missouri. jay ashcroft will be our guest on washington journal at 8:00 a.m. eastern. >> this morning jeremy barr on the hollywood reporter with the relationship between hollywood and the democratic party and weekly standard writer tony mecia looks at the increase in lobbying efforts in the trump administration. later former agriculture sunday secretary bonnie looks at funding for fighting wildfires. we take your calls. and join us for conversation host: good morning. this is monday, october 16. the u.s. house is out of session for this week, but the senate is in session. and the majority leader mitch mcconnell is going to meet with president trump today. "the washington post" calls it a potentially pivotal meeting as they talk about the critical upcoming agenda this fall and an early winter, issues including immigration, federal spending, and healthcare. at the same time, democrats in congress are blasting the president's latest moves regarding the affordable care act with one senator suggesting the president is literally setting the entire healthcare system on fire. want to get your thoughts this monday morning on the status of

the affordable care act, the posture over at the white house, and in congress. senator murphy is the one who said the president is setting the healthcare system on fire. we'll hear from him. for your calls, republicans call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we have set up a special fourth line this morning for folks who are enrolled in the affordable re act, your number is 202-748-8003. and if want by phone, weigh in on social media. cspanwj is our twitter handle, and also on facebook. here is one write-up on the healthcare story. it's in "the washington post" today. a.c.a. state tied to budget discussions. the democrats accuse president trump of trying to sabotage the nation's healthcare system through his decision to halt payments to insurers meant to shore up the system, while republicans countered on sunday

that trump is just pushing for a hard bargain. trump's decision announced friday after months of criticizing the payments as an insurance industry bailout will throw in doubt the private insurance exchanges that are part of the a.c.a. -- host: here is the democrat from connecticut when was on the fox news sunday program yesterday. >> this is the equivalent of healthcare arson. he's literally setting the entire healthcare system on fire just because the president is upset that the united states congress won't pass a repeal bill that it supported by 17% of the american public. these subsidies going to the insurance companies help very low income people afford insurance. and without the subsidies, there will be many people who won't be able to provide insurance and afford it, and

the other set of subsidy that is go to individuals to access coverage will actually increase, meaning that the deficit goes up, the amount of money that we spend overall on the affordable care act goes up, because all that happens is the payments that used to be going to insurance companies now get substituted with increased tax credits for individuals to afford the coverage. the fact of the matter is the president is trying to sabotage the american healthcare system, trying to put a gun to the head of our constituents by taking away their healthcare or raising their costs in order to force us to repeal a bill that the american public doesn't want us to repeal. host: to your calls in a moment, but first, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina, he's quoted as saying he's played golf twice with trump in the past week, he said that the president called lamar alexander saturday and encouraging him to get a bipartisan deal. we have senator graham now, brief a little piece on the cbs "face the nation" program on

this topic. >> i hope we can get a deal between senator alexander and patty murray that we're allowed to continue payments but get reform. but this is stopping payments to insurance companies. aetna has had a increase. humana, 420%. the president is not going to continue to throw good money, $7 billion to insurance companies unless something changes about obamacare that would justify it. but did he talk to senator alexander yesterday. he's encouraging him to get a bipartisan deal that would have some flexibility to title one mandates for continuing payments. but it's got to be a good deal. host: to our calls. larry, up first from massachusetts, democratic line. what do you make of this ongoing debate now over the affordable care act? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. go ahead. caller: i was thinking, if you could paint a picture of donald trump replying a fiddle with a

golf club, it would be a perfect metaphor for what i think that is going on in this country now, because the rest of the country is burning, and i think with all of the revelations, the daily revelations, i'm almost afraid to turn on the news in the morning, i have to be honest with you. i fear for my country, and i hope that people will wake up, especially with this healthcare issue, and see that their own healthcare has been set on fire, and maybe this so-called base will start becoming aware of the devastation this man is releasing on this country and do something about it. host: that is larry. let's hear from angela in illinois, another democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i was call, i don't believe at i've heard the obamacare, i have medicare, and then i,

due to income, i was able to receive medicaid. now all of a sudden, and i didn't think anything went into effect, but all of a sudden i got a letter the other day, and they have just drawn a combination package in for medicare and medicaid. they told you what doctor to go to. they told you what insurance you would have. and then when i called, nobody even accepts these insurance. there were about four or five from the list, and nobody accepts them. so i don't understand how they have changed things without any bills being put forth, and then, again, you have no insurance. host: all right. that was angela there. let's get another call from gar from georgia, independent caller. hello there. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, fine. what do you think of all this? caller: what i think, the heat

is on donald trump, our president. the heat is on him. he knows he's going down. he want to take as many people as he can with him. fear going alone. thank you. host: here's "the wall street journal," healthcare duel shifts to congress. the senate will grapple with the president's decision to stop making subsidy payments to health insurers with lawmakers seeking a deal that would keep the money flowing while republicans try to fold in conservative-oriented health care priorities t. remains unclear whether a package could emerge that attracts support from a critical mass of senators and also from house republicans. that could be put to the test quickly, writes the journal, as senators lamar alexander, patty murray, one to republican and one to democrat, are expected within days, and republican senator ron johnson unveiled his own more conservative-leaning version. the result, they write here, driven by unexpectedly far-reaching moves by mr. trump on healthcare last week could

be a resumption of the battle that unfolded during the republicans' attempts to repeal the 2010 affordable care act. that's "the wall street journal" story. lots of folks writing on all of this this morning and calling in now is walter from milwaukee. walter, what do you think of the future of the affordable care act? where's this headed? caller: i want to know, why do this man hate the poor so much that made him rich was poor people. and also want to know, do he now lazarus? where did the rich man go? host: anything else, walter? kevin: and god bless him. i pray for him. host: thanks for calling. facebook comments, raymond writes the government isn't going to pay the subsidies to the insurance companies. who do people think they're going to pay for it?

oh, that's right, the people that make up the premiums, the people that benefit the most, that's where they are and more likely voted for trump. good luck to them. ray writes that it doesn't need to be set on fire, but not an out of control wild fire, trying to use a controlled burn type. biggest problem with "obamacare" was the media calling it obamacare f. they had just called it a.c.a. or ahca, most people would not have a problem with it. the motto is repeal, replace everything obama. that's the word there from ray. let's hear from walter now. or george. george you're up in pittsburgh, on the republican line. we have a republican caller notice. hey, george. caller: yeah, how is everything? fine, i hope. healthcare under bush is market value.

and healthcare is a human debt, so as long as trump is trying to keep them into the market or values, healthcare will never appen. i don't understand. in this world of smart people, why don't we understand this? why are we allowing this to take place with something that takes care of the health and care of our community? why can't people see this, or why are we even arguing about his? i remember obama made the rights, and trump is trying to take it away, come on. and we're allowing it to happen. the people who make this, we

need to restructure our difference from what we're creating right now. host: george, thanks for calling. another republican caller now, this one from ohio. democratic senator murphy says the president is trying to set the healthcare system on fire. what's your reaction? caller: well, personally, i think obama set is on fire with obamacare. and the democrats. healthcare was fine before. we were told back in the 1990's get a job. you know, better yourself. you'll get good health insurance benefits for yourself and your family. and nobody told us 17 years later that a president could take it away. my husband gets his insurance through his employer, but it's been all messed up because of the a.c.a. and obamacare. our premiums are through the roof. i mean, we have $20,000 out of

pocket for just myself and my husband. that's financial devastation. how is that healthcare? premiums are higher, and it covers nothing. host: thank you for calling. we'll take more of your calls, do this for the entire hour. another 45 minutes or so of your calls and more of the news, as well as your social media comments. we talk now with the congressional reporter for the "washington post" on this monday morning. and ed, why don't we start with healthcare? talk to us about the strategy from the white house, the posture from democrats on the affordable care act, and these changes, these most recent changes, and where this battle is headed. guest: the president has been eager to fulfill his campaign pledge to undo the affordable care act, and what he did on friday certainly goes after a big part of it by going after the cost saving reduction payments as democrats have been saying since even before he made this decision.

it's cruel. it's immoral. it totally upsends and sabotage the law, pick your verbs and rhetoric. they believe it. and at this point, i think what we see now is two things. first, a short-term, last ditch bipartisan attempt to shore up the law, which will be led by lamar alexander and patty murray, who lead the health education labor and pensions committee, and we'll see this week whether they're able to now put together some kind of an agreement after they were trying to and were pretty close, but were told by republican leaders to stop. after the second failed attempt to put this together by republicans. and now amid what the president has done to undo the payments that are needed by some of these insurance companies. so whether they can sal vage it, and whether it is able to be done sort of quickly remains to be seen. not, you'll likely see this and several other subjects

become a flash point in the debate over when, how, and by how much to keep open the federal government after december 8. remember that current spending levels are set only through then, and they're going to need to pass a new round of legislation by the end of the 8th to keep the government open. democrats suggested over the weekend essential that will this becomes a major point of contention, and that they're going to want some kind of solution by then. but that, in addition to a solution on the future of daca, the immigration program that provides protections to a few hundred thousand so-called dreamers, the need to shore up spending and relief for texas, florida, and puerto rico. the hope among republicans that tax reform is done by then. you know, it's going to be a very busy stretch here, and there's only about 23 or 24 actual days of legislating left between now and they be. -- between now and then.

host: that takes us to the meeting between mitch mcconnell and the president, which we read today, and your colleague calls it a potentially pivotal meeting. set this up for us. they have been not talking a whole bunch, we understand in recent weeks, but here they are, they're going meet. guest: they've been at logger heads since the summer when the president went after mcconnell for botching the attempt to undo obamacare and the affordable care act, they did it over twitter, and senate leader responded in kind eventually. we know that they have real differing opinions in zpile ideology and in approach to how washington should be run. but what today's meeting is an attempt to organize themselves going into the next two months when all of those things i mentioned have to be sorted out. they want to see the president, the senate leader, and, of course, eventually the house all singing from the same song sheet on the way forward on tax

reform, immigration reform, the need to her up the healthcare system or not. and whatever else may come. but frankly, what they have to sing st is hold hands and kumbaya, which they may or may not be doing. the vice president is going to be at this meeting and will probably have to play mediator. i'm sure we'll learn this afternoon how it went. but i think most critically, most importantly, they've got to let bygones be bygones and figure out together how to salvage what's left of the g.o.p. policy agenda and see whether or not they can score some wins, especially most ritically for republicans. host: a budget resolution is on the agenda this week. can you remind us what that is and connect it to the ending tax legislation in congress? guest: yeah, the biggest connection to the tax legislation is that it essentially will include the

instructions on how tax reform would be conducted by congress in the next few months here. they're going to sort of set the rules of the road. will they do it through reconciliation, or you only need a simple majority of votes, that's what they tried to do with healthcare. they were using last year's budget resolution and set the obstructions for healthcare. the new budget resolution for the coming year will set the instructions for tax reform, and, you know, there's a loss that includes language about how to continue the health reform fight. but mcconnell and other leaders remain clear that, no, the priority is to do taxes. and so that is the fight right now. the question is what will be in that tax plan, who exactly will vote for this budget resolution, knowing the tax rules or the tax instructions are the main part of it. remember, we've seen some waferinge from rand paul. others like susan collins or

john mccain and bob corker certainly has signaled some concerns about the fact that this will add considerably to the deficit, and so if they cannot get the 50 needed or if they have to rely on vice president pence to put them over the top, it's another signal that tax reform, just like healthcare reform, may be headed south. many have warned that -- many republicans have warned that if you thought healthcare reform was tricky, just wait until they get around to tax reform. while everyone agrees taxes should be lower, the question of how to pay for it, to what level do you set corporate rates, individual rates, and who gets the benefit, what do you do about the child tax credit, all those things are very complicated questions for republicans any day of the week, any year on the calendar, but especially right now, given the significant divisions of the party over ideology and approach and personality. host: ed o'keefe from "the

