and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> live event tuesday include homeland security secretary at eight overs -- oversight meeting. being briefed on energy production outlooks and scott gottlieb speaking at johns hopkins university. in the afternoon, the house meets to consider a bill to create a special commemorative coin. the white house holds and imposing them -- a symposium. in the senate considers a reauthorization of the surveillance act. later on c-span3, foreign ambassadors discussed the form perception of the u.s. >> coming up in an hour, the week ahead in washington including the upcoming government funding deadline will be discussed i roll call white house correspondent john bennett

and bloomberg congressional reporter. -- alphonso aguilar talks about immigration policies and the latest push for puerto rican statehood. ♪ closedn capitol hill, a door house until this meeting .eaturing steve bannon testimony is part of the panels look into it russia's activity in the 2016 election. all of this goes along as a three-day test as it is three days until a government shutdown . it is generally 16th and this is the "washington journal." the trump administration will allow states to impose -- supporters back to move. -- supporters of back the move.

is legally the move and morally unconscionable. what do you think of these rules for medicaid recipients when it comes to work? do you think it will hurt them or help them? this is how you can let us know if you agree? disagree -- for medicaid recipients, you can tell us your story. you can always treat us that c-span wj. understand these new rules by the trump administration is nathaniel >>. xel.athaniel we could you walk through the intent of these new rules are and who will be under them. theer: the end -- guest:

intent is to target the newly eligible medicaid people. it is not going to be the elderly or the disabled. it is going to be targeted at the able-bodied people. who are eligible for medicaid right now. host: who qualifies as able-bodied? guest: that is up to every state to determine. states can determine who is able-bodied and was not. generally speaking, if you're pregnantly, disabled, and not under the age of 16, you qualify as able-bodied. under this guidance from the government, you, if the state decides to increment -- implement this, you will have to do some sort of work, community engagement activity for however

long the state decides you want to do it in order to be eligible. this is something new under the trump administration? could other administrations applied the same standard? guest: this is brand-new. this is something very unique to the trump administration. the idea of working for benefit and requiring you need to be self-sufficient to get the benefits provided by the government is a not -- government is not a unique idea, but the trump administration is the only one that granted states the ability to require medicaid beneficiaries to work. previously under medicaid, if you are eligible, you are eligible for medicaid. there were some income requirements and it's good that was it. no other states have done this before. this is something that is brand-new. host: if the burning goes to the

states, how have states responded? guest: so far, there are 10 states right now that have waivers pending. day thatis the first got theirs approved last week. they are going to be the test case. they got this waiver approved. so, they are the first ones, they are the guinea pigs, but they seem to be confident that other states will follow. as far as the states that have responded, how many would you qualify as red states? guest: mostly all of them are red states so far. there are nine states that have required and they all -- all but

one have a republican governor. host: for the critics, what have they said about the move? are there legal challenges? guest: nobody has sued yet. that is pending. , the are certain groups national health law program, they are ready to sue. there will be legal challenges. they can basically say this is not in the nature of the medicaid program, that the idea of medicaid is to make sure that everybody gets coverage. that is the requirement of medicaid. they are saying this policy goes against that. the: nathaniel weixel is -- other types of

social net programs? guest: their already artwork requirements on other sort of social net programs. there are still requirements right now. they are not looking to others in that respect. medicaid is one of the last ones that you would have to -- an open-ended social benefits. there are work requirements. --t: nathaniel >> a nathaniel weixel talking about these requirements. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. what dow your chance, you think about this, the application by the trump administration? is this something you agree with? tell us why. noyou say yes, or if you say

. we have set aside a special line for medicaid recipients. you can give your perspective. chris will be first up. powder springs, georgia. says he agrees with it. good morning. well, when you consider the cost of medicaid going through the roof, it just makes sense. especially when i have someone in my family that is setting around collecting a check, , gotbodied, left a job approved for disability and basically is doing nothing with their life. there are people like that that can work and they should be working. host: in your relative's case, that is the case. he is not medically unable to work our list -- or at least do some kind of work otherwise teco caller: correct.

