleagues, we would like to be invited to the table to talk about our principles for tax reform. clearly we favor one that will make it simpler, but also makes the tax code fair. right now it is skewed against working families and across the country they are feeling the pinch. the president has touted the republican plan as being only a tax cut for the middle class, but that is a falsehood because when you talk about repealing the estate tax, those affected are the most wealthiest in the country and we talk about eliminating the deduction for

state and local taxes, first aid like california, these are middle-class families that will be hit with a huge tax bill. taxcrats want to promote reform that is revenue neutral, which means we do not borrow in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. we want to see the distribution tables, we want to see who really benefits under their plan. because i suspect, i really know that it is not the middle class that will get the bulk of the benefit, it will be incredibly wealthy individuals. so we want something that will be neutral, which means the benefits will be spread among everybody, not just one group at the expense of another. and we want to see if they are serious about providing real tax relief for the middle class americans and for working americans. sarah: so is there anything that is a nonstarter for a real priority? rep. sanchez: certainly, the

fact it is not revenue neutral raises the hair on the back of my neck. for years, republicans have been pounding the table, saying we cannot exploit the deficits, we cannot burden our children with debt, but when they want to give tax cuts to corporations and wealthy americans they do not mind borrowing money and running up the deficit. that is fiscally irresponsible. they are hypocrites if they say that we need to do something about the deficit, and then they want to pass a big tax cut by exploding the deficit, that is hypocrisy. alternately the american people will see through that. they run up huge deficits when they are in power, and then down the line they say, we have horrible deficits and we have to do something about it and the first thing they want to do is cut social security, or medicaid, or medicare, many of the programs people -- keeping people out of poverty.

putting the americans on the backs of those who can least afford it. ed: i find it frustrating to be a member of the house of representatives right now, given there is so little opportunity for you guys to influence the debate. talk about that, but also explained to -- explain to the viewers, why americans should elect more democrats into the house in november 2018? rep. sanchez: it is a source of frustration that we have a republican majority in the house and a speaker who does not want to govern from the center, he wants to cater to the whims of the far right of the caucus and they are very fractured, they cannot even agree amongst themselves, so basically the republicans have been pretty incapable of governing and doing the basic things to try to keep government running efficiently. and i just think that democrats

are more responsible when we look at who needs help, how do we make things fair? fundamentally, democrats are about fairness, about giving people a fair shot, we are not about stacking the deck against them, which the playing field is completely in favor of those who have money, wealth and privilege. in this country i think increasingly americans sense something is wrong with our system, so as long as we continue to elect republicans who want to continue to help benefit those with wealth and privilege, we will see an america that is fundamentally unfair. and we do not give working families in fair shot when you talk about repealing the estate tax and allowing billionaires to save millions of dollars on the taxes, while allowing, not allowing people in california and new york to deduct what they

pay in state and local taxes on their tax returns. so my pitch is we need more democrats in congress because we are the adults in the room, we know how to govern, we get business completed and we helping the system more fair, and we stand up for the little guy. those are the basic principles. john: just over five minutes left. to follow up, who is the leader of the democratic party right now? rep. sanchez: it depends on you ask. leaders, leader pelosi, chuck schumer in the senate, but each individual member of congress is a leader of their own district and we have a lot of talent on the bench and i think that we need to help develop that talent and give people opportunity. i do not think there is one leader of the democratic party, i think there are many people who you know, who try to move the country in the right direction and it is incumbent

upon democrats across the country to be also part of making the change happen. sarah: democrats win back the house in 2018, should they keep the same leaders? rep. sanchez: i personally think the leadership does a tremendous job, but i think we have a real depth of talent within our caucus and i think it is time to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders. i want to be part of the transition and i want to see it happen. i think we have too many really good members here that do not always get the opportunities that they should. i would like to see that change. win awould nancy pelosi caucus leadership fight right now if she was challenged? rep. sanchez: i do not know. there are a lot of members of our caucus and everybody has their opinion. ed: but by saying it is time for generational change, what you're suggesting is win or lose

after next year, it is time for her to go? rep. sanchez: i do not want to single her out. ed: all three of them should go out? rep. sanchez: i think it is time to pass the torch. they are all of the same generation, and their contributions to the caucus are substantial, but i think there comes a time when you need to pass the torch and i think it is time. john: two is ready to take it up -- who is ready to take it up? any names come to mind? rep. sanchez: there are many talented members of our caucus, many of whom do not have titles, so i am interested to see who would be taking on that responsibility, because i know we have the talent. john: what would you want to do? rep. sanchez: i would like to be part of the transition, transitioning the leadership to a new generation. sarah: you are the youngest member of the house leadership right now, do you see yourself in part of that moving on to the