washington post," as always, thank you for the time and the look ahead to congress. guest: take care. have a good week. host: the senate, as he pointed out, will take caup the supplemental appropriations bill, the disaster relief bill, $35 billion in that range, the house passed it last week. we expect the senate to take it up this week, in addition to that budget resolution, and perhaps a long day of voting on ursday, something called a vote-o-rama, and that's connected to the tax bill. live senate coverage on c-span2, the house is out this week am we go to diane for more commentary from the viewer about healthcare. senator murphy saying the president is setting the healthcare system on firement diane is in p.a., republican caller. what do you think, diane? caller: well, i think obamacare should never have even started. i can't get over the fact that nobody talks about the

unconstitutional aspects of it. i mean, where they have pked ut a certain religious ganizations that are being enalized for wanting to live d practice their religion as they always have, as this country has always a lot us to do, and there are people who are being penalized because certain things that the obamacare says you have to do, like abortion, you know, and catholics, you don't do it. and it goes against our conscience. it's a basic doctrine. every human being, every embryo

is of the utmost importance. life is of the utmost importance. how do people overlook that? host: all right, that was diane. let's hear from fort lauderdale, florida, independent caller. i, lena. lena, you're on the air. caller: yes, hi. hi, how are you? i want to just clear the argument here, because the calls for adoption, the feds pay the insurance companies, when they call it cost sharing reductions, that is the legal part of things. however, they've asked the insurance companies to give them two cents. one with the normal increase, the annual increase. two, with the 31% increase. the 31% increase has been approved on top of the regular

increase. so they're still going to pay that, but through some other means, and it will be legal, because the silver plan, the ones that have the co-sharing reduction allow extra people who are bringing, to write federal poverty level, those people, subsidies will be increased to now to zero, the 31% increase on the rates, but the insurance companies will still get their 31% excess for those plans. improved. ns that is host: with all that being said, where do you think this is headed between the white house and congress? caller: oh, i think, for now,

this year, 2018 will be fine, because already the insurance companies are safe through this statement that nobody seems to know. i called the insurance department and asked them how they're handling this, because nobody else knows apparently. i thought this was public knowledge. it should be that the insurance companies are not going to be heard, that the feds will still pay that portion to the insurance companies that they're going to do it by increasing the premiums, and then increasing the subsidies. you understand what they're doing? so, you know, insurance, 2018 will be ok. 2019, i think we're heading through single payers. host: i think, that was lena in florida. want to let you go, get other view points in. someone identifying themselves as davy crockett on twitter says this is what happened when you give too much control to

the government. it never turns out well. we have theresa on the line now. theresa from california. calling on the democrats line and signed up with the a.c.a. right now. thank you for calling so early. tell us about your experience so far with the a.c.a. caller: yes, i'm on the a.c.a. and i get subsidies. a woman from ohio called a while back, and she was saying that we need to get jobs to better our lives torque get employee insurance, employer insurance. i wish i could. i cannot. because i take care of a husband who is critically ill and has dementia, diabetes, and three bouts of cancer, and we owned a business for 27 years and had insurance and paid insurance to our employees, had insurance for employees. my husband fell ill, we lost our business, and i can't go to work, because i take care of my

husband. so we make $32 too much for medical, so that throws me into affordable care. that's been keeping me insured. to the lady in ohio, i wish i could go get a job and get insurance through an employer. i can't, because i take care of my husband, who, by the way, is a vietnam veteran. so not all of us are slipping around, not doing nothing, asking for the government to pay our subsidies. some of us are in the position where we have no other choice. that's all i wanted to say. host: thanks for calling. robert on the line now. robert calling from houston, texas, democratic caller. hey there, robert. what do you think about all this? caller: well, let me tell you what i think. he problem is that we have a $3.3 trillion business, which s called healthcare.

and we pay twice as much per person in this country than any other western democracy. and the problem with the affordable care act was that it was decided at the time not to , lude a single payer option and the only way out of this problem is that we have to go to a single payer option using medicare for everybody. and we get rid of all of the costs of insurance companies because we won't need them, and what we really need to do is look at healthcare, not as a to ness, but as a service

the people of the country like , is successfully in canada ngland, france, germany, and we are still stuck with the a that this has to be business, and it's wrong, and the thinking needs to be and bernie sanders has been pushing this idea, and very few people listen to him, but he does have about another that have nators agreed he's right. host: robert mentioning bernie sanders am he made remarks several weeks ago about what he called medicare for all. you can watch that speech at the rally type event at

c-span.org. back to social media. wild and wonderful writes that the a.c.a. is deeply flawed, in my opinion, but they may too discover it's better than nothing. facebook, kim writes that president trump is picking up the jenga pieces after obama completely destroyed the best healthcare system in the world. people have an insurance card today, not care. trump, the great destroyer, it's all he knows how to do, tear things apart without solution. if you look at "usa today" on this monday morning, on the opinion page, they have this, trump sets fire to the affordable care act, the opinion page of "usa today" writes that trump's spiteful actions are full of pettyness and partisanship f. his goal is to force congressional democrats to the bargaining table, he's playing a dangerous game with people's lives, akin

to committing arson and hoping the fire department shows up. that's the opinion piece. the opposing view comes from michael turner in "usa today," as a senior fellow at the kato institute. e writes -- host: benny calling from stockton, california, on emocrats lane. caller: good morning to all. i am a 65-year-old disable person. i have copd, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and a host of other medical problems.

in the of my time emergency room. and i don't know what will happen. i'm also on dialysis. i don't know what will happen to me if the affordable care act is accomplished. i agree that trump is a destroyer. he's a wealthy multimillionaire. he doesn't have a sense of what we go through on a-day by-day basis. i wish that he could be impeached. it's probably unlikely, but i do wonder what happened, what will happen to me if the affordable care act is abolished, thank you. host: thanks for calling. joe is on the line, calling from sun city center in florida, republican caller. hey, joe. caller: hey, sir.

host: yes, sir, what do you make of this debate over the a.c.a.? caller: what's that? host: what do you make of this debate, this current phase of this debate over the a.c.a., what the president has been doing, what the reaction is in congress? where is this all headed? caller: well, i don't think ongress gives a hoot what we care about. congress isn't hanging on every word of what the callers are talking about or what's in the newspaper. i think they're just wasting time, waiting for the next vacation. i think what mr. trump ought to , go on a vacation, send congress and senate home for, i don't know, a quarter of a year or a half a year, and when they

want to do -- when congress and senate want to do something, you know, they can come back and, you know, really get to work instead of just babbling. host: all right, sir, this photo of nancy pelosi. she says democrats will continue to prod republicans to support legislation that stabilizes health insurance markets after president trump halts a cost-shaferinge payment. here is nancy pelosi from abc's "this week." >> to negotiate the healthcare bill by repealing the affordable care act and building a bill, no, what i think -- in other words, some of the things did he the other day, like saying you can buy insurance across state lines, that's already in the affordable care act. so i'm just saying, what are his priorities except the

priority for many, that there should be no government role? the republicans never really supported medicare when it came into being. they now say it should wither on the vine. this is so he should with with public, with the good health of the american people. and what they're doing with their tax plan and what with their health bill will hurt. >> in the absence of action by congress, isn't the president getting what he wants and repeeling obamacare step by step by step? >> well, what he's doing is hurting the american people. this is about policy, politics, it's about the american people. and if he is -- if he wanted to do that, why would he hurt people and say now that i've taken the american people hostage, let's talk? e have a path in the senate, bipartisan task, at least i wonder if he even knows what that path is. because from what he says, it doesn't sound like it has

knowledge, knows the facts, bases his decision on evidence, and that's a problem. host: to twitter, james reacts by saying democrats are pulling out all of the stops trying to rescue their insurance company donors. back to "the washington times," the headline says democrats vow fight, but not a federal shutdown, but they're far from an obamacare deal with trump. democrats actually downplayed talk of forcing a government shutdown after president trump launched a twin assault on obamacare, saying they will continue their uphill push and negotiate fixes to the law after the administration halted critical cost-sharing payments to insurers and ordered agencies to explore the sale of cheaper plans across state lines. that's in the "washington times." we have jack on the line now from falls church, virginia, just outside d.c., independent caller. hey, jack. caller: hi. a couple of things. number one, i'm glad the a.c.a. came into being, because otherwise i don't think this debate would be happening.

number two, i am in the i ividual marketplace, and had blue cross blue shield, silver plan, high deductible, h.s.a. and two years ago premiums for a family of four was $1,250. last year, 50% increase, $1856. this year i just got notice, same plan, going up to $3,300 per month. we don't use it very much. nobody has really chronic disease or anything like that. so something's definitely wrong with the system. i don't know how people can afford $3,300 per month. i'm grateful for the a.c.a. exists. i don't agree with pelosi on much, but i agree with what she just said. i think republicans are missing the boat, especially individual marketplace. i think rand paul has a good

idea. if you disengage healthcare from employment, you're going to unleash extra neuralism, not restrict it. and whether it's a single payer or these big pools that rand paul is talking about, something has got to change, because the individual guy, the five to seven million people that aren't getting healthcare through medicare or through an employer are getting crushed, and we have no voice in congress. thank you. host: jack, thank you for calling. significant monday freud is the self-identified name here on twitter, this tweet says insurance needs to be returned to its original purpose, sharing the costs of catastrophic loss, costs controlled in the open market. we have manassas, virginia, on the line, democrat. manassas, what's your name? go ahead, please. caller: yeah, i think there's a bunch of talking points from different perspectives. trump is kind of like a rat's

nest trapped in a corner and doing whatever. but the point i wanted to get to was the lady who called matter. lives it just boils my blood, especially coming from republicans. that's mostly the party that's all about life, but yet it's the same party that's turning away refugees andment all the legal immigrants to go back home. they don't care about life, they just quote the bible because it makes them look good. my advice is live by what you preach f. you're going to preach all life matters, then all lives matter. refugees that include legal immigrants, all lives matter. all they ever talk about is pro-life, pro-life. they're not pro-life. they're pro their own life and whatever benefits them. thank you for taking my call. host: thanks for calling. here is the voice of senator rand paul of kentucky who played golf with the president recently and talked about some of the issues at hand.

host: susan on the loin now from morganton, north carolina, republican. hi, susan. caller: hi. as far as obamacare, i am an individual payer, and the subsidies did help me tremendously. i'm a single grandmother, and i'm caught between medicare and out here. if it was not for those subsidies, i couldn't afford it. the bottom line is there has to be regulations on insurance companies. ed and there has to be a regulation on the cost that they charge the insurance companies. they overcharge insurance companies. i mean, it's ridiculous how much our healthcare costs and the care for the patients are

going down. and as far as i'm concerned, it's all about greed and lining our pockets, but actually if they're worried about the budget, they need to cut washington down and get rid of a lot of departments that are just irrelevant. and, you know, if it was not for that subsidy, i couldn't afford it. who can afford thousands of dollars every month and have to make a husband payment? how can you sustain a whole nation when you are trying to pay house payments, car payments, raise children, and they're up there playing, and we're paying their salaries. they need to quit getting paid off, and they need to start working for the people. host: susan, thank you for calling. in the broad sense, "wall street journal" reports that trump is stepping up pressure on the g.o.p. congress. he's looking to advance his proposed tax overhaul this

week, moving key republican senators in hopes of jump-starting a legislative agenda that has faltered by the control of washington. an important test, they remind us, come thursday when the senate begins voting on a budget resolution that will determine whether republicans can pass the tax package without any democratic force. it is part of a challenging agenda that congress must tackle by year end, an agenda mr. trump has added to with recent moves on healthcare and on iran. that's in "the wall street journal" today. a couple of other papers. showdown looms is the headline. healthcare clash raises specter of shutdowns, talking about the various positions that the president and the leaders in congress. here's the "arkansas democrat gazette," talking about the tax in somalia, talking about the iran nuclear deal as well. they also have some local