host: let's hear from someone on the no line. caller: good morning. i will really want to complement the reporter from the hill. i am an added follower of the hill and they do an excellent job in keeping people posted. this.pposed to i see it being another trump to offer tax breaks to the rich. this is once again depriving the poor for the benefit of the rich. i find it obscene. i know people on medicaid, as well. i can tell you that a great many of them -- of the people i know -- they are not taking it. the whole issue of medicaid was to make health care available to the poor.

to require 20 hours just consider this, 20 hours, that is happy work week that one would provide in order for to qualify for medicare. that is 20 hours a week. let us presume that we are talking about being paid at a minimum wage rate and the minimum wage is anywhere from three dollars to five dollars to seven dollars to $10 depending on the state. we are talking about someone , ifng essentially, at least it is four dollars an hour in kentucky, we are talking about somebody paying $80 a week or $320 a month for their insurance. consider that. for the fact -- host: let's go to don in scranton, pennsylvania.

caller: good morning. i know a few people at the first caller who are collecting, and i think it is a good idea to do it. it reminds me of -- my dad used to talk about the old the bpa, he had to work to get your checks instead of sitting home and doing nothing. i have nothing else to say about it but i think it is the right thing for everybody. our deficit is so high. it can really help the deficit. host: the previous caller was talking about the amount of hours that would be required in the wage. -- required and the wage. i think they should work -- i don't know though hours -- i don't know the hours. the government would have to break it down. they should have to work, no matter what. it is only fair.

everybody should have to work if they can. if they can't, that is a different story. host: those are some opinions this morning. a work requirements. you heard our guest talk about it. what do you think about it? do you support it? bonita group to under the obama administration has an op-ed piece taking a look at the requirements pc rights -- -- requirements. she writes --

that is the co-author of that piece that you can find on the usa today website. pennsylvania next. this is richard. caller: i think they should be workred to work, if they or volunteer if they are able-bodied. thing is, who decides if they are able-bodied? i think is a good idea that maybe some of the work could be

to sign up people for voter registration. i think that would be a good thing for them to do so we could get everybody in this country to vote. what do you think these red states will say about that? host: what do we say about the able-bodied miss? that will be a state-by-state determination. macon, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think that should be a requirement for health care. can you hear me echo -- can you hear me? host: go on. caller: you have the people with illness, the homeless, of the forms of disability. get theme point we can unemployment rate down to zero

where everybody can find a job maybe, the people who are thinking about able-bodied people who are not working, they will be on to do that. that.y will be able to do you have people who have children and it just would not work out. i still work for social services years ago. host: i want to go back to your point. when it is only able-bodied people being considered, tell me why you don't agree with it. people who have some have other circumstances in their lives, because if you are good to say you have to work so many hours, then these people should be up to work full-time anyway. you have children who are going to have to have someone to keep their children, to pay for that and these children actually --

the parents get medicaid because of the kids. i don't think we need to complicate this. barclays says most recipients are elderly or have children. next.l hear from dan, and medicaid recipient. white pigeon, michigan. what do you think? caller: i want to thank you guys for what you do on here. i watch you guys daily. i am 52 years old. emphysema., i have cirrhosis of the liver. thate three bulging discs press into the nerve in my spine when i am working. i have lost several jobs within two years, ok?

i am an american and i am proud and i want to go to work. i want to be able to support myself, but when a person can't, that is when they need to be able to fall back on some help. in theirlot of people late 20's, early 30's and they because i't work, have some kind of -- nothing against -- i know you can have panic attacks but i think that the system is being taken advantage of by a lot of those people, so that when older people get up there and they have worked all their lives and they have tried to do what they can, it is not there for them. you have to fight and struggle. i do think they should go through -- in what i had to do is get -- to get food stamps and medicaid, i had to have a note for my doctor.

what my ailments were, why i wasn't able to work. that is what they should be up to do. do ones -- should be able to . the ones that are able to work should go to work. host: if you want to call the line for medicaid recipients -- the editors of the washington examiner in writing about this decision say this --

from coleman, alabama. we'll hear from robin. caller: good morning, pedro. yes, they should have to go to work and they are able and i can give you an example. my example is this it i was working in mississippi. i went into a store. as i was going in a store, a man came up panhandling. and when inside and complaining about it to the clerk. she said that is my husband. i said he should be working.

