this was relatively well-known and conservatives who argued character matters, that the president is a role model somehow found a way to rationalize the behavior of someone who insults women, mocks pows, paid a multimillion dollar fine for defrauding students who just wanted to get an education. on the next "washington journal," reuters white house correspondent looks at the week ahead in washington. they o'connor discusses conservative agenda and president trump. and talk show host bill press talks about the progressive agenda and the trump presidency. as always we will take your

calls and he can join the conversation on face book and twitter as well. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. announcer: on newsmakers, we're joined by california congresswoman linda sanchez, vice chair of the house democratic caucus. she is the former chair of the congressional then it c aucus. sarah, you are up first. >> congressman, thanks for being with us. orlando, shooting in democrats staged a sit in and made a push. is this moment different and what can democrats do? >> the situation is slightly different. it is the same tragedy that repeats itself.

we have limited venues to try to force action on some sensible gun violence registration legislation. use different. 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. ways weushing in the 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 these difficult measures. like many things that republicans have been hesitant or not willing to pursue, public sentiment can help move the ball down the field. we are looking for people to stand up and voice their

seeerns and their desire to gun violence legislation passed in the house. >> one of the more striking elements is this week several republicans suggested they were open to discussing this. some so far say they support senator dianne feinstein's legislation that would ban one of these accessories used by the shooter in las vegas. what do you banned, make of the republican response? and if different from what we have seen with previous shootings. might make sense for democrats, instead of releasing the reams of proposals you do after the whattion is to focus on

feinstein is proposing. technology there may be a chance for a bipartisan agreement. to. sanchez: we are going seize on every opportunity we can to trying for mentally to address the problem. -- incrementally to address the problem. difficult it has been to get them to knowledge there is a problem. legislating based on the last incident is not always the best way to legislate because each situation is different and it takes many different types of action to really curve a problem epidemiciolence is an just as deadly as the opioid crisis and until now most republicans have been unwilling to knowledge there was a problem. voters toyou get

trust you on this issue that is not a slippery slope to take away all the guns. rep. sanchez: we recognize there is a constitutional right to bear arms. no right in our constitution is absolute. freedom of speech is a right that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. many responsible gun owners are waking up to the fact that they can help be a part of the solution if they are willing to step away from this black-and-white world that the nra is forcing us to be in. we are talking about allowing people to have firearms but do it in a responsible manner. cars can be deadly instruments and yet you have to get a license to drive, yet you carry insurance and your car has to meet certain safety sanders. i don't think it is unreasonable

to say, to address this ensure that need to the wrong people do not have access to guns. those who have a history of violence or conviction for those committing domestic violence. the majority of the american people believe that we should limit access to this sort of and we have yet to see the republican leadership step up and address any of those things. situation where republicans are giving an inch when it comes to the bump stocks in auld democrats give bit. rep. sanchez: we are willing to work with our counterparts even

on the most incremental changes. if one piece is the problem as there are many more, we are happy to start with that piece. >> as if guns is not complicated enough, immigration is another group of issues, especially from your part of the country but especially in california. we are expecting the issue to intensify in the coming days with the administration releasing ideas on what exactly could be done to not only address the more immediate concern with so-called dreamers but immigration policy generally. when it comes to 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 is called upon to vote on some kind of agreement resolving this. i think the: agreement was an agreement to reach an agreement. i don't think there were specific in that conversation. it was interesting that republicans want to pair border security with resolving the docket issue. 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 that easily. and there is sort of now, oh, we want to pair it with border security. i am interested to see the proposals are because apprehensions at the border at the lowest point they have been in decades. there is not an overwhelming problem at the border. to continually waste 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.

>> what is another one? >> decreasing the number of detention beds. ,> was only five months left are democrats in a decision -- position to say no to these proposals? rep. sanchez: we have the leverage in terms of popular sentiment. poll after poll after poll shows the vast majority of recipientsupport daca staying in this country. once constituents get engaged and start voicing their opinions to their representatives, that will bring a lot of momentum.