concerns here about mental crisis centers in arkansas. progress is lagging. a november startup unlikely for four sites. in the "arkansas democrat gazette" this morning. the mercury news in san jose, firefighters say containment inside, talking about these massive fires, especially in northern california, with many evacuation orders cancelled and rain in the forecast, active blazes could be controlled by friday. they also have a story in the "mercury news yts, as many other folks do, but a challenger to senator dianne feinstein, it is in "the mercury news," and they say bruising party between a leader from los angeles and a veteran of california politics, senate will challenge senator feinstein, who announced just a couple of days

ago she's going to run for re-election. so she'll have a primary challenger there. let's hear now from joe. joe is calling from alaska. hi, joe. caller: hello. i had an idea about the insurance companies profitting. i guess it's capitalism, and the thing is, you know, like in the constitution, you got life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. those are supposed to be guaranteed to americans. that's what our constitution is all about. and then when you want to make it into a capitalist system or you can profit and have shareholders and people want to get more and more money every year for the business to profit, they have to jack the rates up, to me it's ridiculous. the government has taken over many parts of our society. this is not a democratic

society. it's a republic. and the government needs to step in, take over the whole health industry, get rid of all , taking money from the citizens. you know, what are we going to do, charge us for air next? it's ridiculous. and the whole opiate problem, the opiate industry with the pharmaceutical companies charging thousands and thousands of dollars, and they come out with this new drug the other day that's going to cost a million dollars to have this gene therapy. come on. give me a break. we need to have the government step up and stand for its people instead of having these private corporations taking care of their shareholders. it's ridiculous. host: thank you for calling, joe. tim is calling now from lake view in arkansas, independent caller. tim, what do you think -- where

do you think this debate is headed? caller: [laughter] i hate to predict the future. unfortunately, there's so much misconception and people just don't know. it's exactly the opposite, less governments, less government, get the government out of the way. you had people that had insurance that they liked before the previous administration, while still spending $10 trillion, added ore and more entitlements. yes, they're unconstitutional, these bailouts. they just get out the way. the insurance companies would find a way to sell stuff. insurance companies make money to provide a service. but you can't provide a service when the federal government is mandating you got every policy has to have this. every policy has to have that. cost sharing is nothing more than communism. so if up to the look for communist collusion, look to

the last administration trying to turn us all into socialist communists. the constitution is very important, and that's what guarantees our right, and the more the progressives tweak it and destroy it, the bigger government you're going to have. you're going to have to go to the fed to get your air and water. yes, eventually because the idea that somebody else takes care of me is so prove lent in this country. somebody give to me a big fat subsidy, for i am good, they are wicked, they must pay, pay and pay, good folks got to live, good the way they should, so somebody give to me. a big fat subsidy. host: the words and the music there of tim in lake view, arkansas. more of the news out there this morning in "the washington

post" and others are saying that trump aides are saying the u.s. word is still good after the recent decision on the iran deal. the u.s. will remain a trustworthy partner, offering reassurances after allies and members of congress criticize the president for deciding to alter terms for participation in the international nuclear eal with iran. rex tillerson spoke about the iran nuclear deal. >> under the new agreement, a multilateral party agreement, there have been a number of chnical violations, carrying too much inven tarry, having materials used to conduct high-speed centrifuges. this is part of the weaknesses and flaws, iran has a significant period of time to remedy those violations, and so they have recommend teed the violations, which then brings them back into technical compliance.

i think that demonstrated apparent of always walking right up against the edges of the agreement are what give us some concern as to how far iran might be willing to go to test the limits for agreement. our response has been to work with the other parties and demand that we be much more demanding of the enforcement of the agreement, much more demanding disclosures, and that is what we are shifting since we have taken our seat at the table of the joint commission. >> ok, president trump dessert fries the deal, but he did not withdraw from the deal, as he could have. id the president want to unilaterally before other people successful isly pervaded him to pursue what might be described as a middle core? >> the president wants a more comprehensive strategy to deal with iran. i think for too long, and certainly the last administration, really defined the relationship around this nuclear agreement. this agreement is flawed and has a number of weaknesses in it, so the president said

throughout his campaign, i'll either reform the agreement, renegotiate, basically saying i'll either fix these flaws or have a different agreement entirely. i think his decision around the new policy is consistent with that. so now we want to deal with the nuclear agreements, weaknesses, but we really need to deal with a much broader away of threats that iran poses through the region. our friends and allies, and threats that they post are on national security. the policy itself really has three components. i think it's important that people understand this. the president described this. there is a nuclear agreement, which we are going to undertake an effort to see if we cannot address, working with partners t. may be a secondary agreement. maybe it's not within the existing agreement, but we may undertake a secondary agreement. host: in the post, trump's trap for congress, the headline here on friday --

>> this is not a bilateral treaty between iran and the united states. so whatever domestic politicking he wants to do, that's his business. the united states is a permanent member of the security council.

if it's not going to uphold a resolution that not only spoken for, but sponsored, then the credibility of the institution that the united states considers to be very important would be at stake. nobody else would trust any u.s. administration to engage in any long-term negotiation, because the length of any commitment, the duration of any commitment from now on with any u.s. administration would be a reminder of the term of that president. host: back to calls on the healthcare issue am we have about 10 minutes left before the top of the hour, when we bring our first guest on. donna from tennessee, independent caller who has healthcare as part of the a.c.a. don, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? good to be back here after a working vacation. host: great. tell us about your experience with the a.c.a.

caller: ok. the a.c.a., and i get subsidies, but i work, therefore, i pay taxes, therefore, i'm subsidizing myself through my tax money. so that one has always perplexed me from the get-go. also, i'm kind of perturb that had we have 535 people who get to sit down and enjoy filet mignon in the way of health insurance, telling us how we should have our hamburger served us. that was always kind of got my goat, too. enough belly aching on that one. i have a question. what would prevent this country from going international as far as buying health insurance? there was a time when detroit was putting out some pretty shoddy automobiles, and the people of this country started buying vehicles from overseas.

that made it getting the act together. is there a reason we couldn't buy insurance from snashe i hate to send the business out of the country, but maybe that's what it's going to take. i'd like to hear some feedback from people. host: let's hear if anyone has a comment to that. in the meantime, benny on the line from prince george's -- prince george in virginia. hi, betty. caller: good morning. i just want this president, if he wants to make this country great again, but he's tearing it apart one by one. he said he hates obama, and he also hates the democrats. so republican going after the democrats, and oh, they don't have nothing to say, they don't care, they don't care. we do care. this is a great country. it was a great country.

i've been here since 1963. and i love this country. he didn't get anything done in puerto rico, because he doesn't own land there. he doesn't have his depolve courses there. he is not good for the country. one more thing, i want the house, the congressmen to stand up and really talk to him. it doesn't make sense. it really doesn't make sense. i am sorry. this is a disaster. host: words of betty there. now to lookfield, new york, republican. democrat christopher murphy says the president is setting the healthcare system on fire. that's what he says over the weekend. what's your reaction to that? caller: well, i think this healthcare system has been in inferno mode for a long time.

the original intent of insurance was to assist people financially that found themselves in a cat strovek health condition. it was never meant to pay for every doctor's visit, for a cough, a fever, a sprained ankle. and as soon as insurance -- so what you paid was based on the economics of the geographic area that that practice was located in. now with health insurance, you know, if you price out what a doctor's office visit costs in our area, it's over $100 to watch the door. if they do height, weight, bloop, that's an assessment, an additional fee. if you have a skin test applied they for an employer, charge you for putting that on, and they charge you for reading

it. i mean, it has depaun crazy. i think that instead of congress fighting with each other, they should all take a vacation to every other developed country in the world that has national health insurance, a national healthcare services, and see how they do it, how it's funded, what the criteria are, the focus on wealth and prevention instead of crisis management that we have in this country. nobody cares about you until you're sick, because they don't make money on well people. and i think that the time has come to recognize that the dollars we pay for health services in this country do not translate to high quality care. that in any way, shape, or form, you know, a correlation would be spending 20,000 per year per student for high school students and have a

graduation rate of 40%, and then say, but we need more money. we have blinders on when it comes to healthcare. we need to take the emotions out of it, put the logic back into it, and look at why this system is sucking people dry. host: all right, thanks for calling. want to get other news stories. "financial times" and others are reporting about the far right candidate who was poised to enter government after some election gains. the far right nationalist freedom party has scored its best result in a natural election in two decades and is likely to join the country's next government in a significant boost for europe's anti-establishment movement. they're talking specifically bout sebastian kurz --

host: "new york times" has this story you can they write sessions is going to aid a transgender case. the justice department, they write, has dispatched an experience the federal hate crimes lawyer to iowa to help prosecute a man charged with murgd a transgender high school student last year, a highly unusual move that officials say would personally initiate by the attorney general, jeff sessions. -- host: stacy, you are calling now from mclean, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, america. yes, i'm a tiny business owner and a widow, a young widow, and

actually the affordable care act helped me reminimum a small business owner and grieve my fiancee's death. he died in 30 days from a 30-day free sample. i'm actually horrified and disgusted with those people behind you are doing to the american people, what they have done is genocide. they poison our water. they put g.m.a. cancers in our food. they cut our healthcare when we need healthcare based on the poison policies that they put forward. healthcare should be a right. it should be free. we pay for taxes. and if we can afford to educate, train, and house known enemies of the united states and start wars that cause trillions of dollars, we can help rebuild and provide healthcare for the american

people. period. host: thank you for calling. last call from jim on this segment, port royal, pennsylvania, democratic line. caller: yeah, how you doing? i'm democrat. i voted for trump. i think he's doing a great job compared to the last guy that was in there. and one case here by this iranian deal, this should have been a treaty, and it should have been ratified by the congress, and again, president obama just went ahead and did this deal himself. and for the president to kick it back to congress, that's where it should be. and i can tell everybody out there, ok, that the best thing that ever happened to the republican party was barack hussein obama, and people in our party better start waking up to the fact that the left is taking over this party.

this party used to be the working man's party. it's now the establishment party. it's a rest home for, you know, me our senators and congressmen are up in their 70's and 80 years old. they should have had a purge after the last election. during president obama's stay in the white house, we lost just about everything across america. it's going happen if the democrats the people are doing the same old thing expecting different results and nothing is happening. i can remember when this was a great party. it's now a party of people that o to -- they don't go to any place normal for vacations. they go to -- they surround themselves with millionaires and billionaires and then they complain about millionaires and billionaires. that's a fact. >> ok. that was swrim. thanks for everybody who cault

in this first hour. we have two hours left in this monday edition of the "washington journal." when we come back we're going to talk a little bit about the relationship that hollywood has with the democratic party primarily with jeremy bar of the hollywood reporter. also, later the weekly standards will join us to discuss the increase in lobbyist spending by companies and trade associations so far during the trump administration. we will be right back.

host: joining us from new york this monday morning. media and politics writer for the hollywood reporter. good morning. guest: good morning. host: we thought we would bring you on to talk about the democratic party and harvey winestein case but speak to us in the broad sense about hollywood and the democrats and their relationship. how intertwined are they? when did all of that begin and how has in the broad it endured guest: it's been happening for decades. hollywood and actors and entertainers and executives are very, very reliable funders for democrats. basically every major democratic candidate has been able to rely on hollywood to

raise millions of dollars. that's why the party is under a spotlight right now because harvey winestein was such a prolific doner to democrats and was able to rangel actors to help out democrats if you needed there was a press conference when ben affleck was help with chuck schumer. a very close relationship between democrats and hollywood. i think that's why this whole story has become a politics story about harvey wine steen because there is is close relationship. obama, hillary clinton, bill clinton, they were personal friends with harvey winestein, it is not clear how close they were but they appeared together, the candidates came to his house to do fund raisers. and it's not entirely sure how much way winestein had on democrats but he had a direct line i think generally to bill clinton and obama and hillary as well. host: that being said, how have democrats responded so far to

the sexual harassment story? guest: i think the response has been a little bit slow. i think a lot of people were caught off guard by this story. and i think people who cover him, this has been an unspoken story that there have been whispers and rumors but no one had nailed the story until the "new york times" did on october 5. and so that big story came out. the new yorker one that came out a little later. but people basically have been -- reporters went to politicians and said to them, what do you make of this? and people were asking for statements, for explanations. because there was such this -- this link between obama and clinton and wine steen. so democrats have taken their time. some were quick to say i knew nothing about this. this is horrible, the allegations are terrible. and they gave the money back. obviously he has given a lot of money and a lot of democrats have gotten money from winestein. so some of them were very quick. the same day the story came out

they gave back the money. it was a small amount. 4,000, but the big story and the big people focused on is that it took obama and hillary clinton five days to respond and they responded on tuesday and the story came out on thursday. so people were wondering what was happening in those five days exactly. were they not going to say anything? because we were trying to get statements from them. and then tuesday they both said this is shameful, it's horrible. this is not the winestein i knew. but the parties were slow. the dnc the next day on friday said they were going to give back $30,000. the statement saying this is terrible. and they also did an interesting point, the dnc decided to hit from -- in their statement they pointed out that the new york times story came out a year after the access hollywood video. so they were trying to make a connection while also still

being apologetic. >> phone numbers are on your creen. they first talk about the national committees. then you can see a sea of faces beginning with president obama and lots of other familiar faces. tell us more about the donations. personal from his account the biggest role he played was as a bundler. for obama, clinton. so he brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars up to millions of dollars. it goes back a very long way.