she said if he goes to work, i will lose my food stamps. i get $600 a month. if he goes to work, i will not be up to get that. he could've been to work with me. believe that, yes, people should go to work. it would lessen the burden that comes to the government, debt. yes, yes, yes. host: rene in pennsylvania. caller: hello. i don't agree with the mandatory work. i am going to tell you why. sometimes people are fired, laid families.ey have they should be able to get medicaid. there is not enough jobs, the unemployment -- i think those numbers are false.

i have a lot of family members that are out of work or underemployed. they are constantly looking for work. agree you have to have a job and noted to get medicaid. the companies, these people who work, their companies should provide health care. that should be mandatory. that a company, if you are employed, even at least 20 hours a week, the company should provide health care. andrew.t's hear from hi. caller: hi. i agree with the last caller. i agree with the couple of the ladies who called and when they said that, it complicates the situation a little bit but nobody is thinking about the little guy when they think about medicaid. the people that do work but

still need the assistance. that is the part. it complicates the situation with how many hours would have to do versus community service hours they would have to do versus how many work hours they would have to do versus how much time they would be putting in to get another job. nobody is thinking about that. host: why is that a competition? thatr: because -- i feel it makes it much more competition and then the government is getting much more into people's lives that need assistance versus helping people to the next level in their life. that is what medicaid is for, system people to the next level so they can get off, so they can do something better with the lives. nobody is thinking about assisting to go to the next level.

that is what it is supposed to be for. control someone's life or tell them that they have to do this versus have to do that. it is to assist. i never heard of an assistant telling the boss, you have to do this. host: that is andrew and suitland, maryland. -- andrew in suitland, maryland. you have heard people agree with it, disagree with it, medicaid recipients. if you want to agree, and give us your thoughts -- shortly after it was announced, it was an exchange of the house screaming between a reporter in the white house press secretary about the decision about medicaid and some of the

implications. sayn medicaid, critics and you need to be healthy to get a job. how are they wrong? >> certainly we want the american workforce to be healthy. we are focused on helping improve health care across the board, but we also want people to have jobs. we are working on both of those things. >> do you think people are just taking advantage of the system? what's there are cases where that happens. -- >> there are cases when that happens. it is something we want to be sure to address. host: the washington post talks about some of the states that are involved. filing request for waivers to work. the requirements for the medicaid policy, the trump administration approving a proposal from kentucky. the states proposals vary widely

. covington, georgia. you are next. caller: how are you doing? thise a good reason why should be implemented. i owned a home in atlanta and i try to work when i could. there were several young ladies who didn't have husbands who lived across the street and i watch them everyday get out of the yard and play around with the drug dealers. every day, they would get out and you can tell they were able-bodied women. they would have three or four children. what i believe is happiness, these women would have to find a

job, it would take away more time and give them more time to work in less time to have babies. point is ifortant you have three children in your able to work in your not working and you are getting medicaid, then you are not -- you are drawing more than that. you really shouldn't be working so you can build yourself a life -- you really should be working so you can build yourself a life. it helps all society. it helps the people that is working. else the babies -- it helps the babies and the mother and father. host: let's hear from a medicaid recipient. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm calling because i am a medicaid recipient. i work at 35 to 40 hours every week. i do have two children. i agree that medicaid recipients

should -- those who are -- not those who are able to provide documentation but those who are able to work, able to get up every day, there should be a requirement because it costs a lot. those who are able to work, they should. host: some of the people have said even if people don't have physical elements, sometimes there are mental and emotional issues. mental is far as the concerned, i have mental issues. i have anxiety. i am able to hold a job. i think it should be left up to if there is a position they see. there should be some kind of should be some kind of documentation.

if they determine whether or not they can work are able to work, then that should be -- they can work or are able to work, then that should be. maryland require you to report some kind of activity? caller: no, i have never been required to report any kind of activity. i do need to provide paystub's. paystubs. host: you don't have to give specific dollar figures but as far as assistance, how much does that supplement what you need to survive? getting?hat all of my i received food stamps and medicaid. -- i receive food stands and medicaid. that is what i receive every month. host: that is kimberly giving us