time is a finite issue. we have a short amount of time to resolve this. the pressure will continue to increase and push republicans to act. the major impediments has been the speaker, regardless of him touting his religious faith and his empathy for dreamers, he is unwilling to schedule the dream act for a vote. >> congresswoman, you raised this issue with the president when you spoke to him recently, what would your response? rep. sanchez:'s response was that these talented individuals should be allowed to stay. when he was asked whether or not he would personally engage on that issue and try to in hell impelpublican -- try to the republican and the congress to move that forward, he dodged

that and whether evasive. i do not know to what extent we to count on the president put pressure on congressional republicans to give us a vote on the bill. >> everyone has an opinion on this. former president obama has an opinion. do you think you'll be more helpful for him to be more involved that he is? 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 this 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. >> what has your relationship

been like with president trump? when i was invited with a handful of the ways and means democrats to have a discussion, that was the first time i had been invited to the white house. my interaction with him was limited. in the short amount of time i had, i try to raise the issues of dreamers. and the support for puerto rico and the disaster and humanitarian crisis going on there. he opened the meeting talking about what a great bipartisan tax bill this was an this is the first time democrats had been invited to talk about. >> when you met with the president to talk about taxes,

in what way are you hoping democrats can really influence this debate that is driven primarily by republicans and what would be a top concern for democrats if they do succeed in making changes to the tax code. i believe in the best of circumstances. circumstances where republicans favor the go at it alone approach, they do not let their own members on the committee see it, i think they are going to have t major problems. they did it with the repeal and replace bill and they were never able to bring it across the finish line. i think you need a bipartisan effort to get tax reform done.

committed to working with our republican colleagues. we favor a tax reform that make the tax code simpler but also make the tax code fairer. right now the tax code is skewed against many working families across the country and they are feeling the pinch. thepresident has touted republican plan as being only a tax cut to the middle class but when you talk about an estate tax, the people most affected are the wealthy. when you talk about eliminating state and local taxes, you are talking about middle-class families hit with a huge tax bill. democrats want to promote tax reform that is revenue neutral, which means we do not borrow in order to get tax cuts to the wealthiest americans.

we want to see distribution only, who really benefits under the plan? think it is the middle class going to get the bulk of the benefits. it's going to be incredibly wealthy individuals. benefits to be spread among everybody, not just one group at the expense of another. we will see if they are serious about providing some real tax relief for middle-class americans and working-class americans. >> is there anything you have seen that is a nonstarter or goal 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 and yet when they want to give tax cuts to corporations and wealthy americans they do not mind borrowing money and

running of 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 -- and i think ultimately 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 programs that help keep people out of poverty. and they are putting the americans on the backs of those who can least afford it. it is i sense it is a frustration to be a member of the democratic house of representatives. there is so little opportunity for you guys to influence debate. talk about that but explain to

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 the 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. --those are the basic

principles of the democratic party. >> who is the leader of the democratic party right now? rep. sanchez: it depends on who you ask. there are named 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. >> with that, if democrats win back the house in 28 inc., should they keep the same leaders -- 2018, should they keep the same leaders? thisthink we have

leadership does a great job but i think it is time to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders. i think that we have many great members who do not always get the opportunity they should and i would like to the that change. win a cauancy pelosi cus leadership fight if challenged? rep. sanchez: i do not know. saying it is time for a generational change, what you are 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. them? three of rep. sanchez: i think it is time to pass the torch to a new generation. their contributions to the

congress and the caucus are substantial but i think it is time to pass the torch. >> who is best to pick up the torch. are their names that come to ?ind rep. sanchez: there are many members of our caucus. it is interesting to see who would step up and take that responsibility. >> what would you like to do? rep. sanchez: i would like to be part of transitioning leadership to a new generation. >> you are the youngest member of house leadership, d.c. yourself as part of the moving partdo you see yourself as of the moving on. rep. sanchez: when i came to congress, i made a promise to myself that if i felt like i was not making a difference, is the time to pass the torch to

someone else. that i love what i do. i do not intend to be carried out of congress in a pine box. i envisioned being in the house and making a difference for a certain amount of time. i'm a place to make that transition to a new generation of leadership. >> contextualize what you told us. sarah, you cover california politics, you're being far more explicit in suggesting it is time for a line change than i have heard people in your position be this year. we hear a lot of this whispered and grumbled privately. you do not hear a member of the current leadership saying it is time for those above her to think about moving on. rep. sanchez: when i ran for

vice chair of the caucus, it is because i thought there were things we could be doing differently and better. the platform iran on with a platform of change. i believe we leave our best players off the field. a platform of change. strongerus, we can be if we develop the talent we had individually. each individual makes our caucus stronger and i believe there is a time when you have to provide this opportunity to members that are talented or they will begin to leave. they will leave to run for governor or senate or a more local position. i do not want to lose that talent that we have. i think it is time to have a serious discussion within our caucus about how we're going to operate moving forward.