he's been donating to hillary clinton since early 90s. to her senatorial campaign in new york. it builds over time. dozens of donations. but the biggest impact he had besides his own personal donations was getting big-name hollywood people to give money to democrats. it wasn't just him. e was very well-connected in hollywood. it wasn't hard for him to sort of call up his friends and have these fund raisers at his home, his beach home, and get 35,000 ticket events where he was going to raise millions in a very small amount. this is not the campaigning that the politicians want to talk about. this is the smaller events for the sort of big-shots that they can raise a lot more money than doing a smaller event sort of event. nie sanders type it was a lot of money. that's why democrats i think -- even as soment of these stories came out, they needed him i think and that's why it was

sort of hard to separate themselves. host: here is the reaction from former president obama on weinstein. >> i was shocked, i was appalled, it was something that was just intolerable in every way. and you know, like so many people have come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who

i and many others had known in the past. >> would you have called him a friend? >> yes, i probably would have. and so would so many others. you know, people in democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support. i think these stories coming to light now and people who never spoke out before having the ourage to speak out just clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged in cannot be tolerated and cannot be overlooked. and i'm hoping that the -- >> do you think it was tolerated because he was -- >> i don't know. >> people paid, people knew. >> i certainly didn't and i don't know who did. but i can only speak for myself, and i think speak for many other who knew him primarily through politics.

but the courage of these women coming forward now is really important, because it can't just end with one person's disgraceful behavior and the consequences that he is now facing. this has to be a wakeup call and shine a bright spotlight on anything like this behavior anywhere at any time. we've had a series of revelations about companies in silicon valley. just sexual harassment and sexual assault being kind of accepted. that's the cutting-edge of our economy. that's where a lot of young people have their first or most significant job. be tolerated anywhere, whether it's entertainment or tech or anywhere. >> senator blum that will says people should give back the money that he donated to be tol. he donated money to you directly and indirectly. would you give the money back? >> well, there's no one to give it back to.

what other people are saying what my former colleagues are saying they're going to donate it to charity. of course i do that. i give 10% every year. this will be part of that. host: hearing all of that, do you expect anything to change moving forward based on this story? and if money in politics involved. guest: i think that in the past election hillary clinton sort of hollywood friends and connectionings, i think that it wasn't very helpful for her election. i think that this is sort of a pop list election so i think people were a little critical of the strategy of appearing with hollywood actors and getting their support. obviously they're very popular buzz it wasn't sort of what maybe voters wanted to see. money's k as long as in politics, as long as they have to raise money hollywood will always be a reliable source of funding for democrats. so it's hard to say. i think the entertainment industry is very hopeful that this is sort of a not a one and done but that weinstein was an

aberration to some degree, that he was sort of a brilliant money's guess but there were in to do more soul searching and more examples of potentially more examples of people having to apologize for inappropriate remarks. but it's hard to see democrats walking away from hollywood entirely. >> from coleman, republican line. rumors always. so i think the industry is going caller: good morning. a little speculation and i would like the guest to speculate. if hillary had been elected would we be hearing any of this? of course my opinion is the democratic party takes care of its own regardless of corruption. and we've seen that with so many things. and we saw how everybody aligned behind bill clinton from the democrats side enever it's obvious of the

attacks on women in the white house. but it's basically a culture in the democratic party that -- and the problem i think is the media. the media is a part of the democratic party. can't get away with anything because the media will investigate in great detail and report in great detail. so the public is protected whenever republicans are in power. but the public has no protection whenever the democrats are in power. so this is a very significant example and i would like comments on that >> thank you. guest: well, i think people have been working on this story about weinstein for yeerings. i don't think there was any sort of connection between his party affiliation and sort of his donations. the outlets -- this story was broken across the spectrum, i

think. and as i said, i really don't think that if hillary had been in office that would have changed anything. people really wanted this story and it just took time to get people willing to go on the record, break their nondisclosure agreement. i think he's been not a target but he's been someone that people have known about, that they've been sort of waiting for the right moment to break this story. the democrats are sort of on the hot seattle right now, but i think -- hot seat but he's also given donations to republicans as well. but i think it's a story that was going to come out regardless of who was in the white house. host: gary, independent caller. yes.r: thank you very much.

just have one point why people are cynical about politics. i'm going to be 80. let's focus on one person who was kept under the rug for many years anthony weiner, who was just convicted was a congressman who was a disgration. prior to that hiffs a city councilman but very few people are aware that he was a protege of his mentor, chuck schumer the minority leader of the united states senate in the democratic party. chuck schumer must have known about his behavior and his antics and tactics. it is horrifying to see somebody convicted who still thinks he didn't do anything wrong until the last minute when he was convicted and cried like a baby. so the leadership in the democratic party has to look at themselves and say why are they covering this up.

also, the minority leader of the democrats in the house nancy pelosi is close to 80. she's been in politics her entire life. her mentor was her father, a democratic leader and politician in maryland. she is connected to the democratic party's hollywood group by the umbilical cord. she also knew about this. that's why people are cynical about politics. and that's why president trump won 2 election. these people do not relate to the common man or the common woman. thank you for listening. guest et's hear from our in new york. guest: well, i think that -- the politicians who have had to talk about this, they all say they didn't guest know and i think

it's reasonable to conclude that they're sort of being honest. this was a surprise to everybody. i think they've been asked to explain, hollywood actors have been asked to explain. executives who worked with him have asked to explain. what do they know? hillary's given know and i thin it's interviews where she's had to be honest. she thought of him and a friend and was surprised about that. so there was a lot of trust between the politicians between weinstein but chuck schumer as the caller mentioned was also close to weinstein. he was a big sort of recipient of weinstein's contributions. so that was another politician put on the hot seat. asked to explain what happened? why did he have this relationship? why did he receive money from weinstein? host: who are the most politically active celebrities these days? guest: well, i think people like ellen dejen riss, progressive celebrities who

like to sort of come out and -- some of the biggest actors, an hathaway was one of the biggest people who sponsored or took part in a fund raiser with wine steen. the majority of the big a-list actors when they have gotten involved in politics have come out for democrats generally. with they do it's often wine stine. but -- and there was some actors, onvoit who came out for trump. there was -- a smaller group of trump-supporting actors. but it was mostly for hillary and that's how it's been historicically, sort of the partisan divide. i talk to people in hollywood and i was told that hollywood actors are very mobilized to i of oppose trump and think you're seeing a lot of tweets. whenever something happens in

politics or people are upset about that trump says or does you're seeing a lot of tweets from big celebrities. i think they're trying to have their voice heard. they have very large platforms so i think they're trying to do what they can to be part of the resist ngs from those using the platform. host: what is it like to be a republican or conservative in hollywood these days? guest: well, i think that they feel like they're not really heard and that they feel that their voice isn't -- people just sort of lump actors and entertainers together and say they're all democrats. but i think that some of them did come out to the rnc during the campaign and they have tried to have a presence and obviously donald trump is -- he was an entertainer and executive hisms. but they don't feel that they -- sort of the popular perception that hollywood is not for them. but i don't think they've come out and said too much about

weinstein. it's really democrats and actors and earn tain yers in the hot seat which they don't enjoy being on. but i think that's part of their anti-trump comments and donation that is they've made. host: back to calls. julia, democrat thanks for hanging on. caller: hi. good morning. i am a television executive and i was wondering if you could talk about the situation and how likely more allegations are to come out against him. guest: well, the reporter broke the story about price and one of our journalists was the person to get jont record comments from the producer who made the allegation against him. so amazon's taking this very seriously as far as we can tell he's been suspended. but i was talking about this over the weekend. i don't think 350e78 really

know if there are more issues to drop. we're going to have to wait and see what happens because this this a story that's been out there a little bit. this producer had been made comments and did inappropriate things but until we have the comments on the record and basically until the weinstein the door to en more people come out and sort of go on the record there's a hesitation to name thing that is have been done, inappropriate things that might have some blow back on people's careers. i think the next few weeks and months will be very interesting. my publicication will be intregged are there more people rumored about. we're now having this national conversation about inappropriate behavior. host: you said you're a tv executive out there in california. what is your sense of the culture or the perception of the culture these days out there in hollywood? caller: i think that in the entertainment industry, women have quietly tolerated comments

that have made them very uncomfortable for a long time starting to at's end. host: what makes you think that at this point? just this case or have you star heard or heard about other things? been a think there's tide of people just dinner parties and casual conversations and people there's just re been enough women -- michelle obama in her last interview as first lady said she doesn't know a professional woman who hasn't been harassed in any industry. so i think more women are coming out casually there's jus other sharing their stories and i think there's been a cultural hift to where kinds of behaviors that were allowed or swept under the rug or people looked the other way because they still made good content i think that's not going to be

tolerated any behaviors that more. host: thanks for calling. anything you want to respond to? guest: i think people definitely hope that this is a big change. that they hope this is not sort of a one-off, a bad acter. but someone who doesn't represent the industry. of the biggest issues that journalists deal with is that a lot of the people who like to talk are bound to not say anything by the contracts. so some are not in position where they want to break their contract and potentially lose the money they got from the settlement. so journalists want to tell these stories or help tell the stories but you need somebody who is willing to take on weinstein and the public tide has turned against him but for a long time he was still very, very powerful. he had very high-powered lawyers. so if you're a regular person or an acter trying to make it in the industry you didn't want to km coout against him. but i think now certainly this is a time when people feel comfortable speaking out. this is sort of an open period where you're hearing a lot of actors and entertainers who

whispering are now willing to say it out loud host: one of the many headlines. schumer and at least six other democrats sent weinstein onations to women's charities. aller: good morning. so we have a hypocrite republicans talking about this weinstein guy. we have a sitting so-called president who is on record who basically assaulted females, multiple females came out accusing him. he was totally ignored and still elected. i've heard reports of him younger girls and keeping it girds not to mention the fox ews.