her experience. telling us about this requirement but her personal story as well. you're invited to do the same. we will continue on with this topic, getting your thoughts on this requirement. it is -- you can call that. we will show you other stores along the way. steve bannon in the news expected on capitol hill where it is reporting where he will meet behind closed doors on tuesday with u.s. house of representatives committee that is probing whether russia meddled in the 2016 election. the interview comes after his public falling out after comments he made. the meeting will come after donald trump junior was told in any bill that the russian government has heard on hillary

clinton -- has hurt -- has dirt on hillary clinton in which he replied, "i love it." jump accused bannon of having lost his mind -- trump accused bannon of having lost his mind. bennett stepped down at breitbart news -- bannon stepped down at breitbart news. cindy from connecticut. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i don't agree with it for a few simple reasons. some of the callers already said. you have some moms that have small children, can't work, the daycare.

it is a little bit more complicated than that. i do work in the health field and i was in medicaid recipient for a couple of years when my husband lost his job. he did get another job right away, and i worked part-time. most medicaid patients do work. 400s just that if you make times below the poverty line here connecticut, you are eligible for medicaid. it is a lifeline. it should be temporary lifeline. everybody needs a safety net. is, i have for me coworkers who were asked to work more hours. they don't because if they do they will go above that poverty line and they will not get their medicaid. that is a problem. too, you're not required report anything of your assets. you can lose your job and get medicaid immediately, but you are never asked what your assets

are. you could be sitting on a $2 million 401k, living in a $1.5 million house. you can have a savings account with a couple of mill in their. .hat is never asked -- in there that is never asked. host: we got it. hollis from illinois. caller: good morning. what i think is that they should get it but i think they should be recertified after certain people of time to determine -- certain tof time to determine if their disability is better or worse. they should have some sort of job training program to assist them to get back into the work system. host: as far as able-bodied people being required to go into the workforce, you don't agree with that. caller: no. host: robert is next and he is

on medicaid from gaithersburg, maryland. caller: i am on medicaid which pays for my social security premium. $100 a month. ed sinceen in special the first grade. i'm dyslexic, i have been diagnosed bipolar. i'm on disability. i can work but i'm afraid i can't work continuously. i am scared to death if i lose -- if i need to go on a hospital which i had many times. what is going to happen when i get out, because i had a job? how long does it take for me to get help again? host: are you worried about these requirements that some states may engage with? do you think that governor hogan

is one of those people? caller: i haven't had enough time to take about that. i just turned on the radio. yeah, i am lord because i don't know -- i am worried because i don't know. -- is there what is a rule book for this, so i know when everybody else that wants to work but is afraid they are and ito fall into a trap will work but i will end up losing my job, going into the hospital. i have never had a two week vacation. i always spend it in the hospital. now i'm on disability and it is helping my health because of my bipolar. working is the most stress of

thing. host: that is robert. he is on medicaid. one of those folks calling us and offering their experience. you can do the same. more stories to show you. the wall street journal, it's headline about nuclear weapons planted by this administration.

that is the wall street journal. if you go to the editorial section of the usa today, an op-ed by the administrator responding to that incident from a couple of days ago. he writes that --

let's go to marry, baltimore maryland. first off, i wanted to know that it is hard to sit here and listen to all of these callers and not be able to directly respond. i agree with bits and pieces of the previous callers statements. first off, the guy that said it will be difficult to do volunteer hours and look for a job when he is working part-time . i was taught that looking for a job as a full-time job. part-time is anything below 32 hours. to to does time volunteer -- time to do volunteer hours. it takes five minutes to enter a job application on monster.

i have worked with individuals who are either unemployed or underemployed and i have had the same conversation with them numerous times, that if you want to better your situation, you need to put the legwork into doing it. i do agree that there needs to be some sort of work requirement, because otherwise i feel like people -- this is not a general statement, this is fully directed at the people who are able-bodied and able to work . there are individuals who are not any different at eight and should not be -- who are not and need their medicaid. they will not be forced. i feel like the individuals that are able to work almost get into a routine where if you were to

find them a 30 hour a week job, it will be overwhelming and it would be too much because they have been out of work for so long and they're used to doing literally nothing. i worked in a position where sometimes individuals were required to do 10 job applications a week and bring in that evidence, and you would not believe how many people said they were not able to complete that. when i asked what they were doing, they had nothing to say for it. host: let's hear from tonya in west virginia. caller: hello c-span. i find it amazing how the rich got there tax cut less than a month ago and here we are at the poor people again. inut these people who call and say, i see this woman with

two or three kids, wealthy don't want these women to have abortions and then when they do have a kid, you squawking about that. they want their benefits but they don't want anybody else to have one. host: tonya to the point of these requirements by the trump administration. caller: i didn't know i was on medicaid until last year. i was put into a mental institution when i was 11 years old. i stayed there for five years. then i went on foster care until i was a little bit before two weeks before i was 21. cholesterol, mental illness since i was nine years old. we will leave it there.