i'm not a person to sit on the sidelines and complain about something. that is why i decided to run for congress. instead of complaining, i decided to do something for it. i'm working hard to make the democratic caucus more democratic. opportunities for talented members. >> time for one more question. >> to clarify, you said you are concerned about younger members leaving. do you know of one of your colleagues planning to retire or run for higher office? rep. sanchez: let me make a slight correction to that. i did not say younger members. i think newer members. i can look at several members we know that are looking to pursue other opportunities. i have not heard of others who plan on stepping out but we do see that happen with these

members who choose to run for other offices because they are in a system where they feel like they are not allowed to use expertise toand the full benefit of the caucus. >> we have to leave it there. congresswoman sanchez, thank you so much for being our needs anger. that's our newsmaker this week --thank you so much for being our newsmaker this week. discussion.h our leadership positions in the team --is leadership this leadership team less safe the they were after election. ground were on shaky

what theiven congresswoman sanchez is suggesting, it shows she is just as much at risk if not more so and certainly if the party failed to take back the house next year. >> something we always hear behind the scene and whispered, at i have not heard california democrat be that explicit in public. >> the loss of talent, she talked a little bit about that. can you stretch that out. >> you have several members of the house democratic caucus running for higher office. one running for governor of new mexico. one for governor of colorado. where to happen with senator feinstein, if you decide not to

run for reelection, there could be how many -- >> eight or nine democrats interested in the seat. >> you have others running for governor or the senate or potentially retiring. if they hold on, they may think the party could recapture the majority and their influence could be restored. newer members who could considerably leave washington for a wild and build of aniority -- 48 while -- for while and build seniority and influence. >> we saw nancy pelosi doing this, creating new position for this members of to rise up. that is not enough. >> did you get a sense of what will be enough by 2018? >> she sounded like she was talking about new positions. i covered her rate to be the

vice chairwoman of the democratic caucus and she has been talking about this for years. people knew what she was saying about expanding the field for candidates from the beginning. and i watched the last time she "newsmakers" and she was the chairman of the hispanic caucus and saying the same thing, there needs to be more opportunities for newer members to be experts within the party. >> to have someone who is in the leadership circle, he would be pelosi's --nancy circle of trust -- i think it she isvolumes of what hearing from her colleagues. it is her job to know the moods and opinions of members of the

democratic caucus. >> is it tim ryan? what are names that are in the discussion of what you may be referring to? >> >> she is someone who would like one of the physicians, whether it is minority leader -- majority leader or assistant to the whip. they organize the weekly meeting. they are responsible for keeping tabs on the temperature of the caucus. he is known to be thinking ahead. is taking but he advantage of the situation he forpresented and may run president. he is not ruling out more ambitious things. >> he did not provide that it is

a challenge to nancy pelosi that he was hoping. most votes ever cast against her as leader but it is still 69 votes. a small percentage of the overall caucus. we are not ready to say she is ready to go. nancy pelosi said she considered retiring if hillary clinton won. happen.s what will thanks for joining us on "newsmakers." >> it became clear that my impression of breitbart as having an outside influence on the 2016 election was an under statement in the extreme. fact, according to research

breitbart was the driving force on the right side of the political spectrum. >> tonight on "q & a" "new york times" magazine contributing writer will hilton talks about his feature story. >> i think this is really what gets to the disparity between the way i always heard people talk about and continue to talk about breitbart as this sort of hysterical, shouty, machine for creating offense. and much more the reality of the news organization as it functions on a day-to-day basis. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on -span's "q & a." >> tomorrow a discussion on u.s./china relations and some of the challenges related to trade. live coverage begins at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org. or on the free c-span radio

app. now the u.s. supreme court oral argument for gill vs. whitford, a case out of wisconsin involving redistricting. last year a lower court ruled that the state's 2011 map drafted by a republican-controlled legislature amounted to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. the state of wisconsin is appealing the lower court's decision. this is an hour. we'll hear argument first this morning in case 16-1161, gill versus whitford. mr. tseytlin? mr. tseytlin: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: this court has never uncovered judicially manageable standards for determining when politicians have acted too politically in drawing district lines. plaintiff's social science metrics composed of statewide vote to seat ratios and hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. and hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. they were merely shifting