so-called president trump did the same thing and it was totally ignored. he was elected president. so this needs to stop the hypocracy. host: any response? guest: absolutely. i think that the white house has been very quiet on this issue. they've let the party committees handle it. but i think people realize that it's a pot calling the kettle black scenario with the president. i don't think donald trump if asked about this he said i'm not surprised at all. i know him. this is what i expected. but i think people in the white house, people in the party are a little uncomfortable with this issue. huge doner to the

republicans, was very involved with nixon's campaign and there's definitely connection between him and the republicans. they were asked when stories came out about him and he was fired, he had to answer to that as well. so they're not quite comparable but there's no question that i think this is -- people have to tread very carefully in the with the party allegations made against donald trump. and i think that's why. there have to be standards. week. this last that week. that she was asked about wine steen during the briefing twice and she really didn't say that much. i sort of expected her to go on the attack and connect the democrats and weinstein. that.ally didn't do that might be an admission on her part they don't want to touch this issue. so let the committee and the other committees do that. ost: moving anto new jersey. caller: good morning. as always it is depressing that it is a scandal. "new york times" killed the

story and as far as hillary saying all these women coming now have courage, i remember actually standing in front of the white house screaming at her remarks and then she admitted that eight or ten years ago he went after her. how come she didn't say anything then? you know, and hillary being upset about it, i mean, she lived with a guy who was sexually molesting women. and as far as trump how many women came out and accused trump of sexually molesting them? zero. guest: to the caller's first point, here ts huffington post headline. what do you make about the charges that other outlets had this information, had the story and didn't put it out? guest: well, i think the issue is that people -- you need to be bullet proof. besides the issues that your sources have with coming out on the record about this, media

companies are a little scared. there was if media lawsuit that basically ruined a company. people are very, very careful. they're not going to put out a story that meets it unless they have multiple on the record sources. i think the "new york times" -- they put the story out when the story was ready. that's what they always say they do. they don't wait on anything else they're trying to get it more confirmed. i think people have cloocluded that the issue right now is journalism and dealing with legal threats that they get when they try to report a stry. there have been threats against journalists trying to pursue for years. we understand how it works. nbc is a big company, "new york times" is a major company. they don't want to invite a law suit. they're going to be very careful. the story about the "new york times" killing the story in 2004, as watson claims, she was a reporter.

and i think the times basically explained that by saying the story wasn't ready at the time. maybe the outline of the story was there but it needs a lot of proof. but they wanted the story to speak for itself. they didn't want to have to explain why they talked to one person and not the other. so this is a really difficult accomplishment that the new yorker did and the "new york times" did. they both end up owning the story and it's a very tricky and dangerous story to pursue. host: democratic caller. caller: you know, i just want to echo a comment that a caller couple of voices ago said about trump. in the access hollywood tape he -- trump said it. he said it just like a lot of guys like to hear. all women like it. well, why was trump still elected even though he said it?

i don't get it. i mean, it's like people hear it and it goes in one ear and yet they're -- what they want to believe goes in the other ear. and it's all mixed up. i -- trump needs his feet need to be held to the fire. e's the president of the united states. and yes harvey wine stine did it. i have no doubt. there are so many men around the world that have done this, but united states. and to have the president of the united states say it and say women love it, to me, that's what hurts me as a woman. i've worked all my life in industry and yes it's true that people say it that women don't like it. it's awful. so hold them all to the fire. the president -- it just

bothers me that he said it and he says women love it. to me that hurts. that's all i wanted to say. host: thank you for calling. jeremy any thoughts there? guest: well, i think the dnc when they announced last friday that they gave back $30,000 to different charities. i mentioned that their statement these are shocking, horrible allegations but they made this connection between weinstein and trump and they wanted to make sure people understood that they -- this is a problem they see that trump has as well. this is not just a democratic issue. i think that it wasn't easy for to make the statement we don't condone this, this is horrible but they want to keep in the public mind that there is sort of a multiple -- there is to make the statement we don't condone this, this is som see. but i think most of the actual politicians themselves are not making that -- they don't want to make that risk of trying to connect trump and weinstein. they're going to let the party committees do it. but i think this is sort of --

i think a publicication that republished that led to the allegations of trump. so there is a history and he denied them and there have been threats of lawsuits. but i think people want to keep that in mind that this is not just a one-party problem. host: one last call. louisiana. independent caller. caller: good morning. i used to be a democrat, i used to be a republican. now i'm a proud independent. both of the parties are just incredibly corrupt. corrupt. is totally , ill moral. and in fact, if mr. kim would omise to send a missile to hollywood only, i would send the guy a couple hundred dollars to develop his nuclear program. thank you. host: final thoughts? guest: well, i think in this

case actors, entertainers, movie stars, singers, they want to be involved politically. think that they -- a lot of them opposed trump and i think they want to have their voice heard. and people might say they shouldn't be involved in the process. what do you know? you're just an acter. but there's a long history of actors and entertainers who are popular getting involved. there's been some protests that they don't want to be sidelined just because they're entertainers the them opposed trump and i think same way to have their voice actors don't want to be sidelined. they're going to weigh in to politics. the wine steen thing is a connection that sort of short circuited this whole relationship between hollywood and politics. but i don't think acterors are going to want to sit out going forward. host: jeremy bar, you can read his work at hollywood reporter.com. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you very much. appreciate it. host: we are halfway through this monday edition of the "washington journal".

over the next 30 minutes we'll talk with the weekly standards tony mass ea about the increase in lobbyist spending by companies and trade associations during the trump administration thus far. later on our segment about your money we'll learn how much the federal government is spending on fighting wildfires.

is tony, he table first-time guest, senior writer with the weekly standard. the topic is lobbying standard so far during the frumple presidency. so here's the is beginning of a people you wrote. lobbying money spikes under president trump so far. you write that several months into the current session.

hey fail to produce a new hble -- guest: you heard a lot of frustration over the last few months at congress, at washington. you've seen some of the callers and recent segments. you hear that frustration that they're getting nothing accomplished. but at the same time when you look at lobbying money that is being spent, that money is actually on the increase. so some people might say that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. why are they spending money and nothing's getting done? there's the expectation whenever you have a president and a congress of the same party at the beginning of a new president's term that things

would get done. so you look at these expenditures for the first six months of 2017 and they're on the increase. approaching the record levels that we last saw at the beginning of the obama administration when president obama came in, had a solidly democratic congress. so a lot of these companies, industries are spending a lot of money just trying to advance their agendas. you're not seeing a lot of major legislation yet out of his congress but it is not because lobbyists aren't working hard. host: in your piece let's begin a little bit. a chart here called cash infusion. you write the companies and trades are on track to spend the most on lobbying since 2009. projected to spend $3.3 a billion a year. let's look at the industry. people are clear on what we're talking about here. by industry, pharmaceuticals

and health insurers come up on top, $144 million. insurance companies 78, electronics 68 million oil and gas 6 . as we take a look at these industries tell us more about these numbers. guest: if you look at the top ten lists of spending by industry it's striking how many of them are involved in health care and the health care debate. that was a huge focus on congress in its first few months of this year didn't wind up with any legislation. but as you said, you see pharmaceuticals, insurance number two, hospitals and nursing homes at number seven. health professionals at number eight. health care has always for the last several years been the top or if not at the very top toward the very top of lobbying expenditures. but i think the fact that you have this relentless focus on health care over the years, that's what is really sort of bringing out that spending.

you're also -- i'm sure you've discussed the opioid story that was in the "washington post" 60 minutes, you see some of the -- less spending, some of that reporting was informed by some of these numbers, the lobbying spending. are all publicly disclosed. there are pretty good disclosure laws as far as what these lobbying firms have to disclose as far as what they're spending, what exactly they're spending it on. so if you are willing to come look and dig it up, that information is there. host: let's invite the viewers to phone in. we'll leave the phone lines on the bottom of the screen. disclosed. there are pretty good disclosure laws as far as what these here are some of the numbers and folks. u.s. chamber of commerce 40

million, the national association of realtors 21.1 the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of america 14 million. guest: you see the chamber of commerce at the top of the list. it really has a wide portfolio of interests, things that it's interested in, tax reform is a big driver i think but there are sort of bread and butter regulatory issues. i think the u.s. chamber of commerce is interested in. i guess it's not surprising that you have so many big companies wanting to have -- establish a major presence in washington. i mean, the old saying is if it's -- you're not at the table, you're on the menu. so it's sort of you want to make sure you have the presence here. some of the lobbyists say it's

not just a one-time thing where there's this bill coming before congress so we need a presence here. it's making sure those relationships are ongoing. host: remind us what lobbying is. has it changed? guest: i think people have this conception that lobbying involved -- you see it in the smoke-filled rooms and arm twisting and promises of campaign cash. a lot of what they do is a little more ordinary. you have a number of firms, a number of law firm smoke-filled arm twistings, other boutique kind of companies that are tracking legislation and reporting back to their members and trying to get the most jup to date information that they can relay. and it's also mobilizing their members and their -- the people who they share ideas with. it's meeting with those lawmakers and helping inform that debate. i think we have a conception bad.it's all

it's a little more complicated than that. everybody -- you always hear ba lobbyists are destroying -- they're making it so we can't get things done. but there is a place i think in our system for helping lawmakers understand the thing that is they are legislating about by providing some expertise. you obviously can say we don't want the lobbyists writing legislation that benefits them but there is a role for people who are affected by legislation to have a voice. host: let's go to calls. caller: hello. my question is, what is the difference between lobbying and bribing? guest: well, sir, lobbying completely legal. bribery, not so much. there is i think as i just said there is a role to be played for industries that are

affected by legislation to have a voice in that legislation. obviously some of the concern and one of the things that president trump ran on was this idea that this is a swamp. we need to drain the swamp. o there are various although of that. you have lobbying, you have campaign contributions, the regulatory state that has -- of that. you have xercises a lot of influence. bribery obviously, that's illegal. lobbying is -- needs to be disclosed. host: are you still there? guest: looks like he stired up the swamp more, that he just eally stired the swamp up. like we used to go mudding we called it. host: thank you for like we calling. you do write that almost every business sector is involved now. consider it just the cost of

doing business? guest: that's right. a lot of times you'll see industries that are newly emerging maybe not completely understand the value of that. you think a lot about the technology companies, google, facebook, get into that a little bit. in the piece how five, six years ago they didn't have that much of a washington presence. then they say well there's talk in washington about do we need to regulate these companies more? then they beef up their lobbying presence tenfold. and now as we just mentioned, a couple of them on the list of the top ten, the parent company of google, so they've seen the value for themselves in having that presence and making their voice heard. host: joe in alabama. republican caller. ller: now, my question was e house and the senate

there's no legislation being pushed. or major legislation. when you say lobbyists would have a lot to do with that? guest: well, certainly there was a lot of opposition to the epublican health care plan that was put forward earlier in the year, various versions of that. did that have a lot to do with it? that probably certainly played a role. there was also republicans have a very slim majority in the senate. they don't have a lot of room for error. you can peel off two or three of them, in the senate, then you can kill a lot of hings. some of it is lobbying. some of it is maybe a lack of popular support. some is resistance to what the president wants to do.

there are a number of factors. but certainly i have no doubt that the lobbyists made their voices heard. host: dana writes. so we began by saying not much has happened yet. we know health care is out there and taxes. the leadership and congress is looking toward some sort of tax reform bill. with that do you expect to see a spike in lobbying? and on what specific provisions are there in the tax code? guest: sure. tax reform is going to bring lobbyists and a lot of different issues. more so than health care. health care big issue affects directly affects the health care industry's insurance. tax reform affects pretty much every single business and lot of different issues. more so than health care. health care big issue individuals. so you are going to see a lot on that. i think right now as this republican plan that came out a couple of weeks ago is sort of starting to get a hearing on capitol hill, you are seeing a bunch of different organizations weigh in on it. i mean, i think you have an issue on the state and local tax deductions.

you know, where you have a lot of groups from california, new york, new jersey, high tax areas that are opposed to that. you have the issue of realtors who don't like the increase, the proposed increase in the standard deduction because they worry that that would chip away at the mortgage deduction. and making -- buying a house, something that's important, you have the technology companies that are concerned about this money overseas, this whole issue of how do you repate rat this money? they have a lot of money scrauf shore. charities worried about charities worried about what changes would do to charitable giving. you have bankers, the banking association interested in how do you treat the deductibility of interests? so there are all kinds of issues. and those are just some of the big ones. there are all sorts of rovisions of the tax code that get all kinds of attention and that have big effects on a lot of different businesses.