that is tonya giving us a little bit of her take on it. one of the states that are considering these requirements is to -- is kentucky, the governor appearing on pbs newshour to talk about what his state hopes to do with this mission from the trumpet magician and how he plans to tackle that. >> this program is not intended, this expansion of the requirement is not intended for those for whom medicaid was originally designed. it is not intended for those who are primary caregivers or those who are students. if people are already working, then they have met the requirement. if they are not working, they also could take classes toward certification in education that would allow them to find jobs. they could also volunteer in the community. the key is to have them engaged in the communities because it is through the engagement that people have healthier outcomes.

their interaction with people. -- they have interaction with people. it is good for the health and their children. how many of them will it apply to tackle a subset. -- applied to? a subset. it is to create opportunity for people to pursue the american dream. alaska.chorage, david, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. betweenthe difference tonya and carefully? i want to thank kimberly for doing the right thing, keeping a full-time job, having two kids and she is also one of the benefactors of medicaid. -- which ist echo what the original medicaid program was designed for. your viewers need to know you are two programs and medicaid.

there's the original medicaid which was developed and designed to provide for those people who really need health insurance. that is the single parent with children, the severely disabled and also the indigent seniors on medicare. those are the three classifications of people on the original medicaid program. now under medicaid expansion which was a part of obamacare, the rules have changed. all you have to do is fall below a certain income limit to be able to qualify for medicaid. in alaska, there been some real unintended consequences. in alaska, you can make up to $21,000 and still be on medicaid expansion. there is a consequence and that. you can make a lot more money under the table and not report it to the irs. once we did medicaid expansion in alaska, the governor did it, what happened was an entire

population of people came under the program and these are the alaska natives because they use it to subsidize the shortage of funding for indian health service. now they have a surplus. so, what happened is the population in medicaid expansion in alaska is very interesting. only 4% of the people in medicaid expansion -- 40% of the people in medicaid expansion are working. not -- 60% are not working. governor bev and was spot on. this is to help people, to give them their self-worth and dignity and give them some structure in the lives which comes from having a job, getting up in the morning and going to work, benefiting your family.

host: that is david in anchorage giving his thoughts. three days until a potential government shutdown. even if that goes on, work being done on capitol hill when it comes on daca and immigration and efforts to get the government from shutting down, we are going to discuss that. one story to show you from the front page of the new york times on the effort to change some rules for the bank. -- for the banks. he writes --

that stories by alan rapoport. i work in this country since i was 14 years old. administration, they only talk about the bad thing to do to middle-class and rich. most of the people who live on withaid can't even live what they give them. if it wasn't for them, i wouldn't have my apartment.

what about this requirement for able-bodied people than? -- then? caller: you have to look at the case. it is a lot of people right now working in new york. most everybody works for medicaid here in new york. that is able to work. i worked 11 years. do you know how much money is also in 11 years? when i was in the supermarket when i was 14 years old, you know how much money they stole. report howdicaid to some workers spend three years on medicaid. medicaid don't do nothing. on medicaid. host: that is adorno talking

about a proposal from the trump administration. andrew cuomo has an op-ed in the new york times this morning. he talks about criminal justice issues saying --

that is andrew cuomo. nancy, bladensburg, maryland. caller: i just want to share my mom story. she is 60 years old. she has two part-time jobs in virginia. they paid her eight dollars an hour. she doesn't qualify for the program. she tries, she doesn't qualify. the loss.to look into -- into the laws. people are working but they really don't qualify for insurance. they don't offer her medical insurance and then on the other

side, i have a friend in florida who is well able to work but decided that she was not going to do it she has a kid -- do it. she is a kid and her husband as a company. they were only going to put her information down so they can get all those benefits. she really doesn't need this program. i see the two sides of the coin. host: felix and clint would, virginia, on medicaid. caller: yes, i would like to talk about a girl talk about anything these to be done exactly by law. tell them to get off shots back -- get off trump's back.