new generation, or do you think you should be part of whatever would be new? rep. sanchez: when i came to congress i made a promise that if i ever got to a point where i do not feel like i was making a difference or i was jaded by washington, it would be time to pass the torch to somebody else who had the passion to continue the fight. i am still blessed in i love what i do and i do not intend to be carried out of congress in ap pine box. i envision helping contribute and making a difference for a certain amount of time. and again, i think i am well-placed to make the transition to a new government -- to a new generation of leadership. ed: can you conceptualize that? if i am not mistaken, you are being far more explicit in suggesting it is time for a line

change than i have heard people in your possession -- your position be. we have heard a lot of grumbling privately, we do not usually hear a current member publicly say it may be time for those above here to think -- her to think about moving on. rep. sanchez: when iran for vice chair of the caucus -- i ran for vice chair of the caucus it was because i thought things we could do me -- we could be doing better. i believe sometimes we leave our best players off of the field, and it is because they happen to be newer and they do not have the sonoran the other members do. i think as a caucus we can be stronger if we develop the talent we have, you know, individually. each individual, if they are a stronger member, makes the caucus stronger and i really believe there comes a time to provide those opportunities to those members that are talented,

or they will leave. they will leave to run for governor, or senate, or a more vocal position and i do know what to lose the talent that we have. i think it is time for us to have a serious discussion within our caucus about how we will operate moving forward. i am not a person to sit on the sidelines and complain about something that is ultimately why i decided to run for congress, was instead of complaining i decided to do something about it. to be a memberan of the leadership and i am working hard to make the caucus more democratic and provide opportunities for some very talented members. left.we have 60 seconds time for one more question. ed: to clarify, because you say you are concerned about the younger members perhaps leaving, do you know of those who are planning to retire or run for higher office? rep. sanchez: let me make a correction to that, i did not

say younger members, new remembers. ed: correct. do you know any that want to get out? rep. sanchez: i can look at several members that are leaving to pursue other opportunities that i think are talented members, i have not heard of others planning to step out, but we see it happen. we lose members who choose to run for other offices because they are in a system where they feel like they are not allowed to use their talents and expertise to the fullest benefit of the caucus. john: we will end it there. the vice chair of the house democratic caucus, thank you for being our newsmaker this week. rep. sanchez: thank you for inviting me. john: we are going to the roundtable discussion with ed o'keefe of the washington post and sarah wire of the los angeles times, a lot of discussion on leadership positions and the house. we want to start their. --

there. is nancy pelosi and the leadership team less safe than they were after the election? ed: they were on shaky ground certainly after the election last year when she was challenged by tim ryan of ohio, and she conceded if someone was to put together a serious attempt at her perch she may not survive. she admitted that afterwards. hasn what the congresswoman adjusted publicly, i think it shows that she is probably still just as much at risk, if not more so, certainly if the party fails to take back the house next year. sarah: it is something we always hear whispered, but to have a member of the california delegation say that was kind of shocking to me, at the moment i have not heard -- moment did i have not heard that in public. john: the loss of talent, it was

something she talked about. can you flesh that out? ed: several members are running for higher office, whether it is michelle grisham going home to new mexico, or the -- running for the governorship of colorado. and ms. feinstein -- you know, how many? sarah: there could be a or nine democrats interested in the seat. ed: and others running for governor or the senate or potentially just retiring. if they hold on it is because they think the party has a chance of capturing the majority and their further influence would be restored, but it remains a concern because new remembers who could be in washington for awhile, they are leaving because they realize it is not worth sticking around. sarah: we saw nancy pelosi respond to this after the last election, creating more positions for some of the newer

members to rise up, but it does not sound like it is enough. john: in terms of what is enough, what did you get the sense of from the congresswoman on what will be enough by 2018? what do the house democrats need to deliver on? sarah: she sounded like she was talking about new positions. i covered her race and she has been talking about this for years. was saying what she about expanding the field for candidates from the beginning. and i watched the last time she was on the program and she was talking about the hispanic caucus and saying the same thing, there needs to be more opportunities for newer members to meet experts -- to be experts within the party. ed: but to have somebody who is in the leadership circle really, somebody who would be in nancy pelosi's circle of trust, maybe not that, but people who they

consult on issues say is so explicitly speaks volumes, i think, of what she knows and what she is hearing. it is her job to know the mood and opinions of the members in >> if there is a challenge coming, is it tim ryan again? are ine some names that the discussion right now that she might be referring to? >> she is certainly someone who would like one of those positions. whether it is majority leader or assistant majority leader or of leader,ority essentially they organize the first weekly meeting and are for being known to be thinking ahead. ryan might,