host: here is a washington times story related to that part of the conversation. that's an nk illustration of how if we're worried about lobbyists, are those lobbyists or people representing vital interests of charitable organizations? i think it's a little more complicated than just a black and white issue. host: pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i have part of the answer to what we do if we are offended

by lobbyists and congress people going over the line and closely ng too together in the interest of in some interest or another, i would say you hold both of them accountable. and if i were closely together in the living in tennessee or pennsylvania, i would be calling their office this morning and asking them to explain how in the world they didn't exercise more judgment in the law making concerning the opioid -- the d.e.a. as i understand it from 60 minutes. so please hold your congress people accountable and get mad. do something. host: tony. guest: i think that's a good point. at the end of the day, who is responsible for what the elected representatives up here to? i think the voters are. i think if elected representatives are accountable to the voters. if your elected

representative is not doing what you want him or her to do, vote them out. there's a lot of outsider sentiment. what you what you have, part one of the reasons president trump was elected was some of the disgust of washington. and you have people that come here and the perception is that they're looking after their own interests, they're looking after the interests of big business and not looking out for the little guy. so let's bring in an outsider. host: twitter, didn't trump say he was going to stop this lobbying, promises made, promises broken? the president say anything about lobbying during the campaign? if so what was it? guest: i think there the presid weren't a lot of specifics. i think the phrase drain the swamp, he did want lobbying reforms. he has made some minor reforms when he came in, as far as the issue of the revolving door. have people moving weren't a lot of from into ory department

industries. so he put out rules saying the appointed positions were not going to -- say you need to not do that for five years. so that's something. as far as big whole industries. so he put out rules saying the appointed positions were not sa the city operates i don't think anybody is viewing that as a major accomplishment. >> host: you don't see anything coming out of congress guest: not right now. they've had a lot of other priorities. not the city operates i don't think anybody is viewing that as to say they won't get t eventually but certainly not on the agenda right now. host: ron in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering when it comes to the lobbyists, the constitution bill of rights all speak of people's rights. when did the lobbyists have more power to address our public officials than the people? why isn't there a buffer zone the een the lobbyists and

congressmen called the people that are looking at this before it goes to congress? because once it gets there, we don't know what happens. and we're the ones that are supposed to be being served. so when a lobbyists wants to see congress shouldn't he have to go through a civilian panel that gets their ideas and their input? not what some poll fission who needs a campaign contribution from a special interest group. you know, we now are embroiled n this health care battle. it is bankrupting the countries. the democrats are saying we really need this. but where were the democrats when they were signing nafta salaries in ur half? we could have one time afforded health care. now that we have sent most of our jobs overseas, where is that money supposed to come from? so democrats say they care about us.

they didn't care too much when they turned america into a rust belt. host: thanks for calling. guest: one of the problems is, i mean, how do you regulate? can you outlaw lobbying? can you tell us law makers you can't meet with lobbyists? i think we want lawmakers listening to as many voices as we can. certainly not to the exclusion of regular people. you certainly don't want -- their only method of getting information. but certainly the caller is right that there is this perception that lobbyists sort of run this town. but certainly -- i think members of congress would tell you that they are very much in touch with their constituents and that they do listen to the people who, at the end of the day, they need to be responsive to. host: earlier we looked at figures from the center for responsive toll picks. general, who tracks lobbying money? how is it tracked? how can folks like our viewers

find out what's going on out there? guest: that's a great question. there are law that is have been passed over the years that require that mandates that lobbying be disclosed. who the lobbyists are, what issues they're lobbying on, how much money they're spending. and those have to be filed every six months. so we have the numbers for the first six months of 2017. january february we'll probably see the numbers from the second half of this year, we'll see how much money everybody is spending on tax reform. some of these priorities. but if individual citizens and c-span viewers want to go out and see that, you mentioned the center for responsive politics does a great job compiling those, categorizing them. and all that is available publicly. e web site is open secrets.org. if you want to see how much your member of congress is getting from the pharmaceutical companies, or how much they're lobbying on particular issues. you know, there's all sorts of information out there very easily if you want to see how m your member of congress is getting from the pharmaceutical

companies, or how much searchab. so any questions that you have as far as who's lobbying on this issue and what industry is interested in this bill, it's all out there. it's all public records. the media is free to report on, that individual citizens are free to look up and draw their own conclusions. host: our guest is the senior writer for the weekly standard. previously tony worked for the charlotte observer in north carolina. he was deputy business area there covering banking, real estate, manufacturing and other issues. has a bamplet in political science from duke and communications from the university of north carolina. chapel hill is our next call. independent caller named joe. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what would you like to say? caller: i would like to talk a little bit about interesting how we're presenting this as just valuable information. that we have a spike in lobbying and that's real news. but it's interesting, it's all neutral until we get to the

point where we say things like, well, congress has been busy. they're listening to lobbyists as if that's valuable busy work that is good for the people. and this whole thing about how erybody needs to give absess they can make good decisions. what about following the money and the power and the distance or value of having they can mak good decisions. what about that money pushing through? i would like some comment on hat. guest: one view is they haven't done anything and just taking recesses and meeting with lobbyists and doing nothing to advance the people's interest. if you're happy with the status quo there will be people who say they're not making things worse. i do think there's a difference of opinion on the value of

lobbying. certainly we don't want our politics to be influenced by groups that don't have the people's agenda at heart. but it can be a complicated thing. because what joe believes and what somebody else believes, you know, are to be vastly different. congress has to sort that out. it's not -- you know, it's not just a matter of saying why is congress not doing what joe wants him to do? host: by twitter. not just a matter of saying why is congress not doing what joe george from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard somebody on the radio and he says that often he says that we have the best government that money can buy.

i think most people agree with that. but i didn't think it was legal. i mean, if you've got somebody that goes to congress and have been in congress for 15 years and they went there with 100,000 in their bank account and now their salary and their significant other salary they're worth millions of dollars, it seems to me that should be a little illegal. i mean, there's a lot of greed and corruption going on in congress does have ethics laws, in ar as what they can take ifts, honorary for speeches, i think it is supremely frustrating to people see people come to washington and they make a living here. they do well for themselves. people ame time that back home, you know, are facing struggles.

host: edward calling from minogue, wisconsin? caller: yes, it is. host: go ahead. callers.ne of the last caller: thank you for taking my call, i've called in the past. as a republican, i want to say that i read a book by a -- savage called "trump's war," and it's an excellent it for would recommend everybody in this world to read. multi national corporations, explains all the involved with 's lobbyists and half of the senate republican, i'm changing my mind about a party. i'm going to be an independent the future and i'm never changed from independents to any other party. you for my call. thank you. host: what is driving your change? change? making you caller: say that again, please. change at is making you

status republican to independent? caller: this book "trump's war," explained congress and what is going on in the global political system and how is so corrupt we need a man like donald trump. as an vote for him independent, but not as a member the e democratic or republican party. so if you have further comments, i will take them. host: anything you want to react to there? there. a lot you do see a lot of frustration with what is going on in washington, both parties. think this is an issue that rowels a lot of people up. not democrat/republican issue tis insider/outsider issue. margaret from gresham, oregon, independent caller. hi, margaret. for taking myanks call. host: you're welcome. caller: you're absolutely right,

lobbyists, lace for but who has enough money to use them, except the rich people. guest: yeah. caller: those people are sent to congress to do what the people wanted, they lost that a long time ago, a long time ago and the main s one of reasons. i noticed a smile on your face complain about lobbyists because they'll be here forever. luck to you and the rest people will just keep struggling along. host: final thought? guest: i don't think we're looking down our noses at what , it is reality of you have in washington and we as journalists have a responsibility to report to the is the information out there. you can see how much is being lobbying and use it to inform your vote. you.: tony mecia thank

we will talk with robert bonnie, who is the person who oversaw he u.s. forest service during the obama administration, will wildfires about the out west and what we are learning about the federal money being used to fight them. we'll be right back. >> tonight on the communicator, we interviewed four cyber esearchers teaching the latest cyber security techniques and artificial intelligence at the in las t conference vegas. >> internet of things is unique, ven from other embedded devices, like phones, because they are typically used autonomously, like with thermostats or industrial

controller. we've seen some attack where is they're able to exploit like web cams, for example. traditionally hacking was around and ing and making stuff more recently, i think society has seen it as people breaking into systems. attacking systems in an effective manner. approaching , it's problems and solving problem necessary various different ways. now is the most exciting time to start hacking. the wealth of information out unbelievable. it takes very little to hack today. ou have youtube, you have tu terials. 20 years ago, there just wasn't much. wild west, e wild, just nothing out there. now this is a really exciting time. intelligence, this is taking it one step further, deevent have to intervene anymore with the computer, just give people call raw data, think of any type of data, we just pass it over to

and the machine on ts own learns how to make useful predictions. >> watch communicators tonight 8 eastern on c-span2. continues.on journal host: once a week we focus on "washington journal" on your money and what that federal money is being spent for. $2 y we're looking at the billion plus spent so far this year on fighting wildfires. the studio is in robert bonnie, a former department undersecretary for natural resources. this you for joining us morning. explain your role at the agriculture department when you forest re, you oversaw service; correct? guest: yes, undersecretary for agencies t at two under the u.s. forest service and conservation service. ost: what do you make of what you have been seeing out in

california recently? uest: it's terribly tragic, we've obviously lost a lot of lives, a lot of homes and resources, as well. but it's part of a larger trend that we've seen over the last bigger fires, , more catastrophic and deadly ires and that is very concerning and it means investments at the federal level are critically important, both firefighting aspect and to do more work, educe threat of catastrophic fire in the first place. host: headline in "u.s.a. today" the nightmare, the worse may be over, perhaps they corner.rned a it doesn't mean they don't have a lot of work to do and people of struggling, but in terms the money spent, what are the on the federalds government in places like california today? about 20 's look back years, 20 years ago the u.s. forest service, largest agency in the

government, federal government, used to spend one-sixth of the on firefighting. this year it will probably spend not more budge oat firefighting, both in preparing for fire and what you in all the major fires you this year. not on private land, national forest land. most expense out there is paid by the state, that doesn't mean there aren't substantial firefighter, aircraft, hot shot teams, you name it out there. work nothing close partnership the the state, the state is lead on the firefighting side, lead on recovery, but the ederal government and state government, along with local municipal fire departments will of thegether in the wake

fire. host: phone number on the bottom of the screen for our guests. robert bonnie, talking about california and other wildfires, money involved on the federal government end. for dealing with and we'll get to your calls. 202-748-8001, republicans. is your , 202-748-8000 number. independent, 202-748-8002. directly impacted by 202-748-8003. call mr. bonnie, more facts and igures we can put on the screen. federal firefighting activity in $2.4 billion for 50,000 fires ion, covering 8.5 million acres. think a lot of people maybe don't understand that number, 50,000 fires going on, 4300 personnel are

engaged, 33 helicopters, 14 air use.ers in there is a lot going on there, his information comes from the agriculture department. how does the spending get what is the process for doing that, so that cumove forward? firefighting and the forest service budget, the forest service is not the only spends money on firefighting, interior, bureau management, other bureaus spend money on fire, as well. budget ar the agencies certain amount based on the verage firefighting expenditures over the last 10 years. the problem is over time that sorage has been going up and those agencies, particularly the forest service, having to devote money to ore firefighting, taking larger and larger share of the budget and of the r necessary case forest service, they run out of money. they have to what is called money from other

accounts, take from forest anagement or restoration account, recreation, other things we need to do on national money taken ving away to fight fires, that includes activities that will educe the threat of catastrophic fires. peter to ly robbing pay paul. host: do you see budgetary future?in the guest: a lot of discussion in congress about this. hen i was in the obama administration, there was a ipartisan effort with the president, republicans and democrats on the hill to address this. years, three now that have been focused on this, change the able to way fire is budgeted for. what needs to happen, we need to fires like natural disasters. they are treated as normal the se that come out of normal expense of the agency. it's gotten too big, it is other things.