they turned all of these racist. he won the election fair and square. host: to the point of what we are talking about, these new requirements. caller: he has done a great job on that. medicare, they need to put the doctors doing their job and making sure -- i'm ready to go back to work right now. all i need is a surgery. the doctors is not willing to step up and do the surgery and take care of me so i can go back to work. felix in virginia, one of the people who spoke out about the administration policy was nancy pelosi. making statements last thursday. here is a bit of her statement. >> today the of majority announced medicaid work requirements that are purposed built, they are purposed -- their purpose is to chip away at their -- and our nation's promise of dignity for our working families.

it is really sad. 83% of benefits go to the top 1%. let's talk about working poor people. the elderly, disabled, pregnant women and children all suffer from today's akoni and -- today's tech conan fight. republicans pillaged the middle class, sold our children's future to big corporations and the riches. republicans spent 2017 rigging the system even further against working people and they are planning the same for 2018. host: michael is next. caller: hello. this plan is go to take the poor people and have them working in the fields of stuff to get

medicaid. they are going to do the farming jobs. [indiscernible] to put the poor people out in the fields and if they don't work, they don't get medicaid. that is what they are planning to do. host: if they are able-bodied to work, then why not? caller: [indiscernible] thing with the draft, you don't tell people they are going to bring the draft back. that is part of the republican plan is to bring the draft back but you never talk about it on tv. host: maria from virginia? i think you had a bad connection. long beach, california. hi.er: yes, i think you guys should lay

off the middle-class and poor. i have worked two jobs on my life. [indiscernible] host: the connection is bad. for those of you who are calling in to turned any television because it keeps the conversation flowing. a couple of tweaks to show you. just a couple of tweets to show you.

republicans also giving thoughts on this issue and this effort by the trump administration. we will show you those in a bit. if you want to give your thoughts on this requirement by the trump administration, it is -- brett, a representative from the state was saying it is good to see his kentucky medicaid waiver approved. it will help low income kentuckians rise out of poverty. that is a link to his statement. jim banks from indiana --

you can find those on twitter. if you follow us at c-span the wj -- if you go to our facebook page, you can post their. , all of this information including several segments on medicaid, welfare reform, issues of that nature. if you go to our website at c-span.org, you can see content for months, years perhaps, decades on these topics. florida, hello, you are next. from florida? hello? caller: this is wisconsin. host: go ahead caller:. caller:these people who want

this probably are part of the problem for years. they were attacked when they were young and they are still living the pain. then they are forced out in the community. your disgruntled employees, that should be considered before they come out with something like this, because you don't know what you're getting by mind. great but wes don't know what happened to that person until something goes wrong. george fromgo to jacksonville, florida. caller: hello. and man a woman should go to are breathinge

poverty when women are sitting there having kids by four of five different men. kids with no daddies, women get medicaid at all you're doing is breathing poverty for the united states. host: far rockaway, new york. is --: yes, my concern thank you for taking my call. my concern is everybody may have an able-bodied but if mentally they're not prepared to work, and they need extreme supervision, that takes a lot of time when the people are disabled, particularly young people. i am concerned they need the education to help to overcome the disability, so mentally they can become fit. if the body is fit and people that work in have to supervise

people that are not able to focus, it calls disturb meant just to get medicaid. it defeats the purpose. aside from that, say a person is fit and able to work, would you agree with this effort from the trump administration? caller: if there mentally and physically fit to work. if they are not mentally fit and have a disability, they can be disturbing to other people that are trying to do a job. host: from shirley in texas, hello. caller: yes. i wanted to say to the audience that a lot of people who receive medicaid payments are those patients who have to live in nursing homes. i don't think a lot of people understand that. host: for those who can work. if they are able to, would you

support this move by the administration? caller: if they could work, yes, it is a good thing. a lot of the people who are calling in, if you listen to them, there is a known disability within the conversation that you are having here on the tv. those people, a lot of people don't understand that medicaid patients.ursing home host: one more call, brian in bel air, maryland. caller: identically agree if you're an able-bodied person. i have a family member for the past 13 years who have been on it -- who has been on it was a college education but somewhere along the line, they slipped in and lost the crack's. i do think it should be a requirement.

you should contribute to society somewhat, especially when they are able to. it is a shame you have a college education and you are taking a benefit host: that's brian. bel air, maryland will be the last call on this topic. immigration being debated on capitol hill. steve bannon on capitol hill as well. coming up next, john bennett of roll call covers the white house. have that discussion. later on in the program former bush administration alfonso aguilar on administration policy and the future of daca.