we need to create a disaster fund, both for the u.s. forest service, as well as the department of interior agencies so that in bad years, they can the funds. then, maintain the existing budget to be able to invest in prevention. host: where can folks read this opinion piece you wrote with mark ray, essor, ipartisan solution to the wildfire problem. guest: "u.s.a. today," mark ray had the same position i had bush administration, again, signalling there is broad support for how we fix this, we to move forward. host: from allen first in brooklyn, new york, democratic for robert bonnie. good morning. caller: good morning. looking at the news headlines of week, it seems we're live nothing two realities. cutting back on obama era regulation on carbon time we're the reading about record floods and storms and fires in texas and and da and puerto rico

california. as a member of the forest you feel constrained not to make public connections the needs of your agency increase withing climate change and the seemingly ignore the rt to connection to climate change by other branches of your own government? the : i'm no longer with department of agriculture. no longer in the government, i'm actually at duke university, but continue to work on these issues. and our fire season have grown over the last three decades. fire seasons are longer, our ires are bigger, more catastrophic and climate change is clearly playing a role in that. change isn't the only challenge we're facing. decades, it was

sort of a mantra in the u.s. the t service, but in scientific community and elsewhere fire was a bad thing, controlled.o be that mythology is long gone. we're dealing with the legacy of it. we put out small fires for so ong and created fuel build-ups in wild lands and forest and climate that puts us at -- creates serious challenges. the third piece that i think is sort of rtant is just management of the lands, dealing but also the , fact we got houses in places we didn't have houses. hen i was in the administration, we had a 250,000 mexico, it n new never made the headlines because no one lived there. what you are seeing in now is people t and lives being put at risk here, so you've got this three-legged stool of climate

management and fuel build-up over time and then urban and what we call interface, which is houses in the wild areas creating challenges. and driving up the budget. joanne calling for robert. good morning. caller: good morning. isten, i live in nevada and close to california, we have the fires.from the california now do you attribute any of this envireos that took grazing off the land and cutting the trees down? sierras and l the see dead standing trees, what do they think is going to happen? hen i left talascoga weeks ago and my brother was missing in the fires, okay, but we talked waiting to as fire

happen, nobody cleans up their land out there. happens every year, i'm tired of their smoke. lands, get ur thenviros out of it, use common sense. dean heller did a report, from nevada, did a report on how much in e category save wildfires. why aren't these things used? on y brown just falls back global warming, at what the democrats normally do and that's shame. clean up your land. thank you. bonnie.bert guest: i'm glad your brother is well. that land management matters a lot, not only the management of federal lands, but private and state lands, as well. and one of the things we obama rated on in the administration and really a bipartisan way, increase the amount of forest restoration doing, work with the timber industry, with onservation groups with local

communitys to increase the amount of work we're doing in the woods, to restore more conditions and to reintroduce fire in places we could o so safely so we reduce those fuel loads. ou point out grazing has an important role to play and grazing can be a tool that is forest manage h toment reduce fuel loads. o, there have been challenges related to environmental the ation of management on national forest and federal lands. traesz that through collaborative work, by pulling people together. there is clearly more work we do. to and i think one of the challenges with the budget ituation is that we're investing so much money in just fire fighting that we're not the to invest in prevention, the restoration work, working with local fuel, to s to reduce be more prepared in the fire, the budget matter necessary this

debate. host: chairman of the house and resources committee, you know, he was on the newsmaker program the past weekend and need to improve management of the forest service, here is a look. service themselves has a goal of trying to refine and fix their forest, manage the 25% a year. they get to 2% and not all of hat is simply because they are incompetent, there are other factors, that is what we're can g to relieve so they manage 25% a year, so when the fires hit, they are not fires.ophic i don't know about the other one, but i do know mismanagement are causing devastation. host: robert bonnie, your thoughts? no question.look, one issue, there is a lot of actually fertile ground in the opportunities s to do more management, to look projects that e both benefit local communities, grazers, forest industry and

other folks while also ecological ng improvement, water shed, protecting forest, better forest help, better wildlife habitat. work together collaboratively, correct, there is more work to do there. the challenge is that if we additional resources to do that work, the forest service is really hamstrung, it takes people, it takes foresters, it takes rofessionals to go sxout plan large-scale efforts. we have to solve the budget problem. focus on the s environmental litigation or the don't fix there and the budget problem, we're not going to make any progress at all. host: judy calling from lincoln, nebraska. good morning, judy. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: doing well. to somebody to talk live. host: we're glad to talk to you live, as well. would you like to say or

ask, judy? caller: the fires is another thing. i got a friend living there and he's clear on the northern part area and rancisco stuff like that. what are they doing about it? on an, they are blaming it the state. our president is insane, the man devil's advocate. he don't do anything for anybody. all about money and all about him. in hollywood got fired in whatever.a -- or and stuff and things and he is a scum bag. right.all we get the point, caller. let's hear from robert bonnie. well, i think obviously a lot there, but i think the one that you gotsay is serviceted career civil

in the forest service at the arertment of interior, they working hand in hand with irefighters on the ground in california california. we fight fires seamlessly at level, , state and local everybody working together and i terms of fire response, we do a really good job. ur challenge in doing things ahead of the fire that can reduce the threat. that is where budget issues come in, thinking about large scale forest restoration comes in, it where we put out homes on the landscape so we tonight put people and house way, those are s things we need to think about ahead of the fire so we can get problem. this host: from twitter, prater wants to know what will happen when starts falling on the charred land, can you explain that? guest: this is actually a real

problem. a lot of the fires, you obviously see the devastation today, but now you have removed the vegetation from the land and if you get a heavy rain, heavy snow and then snow the water pringtime, runs off immediately, there is ot vegetation to slow it down and to take up some of the water. so this creates real challenges. forest service, cal fire, which is the california fire resources national conservation service, other agencies gallon out in the wake even when the ground is still warm to begin to treat the acres so we get less and fewer threats of mud slides and those types of things. post-fire, when the flames it's charred landscape, we're not done yet, a lot more done. to be those things are expensive, they require people, that is why i budget ing back to the

situation. that is why we need to solve the budget issue. know it is supplemental bill, but congress is working through $36 billion in the might reachweek, it final vote this week. toward ce of that goes the forest fire situation? guest: my understanding there be several hundred million dollars in there that will help the federal budgets when it comes to firefighting. the said before, so often agency has to take money from its other budget line items in for fire and typically the bills will replenish those things. hat they don't do, solve the long-term problem, treat fire as a disaster, create a disaster agencies can tap on and don't have to rob other budget lines. something called forest act of 2017, want to get your take on that, here are some points. this act would provide extra irefighting money to from fema instead of coming from forest

service, expedite review process controlled burns and wave environmental safe guards for management projects endangered species are believed not to be affected. what else can you tell us? guest: as we were thinking about this during the obama we recognize you need both to deal with the udget issue, you might also need to address ability to do larger scale restoration, forest talked about. i the challenge is with some of this legislation goes too far. we've demonstrated that you can you can work at collaborative level with lots of forest industry, environmental group, local communities and you can ccomplish large-scale restoration. we need to be careful that we wars that ite timber affected federal land managem t to solve thee need

budget problem, we need to allow he agencies to draw on emergency funding, we can look at some ways that we can stream can getjects so that we more work done. , my hope is congress can walk that line and find a way to do this that preserves the -- the budgetlaws problem. host: california fires worsen survivors, for washington times, officials outdoors.imiting time california on the line, june lake, california, independent lynn.r named good morning. caller: hello. air.: you're on the caller: hi. yes, this is very interesting. the forest in the

international forest and, you watched these basicallyvice workers do nothing for many, many years. they were supposed to do a whole forest planning between our sierra forest and started in 2012, 2017. now we watch third degree federal agency spend thousands and thousands of dollars basically on nothing. owner, you know, it's very frustrating to watch don't get to waste money in business. this gentleman is up there again, about once waiting for congress. dead trees beatle, everywhere and, you know, it's

so hard to understand why people in there and harvest that timber. magine the resources as far as needing new homes, you have huge, massive fires that cost dollars, you have forest service sitting around have meetings and this whole person does in, and six anning process months later, they're gone and a new person comes in, just like starting over. it is extremely frustrating and that your of tell guest is a little frustrated, too, because how long he's dealt still waiting as dollars and billions of re being wasted with zero accountability and i have a lot living in the forest

all of my life, dealing with ecreation and timber, watching these fires and there's so many problems as the average person living in this again were ce waiting for congress, waiting our he government to solve problems. if you would just let the local people go to work, they don't to destroy their lands, they want to protect their lands. of grass ins are full that grazing isn't allowed anymore, then the grass just burns. i mean, i don't know what the answer is, but i can tell you absolute positive about the mount of money that is completely wasted by the government, sitting around and to plan and trying to get together with -- trying to get together with the foresters. lynn, thank you. a lot there, any response?

guest: couple points. one, the effort you are talking on the indian national forest, along with couple other develop aorests is to plan that has community buy-in, you can get work done faster. efforts, what the planning efforts are about so hat we can do large-scale restoration. a little bit, the big challenge, of ow there is a lot cynicism about government. one big challenge the forest 40% fewer es, it has oresters, 40% fewer planners, recreation, managers, all those of then the nonfire side organization, fewer, 40% fewer employee there is and we've oubled the amount on the fire side of the organization. steady has been this creep of resources away from away from gement, grazing management, recreation, all those things that matter a you live inommunity

and we're spending more and more and more dollars on fire every year. of the challenge that you see on the ground as someone forest is by national that the forest service has fewer people to do the things matter to your community. this, that is why the budget so important. we've got to solve the budget challenge to be able to give the resources it needs to work with the community so they can get things done. about the r point importance of working with local communities is really, really important. that is something i think the forest service and other agencies have taken to heart. clearly more we can do there, without budget resources, well.'t be able to do it host: jim at twitter, how much fire is result of current activism and earlier misguided environmentalism? guest: there is no question that need to do more forest that ment and restoration

involves thinning to reduce the fuel levels. involves using hiscribed fire, fire on our lives oren there is no houses in danger. to theu know, think back 1980s and 1990s and you have a the west and r in litigation and confrontation around management of the forest.l there is no question that is in maybe nse maybe agency more defensive, but i think the agency has begun to come out of you see, we were able to treat more acres, produce obama mber during the administration, there are opportunities to do more out work withfind ways to the environmental community and conservation community and imber industry and local community to get more work done, that collaborative approach is really important. actually quite optimistic we

an work through this issue in terms of being able to work through environmental laws, planning and other things to get work done. the fundamental challenge continues to be the budget. budge sxet lve the give the agency resources, they won't be able to perform the way they need to. couple more calls and then we'll wrap up. or eileen? caller: aline. i'm recent -- lived in maryland years and i was very active in invasive species that.l, things like those kind of new plans are making it harder to fight fires they're a lot more strong and things like that. but i think we do need to get involved and e aybe put smokey the bear to a different focus and understand what is going on with the fires like that.

er hink your previous call er maybe should get herself elected committee and get people interested in living in the areas, have input and known.ions be so, there would be more buy-in involved. would be guest: great comments there. invasive species. you're exactly right, these are species not native to the united in the we have a species west called cheat grass which changes the way fires burn out and create huge problems wildlife, afety, for for grazers and so addressing investing in restoration is going to be critically important to deal with the fire problem in a lot of places. so that invasive species challenge is a real one. changing the way fires

burn, making them more so an issue and that really needs to be dealt with. it n, the way to deal with is for communities to work together, to collaborate, to ome up with large-scale efforts, but in order to do that, we have to invest the dollars to get projects done. host: one more call, tony new castle, pennsylvania, you are on robert bonnie. caller: good morning, gentlemen. tony.hi, caller: i guess the thing i'm calling about, to direct -- to sorry for these people losing -- it is horrible we don't have , kind of these major disasters. i love it here. so anyway, but anyway, some of were probably there strict built nd construction, i think they need change some of these codes

for building, i've studied housing, concrete and stuff like that, at least you ouldn't lose everything, especially in tornado areas and everything, you seem to keep same old stuff and it's not going to last. in my , you know, i'm 60s, my kids have a small amily, seem like they don't want to do anything unless you have a machine to do it with. get out and need to get their hands dirty and stuff, many prison people sitting there that why can't we get them working or something like that? so that is my comment. host: thank you for calling. final thought on preventing and wildfires.h guest: great point on building of the fire ture threat has changed. there is the size of the fire, the fire,ic nature of we have to think about changing building codes, things like metal roofs, clearing vegetation

away from houses and these areas that are fire prone, that is to be the difference between a house surviving or not. fires advance,se they get heavy winds and they thousands and thousands of embers, if your embers, it thstand will still be standing after what can be a very catastrophic fire. in order to do that, we have to invest in changing building have to work with existing houses so they can be lot we ted, there is a need to do that will take resources to do that. former bert bonnie, undersecretary agriculture department for natural resources 2013-2017, currently at -- monday edition of the "washington journal." after a shortack, break, we'll take open phone, alk about anything you have heard about this morning or

anything new you would like to bring to the table. 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can weigh in at social media. we'll talk to you again in a couple minutes. >> tonight on the communicators, we interviewed four cyber teaching the latest cyber security techniques and artificial intelligence, at the hat conference in las vegas. > internet of thing system a bit unique from other embedded devices like phones, they are autonomously, no with industrial controller and we've seen some attack where is they are able to cams, for ke web example. >> traditionally hacking was more around building and making recently, i ore

think society has seen it as people breaking into systems, know, attacking systems in ffensive manner, but traditionally approaching problems and solving problems in various different ways. probably the is most exciting time to start hacking. he wealth of information out there is unbelievable. it takes very little to hack youtube, u have tutorials, 20 years ago, there just wasn't much. was a true wild, wild west and just nothing out there. exciting s really time. >> artificial intelligence, taking it even one step further, as humans don't have to ntervene anymore with the computer, just give it people call it raw data, just think of data first, pass it over to the machine and the own, e magically, on its learns to make useful predictions. >> watch communicators tonight eastern on c-span 2.