>> the c-span bus continues its 50 capitals tour this month with , atlanta andigh montgomery. follow the tour and join us on wednesday at 9:30 for our stop in raleigh north carolina. our guest is north carolina attorney general joshwednesday . tourweekend, c-span cities takes you to newport rhode .sland we will explore the rich literary scene and historic sites.

working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. q&a author-span's and harvard law school professor noah feldman and his book the three lives of james madison. >> the constitution's medicines monument and in that way -- madison's monument. the way that the government interact. the weighted people speak to each other. all of that is madison's monument. paul'sthe case in st. where christopher wray ends monument says if you seek his monument look around you. if you seek madison monument in washington, d.c. look around you. >> washington journal continues. we have invited those who

cover the white house and congress to join us for a discussion. john bennett for roll call and arit john, thanks for coming on. we will start with the topic of a potential government shutdown. what's the likelihood that we will actually see one happened? -- happen? >> it depends on if republicans are willing to vote for a short-term continuing resolution. right now congressional leaders have acknowledged they won't have time to reach a deal for a full spending bill through the end of the fiscal year. that means will conservatives be willing to vote for this. house republicans leaders are going to meet with the house republican congress -- conference later tonight. democrats are expected to not agree to a short-term continuing resolution because they want a daca deal. republicans are hoping the democrats would rather vote to

keep the government funded then shut the government down over daca. it depends on whether they can get conservative republicans and get the votes to keep the government-funded. host: john bennett, what is the white house looking for on daca? >> no one really knows what the white house is looking for. the president has said he is willing and interested in making it long. he said what president obama did was not legal. he created it through the executive order. we think we know what the president wants. full funding for his wall. that anywhere between $18 billion and $20 billion. the president wants it in one lump sum and he wants it this week if he can get it.

senator dick durbin. lindsey graham apparently tried to tell him in that oval office meeting that that is not how appropriations work here in washington. that he was going to get about 1.6 billion under the first amount of funding to get the wall -- to continue it. there are prototypes being built and the 1.6 would have been the next step in the program. the present wants it all right now. to call that a sticking point is putting it mildly. host: is the president willing to risk a shutdown? >> we will know in the next 24 hours. i believe the president will face reporters at least once. i would anticipate as the week goes on the same thing. so far the president has said maybe there will be a shutdown so he's not ruling it out. he said over the weekend when reporters got some chances to ask some questions. he's not ruling it out. i think it comes down to whether his chief of staff john kelly

and other senior advisers can convince him to take what wall funding he can get right now and keep that program moving. he should be able to sell that to his base. this shouldn't be a heavy lift for the president if he can get $2 billion for the wall. most folks know it takes a while for any government project to move along. host: the headlines of the washington times, president sets democrats up for a shutdown. our democrats willing to take the blame? are they willing to shut down the government over this? >> historically democrats have been more reluctant to shut down the government to get their policy goals done. that is seen as something republicans are more willing to do. democrats are probably going to say we don't control the white house. we don't control the senate. we don't control the house. republicans are in charge of anything and they are shutting down the government one day before the one-year anniversary of winning the white house. it is technically true that they do need them credit votes in the

senate and i think that's where republicans will say all these senators who are up in red states next year didn't help fund the government and you read are going tocans be voting to keep them in office. are you going to keep them in office when they are just obstruct. host: if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. if i am a member of the house freedom caucus and i am looking at passing up on something to fund the government short-term how much of a sticking point would it be for them? think this is an opportunity to push congress and push the president to the right on immigration. we saw last week members of the