>> "washington journal" continues. of : we'll do 20 minutes open phones here before we go to pro forma session of the u.s. house. out and they won't be voting, but they need to take sessions and come in and go out. the senate is in all week, hey'll take up the budget resolution later this week, which would set framework for tax legislation, do be supplemental disaster spending newt ey will vote on gingrich's to be ambassador to the vatican. that is on c-span 2. norma jean on the line from maryland. hello there. hi. so glad i got through and this is my first time calling. thank you. i have been studying environmental impacts for quite while and i've been interested in the last guest you had and

being made. bit just, wanted to put my of two cents in about the wildfires and i think a lot of high wind is seems to be part of the problem and problem with high winds is that we're losing so are of our the things that natural that block the wind. we stopped that, some of this maybe of natural land, we can slow down the things appening, that is just my comment, thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for calling for the first time, hope you will back again. john on the line from fairfax.

hat is on your mind this morning? caller: good morning, paul. v.a. ry happy with my medical coverage, but i think missing the boat on not covering certain subjects. host: which ones, john? the chip program failing to get funded and i think c-span needs to bring attention to open forl that becomes comment and have a segment on open for comment, people will learn about them and contact the congress o voice their opinion and that's it for today. host: john, let me ask you a more on chip oll program, it is awaiting fund are

for nine million people involved. you talking about the v.a. at the start of your call, is there would change you or fix? you said you are pretty happy so far. caller: i'd like to make more locations available. live in fairfax, takes an hour to get to the v.a. center. to go to dc to get medical care. i think they should have a facility in northern virginia. host: okay. thanks for calling, john. om is on the line from malibu, california, republican caller. hi, tom. morning.ey, good i've lived in the santa monica national recreation area and because of that, we have tremendous amount of and what is occurred is the government is created land, created subdivisions, created spaces for people to live and they tell us safe. -- e had the input of city

for any type of protection you regulation, but without a combined management county, between city, state and federal, like in the barbecue pit.ant we have environmental that don't have any reason, we have we had sentences if we clear brush.

precluded from clearing. it is something that really eeds to be done and 60% of the , it burned ifornia the place to the ground. and it most of m the north, them are man set and we're sort there and we can't really do anything we need to do. the government is more interested in creating open paying for it, they are not upgrading the fire area and i don't

know what to do about it. i'm a realtor. i tell people, clear away from will burn. and we have a supervisor who is -- pro-environmentalist, anti-any type of growth. their ort of like at mercy and there is not a lot we can do about it. just want to let you know that. and northern california, when you have parks and things like is no protection from them. i mean, they're wonderful, but a plan that ve makes, takes the brush away from areas, you're going to continue to have things and dear people up for those north and i want to thank you for bringing the subject up. i saw it this morning, i almost, i sat up in bed and aid, thank you, c-span, i really, really appreciate it and got any questions just please

ask me. host: tom, thank you for calling. want to get other viewpoints in. about the ier caller s-chip program, we mentioned we'll continue to track the debate in congress over where funding for this program is going to be headed because they deadline without passing a bill. couple weeks nt a back with the manhattan institute. in hat point, back september, you can look at little rg to find out a bit there, again, we'll continue to track that piece of legislation, it is one of the have to do before the end of the year. president trump has been tweeting this morning and embedded in s are this story in washington examiner. the headline says "trump is democrats can do is increase taxes out of struct," look to emocrats obstruct his plan to lower taxes for everyone, even in the face say it is time for a tax cut. he is some of the tweets

left. first 8:17 this morning, he laffer, he doesn't know how to vote against the big tax cut reform bill and live with themselves. he said, the democrats want to increase taxes and obstruct, at.t is all they are good trump and republican leader necessary congress are set to tax reform bill, they say would significantly slash corporate taxes. white house study found trump's goal of decreasing corporate tax rate would family's he average income between 4000 and 9000 year. this came out this morning, perhaps we'll hear more about that later. over ats, the stories, whelmingly complained increasing lower n middle class and them for the wealthy. robert is calling from brooklyn, york, welcome to open phones. caller: yeah. t seems to me there are a lot of problems. the wildfires on the west coast,

hurricanes and flood og east oast and the gulf, the people best equipped to determine what ought to be done, namely the for the s that work national forest service and other organizations that your other entioned and organizations like the national academy of sciences, the -- the national oceanic administration, meteorologists and others, the capacity, can only function in an environment, me, can advisory capacity, i'd like to see giving tional amendment them political power equivalent so they . senators could actually do something. host: okay. clyde calling from baton rouge, louisiana, democrat. clyde.rning, caller: hi, good morning. the alling to comment on

poordy that trump cut from people people, swamp care. -- you know he doesn't try to sell anything, advocates because there is swamp care, not even helping people on the swamp. ridiculous how get in -- ce and constantly american people. he's going to literally kill people f.terally kill they need major surgery, major procedure done, not going to be to get it done. only one who -- it, i mean, it's just ridiculous. thank you very much. host: thank you for calling, clyde. ne other tweet from the president, the u.s. gained 5.2 trillion dollars in stock market election day. also record business enthusiasm,

opened 20 markets minutes ago, all are up in the u.s. again, on this monday, th, here is front page of "u.s.a. today." trump's campaign legal bills top 1 million in the third quarter, he spent more than a million on and fees between july 1 september 30, special counselor intensify investigation into russian meddling. he 1.1 million the campaign spent on lawyers in third quarter of the year is nearly ouble, what the president's fundraising committee spent in the previous three months according to campaign reports sunday. hey include 237,000 to allen futerfas, the lawyer representing donald trump, son, , the president's added 30,000 went to williams jensen, which helped with the russian investigation. is topping -- n this piece in the "wall street

journal" and elsewhere, there is going to be democratic challenge to senator feinstein who her bid for re-election several days ago. a top democrat in the california state legislature, critic of feinstein said he planned to her next year in her bid for re-election. the state n, of senate, announced plans over biographical nd video accompanying the announcement. he talks about lifting people poverty and he providing opportunity. he is youngest child of single worked her ther who finger to the bones cleaning homes, when he was a child. did not mention mrs. feinstein by name. "wall street journal." minnesota.ng on in name of your town, tammy? tammy, you there? caller: yes, i am. the name of your town?

want to thank c-span for everything you guys do and for just giving us your voice. i think that is awesome and amazing. and i've been up since early to all your programming this morning. i want to go back to the weinstein thing. i was disheartened when thatning to you all saying how you talk about this was a hollywood issue and of course it hollywood, but it is also in politics and our n.f.l. ndustry, you know, it is everywhere. politics of to the it all. we cannot forget our president had e united states has many sexual harassment charges 15 since 1980, , ree of which filed lawsuits he's been publicly abused of sexual assault, kissing, groping, we know that from the access hollywood tape.

all this mean, tammy? caller: i'm just saying we just, so much media with this if stein thing and possibly maybe we would have done the same thing with our president nd really checked into the accusations that were up against him like the accusation of rape '94 with 13-year-old child, of him walking in on the miss teen girls when they were different stages of undressed, maybe we wouldn't a president. as you know, weinstein, he is out. alt is out. o'reilly's out, trump is still in, there is something wrong here. host: moving to beverly in there., hi caller: good morning to you and thank you for accepting my call. host: you're welcome. caller: what i'd like to say is money congress relegates, delegates to what it is we need,

money, we're the ones who put money into social security, millions of us in this country. i don't understand why we can't ll just have what we need, period. i'm not wealthy. i taught school for 30 years and amazes me that in chicago chools are closed, mental health centers are closed. we gave them the money to manage for us. take just allowing them to our money and just spread it out -- complain about people we no reason we should have to bid for health care, education, money.g that, is our the people who support donald with you're in the pot those of us who are in need. you're going to suffer, we're suffer more and then they just fly all over wherever

our money.spending i like to know how many, what benefits are for the people in congress, that ould be very interesting, very interesting because they've got better insurance than most of us in this country. thank you. one last thing. host: uh-huh. learn that ife to you peel outer layer of skin this very person in country, we're all the same. our hearts are in the same our stomachs are in the same place, the only difference, us to be on sed this planet, we should be taking kick f it and we should these pigs out like the gentleman said before this, is -- we ey, we're not should not have to beg them to use our money to help us. thanks for calling. mark is on the line now, caldwell, new jersey. good morning.

mark, you with us? hello, what the name of your call? host: are you mark? yes.r: yes, yes, good morning and thank you. i've been trying for years on and off. first time? caller: yes, sir. host: welcome to the program, what would you like to say? i'd like to say here because i'm senior, i just 75 on august 5th, this from india, 41me ears ago as student to study undergraduate from this country. this country.or i'm very serious citizen of this country, i love this country. i stand for this country. me for the last crash came, i the was mortgage broker, crash came wall ok all of us, the street crash. communityt time in my

center, caldwell community center. talk to niors, i seniors about health, healthy food and all that, that is my until i move, and what my question is, from my part-time job, i'm totally on social security, which i get my wife get less than exactly $900 something month. living in senior residents in caldwell and the thing is that part-time job,ax, would say out i socialmately $500, go to security tax. hey also take the medicare tax in return, every year, they

only -- i'm wondering why taxing social security, why $120 a year back, taking $500 from my part-time then they also tax me for medicare tax, i'm paying premium also. his is not me, i'm sure millions of hard-working , one last callme house.we go over to the charles, calling from tampa, independent caller. to you. caller: yes, sir, thank you for this opportunity. host: welcome. want to and i know it needs to h mcconnell go. he stirred up the race war when

going to aid we're make president obama a one-term what kind now tell me of remark is that for a leader a congress? and now for the last seven or years, this has permeated united states, that's why people are sick of it nd the congress, they need to get rid of mitch, his crew and start looking at us as people of the united states. charles, who do you like if you don't like mitch mcconnell? see as d you like to leader? for him.nybody except host: okay. tampa, charles from florida. we say who would you like to see as leader? caller: anybody except for him. host: ok.

that was charles from tampa, florida area and we say thanks to everybody who called in this morning. tomorrow, 7:00 eastern for another edition of "washington journal"." for now, we would take her to the floor for the house of representatives brief. we will not see any debate. no votes today. they are not voting. they are out all week, but we will take a look and move on with the rest of our schedule. enjoy your day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> gracias