house and senate both parties came out of that long meeting with the 50 minute and they agreed on four agenda items. ,aca, border security family-based migration and the diversity visa program. conservatives would like to see an end to the diversity visa program and this is a chance for them to pull the president to the right. in the same meeting we saw him sort of leaning toward i could agree with what senator dianne feinstein wants. that is what conservative republicans don't want. that is not what the president campaigned on and that is what they are trying to remind him of. bennett, how much of the degree to this cockpit process what he said about haiti? >> i was thinking about this over the weekend. at some point last thursday afternoon's felt somewhat like

other shutdown threats we have had in recent years. the politics of a shutdown are just really bad for both parties. they didn't think it was really going to happen. i think what happened over the weekend that is different here, this got personal. welldurbin is very respected. not just democrats but a lot of republicans view him as a straight shooter. they don't feel him as someone who just goes out and lies about the president. now you got chuck schumer who's got to make a decision as was just discussed on freeing his members to vote for this cr. do you stand by durban, do you free members. now you've got all this personal animosity mixed up indo you stay complicated policy and funding issues. i think they find a way out of this by friday night. it's going to be one of those weeks. host: still back-and-forth going

on as to what exactly was said. when will we see daylight on this? everdon't know if we will get the definitive readout of what happened. you're going to have to -- who do you trust. is there a consistent thread in the reports. we know the president said something and he used very tough language. we know there was profanity used. we know the language was not at all flattering for haiti and african countries. i think we know that. we know the president's underlying point. he wants a merit-based immigration system and from there you get off into folks he means by what that. the president has not been at all clear what he means. the underlying point if this is a racial argument from the president or if this is just a policy argument. we have seen republicans

on capitol hill go after sen. burr: and his -- senator durbin and his statements. is that making any impact? >> it's an interesting back-and-forth. some people are also questioning why senators tom cotton and david purdue are saying. they were also in the meeting. first they said they don't recall what was said and they said that senator durbin was misrepresenting and there has also been some discussion of whether maybe the end of that andhouse instead of whole that's what is being used to do the whole that is not what was said. we also saw senator graham seemed to verify what senator durbin said. senator tim scott said that was what was said. senator flake seems to be siding with durban on that. the senators who are in the actual meeting don't seem to have a consensus on what was

said. in this partisan era people are going to believe the person they usually stand with. republicans will believe tom cotton. democrats will believe there met -- durban. let's start with brian this morning. brian joins us from michigan on the independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think we should not shut it down to work on a deal but i have a question for miss john. i am 60 years old from the detroit area. my entire life i heard about slavery and now jim crow. is the black democratic congress telling black people to vote for having illegal mexicans here. aren't they pushing black people once again to the back of the bus and putting illegal immigrants here? host: we will leave it there. i don't know if you want to

tackle that. >> i would just say that democrats are pretty united on the idea that this is a country made up of immigrants and we saw the congressional black caucus really make a point on the diverse the visa program because about 40% of the people who come in from that program are from african countries and that is one reason the cdc has been very actively pro-that program. planning on centering the president for his comments on that phrase that was used. dot: what exactly will this if it does come to pass? >> i think they just wanted on record that the president allegedly said this and they don't approve. it doesn't actually do anything. i think the president might be

angry about it. it wouldn't actually -- there's not really much they can preside angry about it. it wouldn't actually -- there's not really much they can do to actually punch the president. host: any indication about what the white house is thinking about this? >> it doesn't really have any teeth. there is a high likely would that the president won't like it and that we will hear from maybeent trump about this even as soon as today. he will sound off and i think again it just feeds into this narrative or pressure of trying to get something done this week and the president is going to be blasting democrats. he's going to be going after durban. he's going after the cbc. a really ugly week is probably ahead. host: on the line for democrats, washington, d.c. morning.ood i am an african american scientist. i am a proud scientist. i am for a clean daca bill.

aree people in this country the high educated people. we should be proud of them. if this government shuts down , theyp, the republicans own it. the president owns this is the government shuts down. destined to control the congress and the senate as things go on. and the young lady there, i am proud of her. she reminds me of my daughter. destined to control the congress and theand the thie people are going to own this. the president, i am ashamed of this man. i have a warning for our democrat leaders. lady, i want to remind every that we vote from now on. this man was not elected by the popular vote. thank you. john bennett, the potential of a clean daca bill. i think the president is going to have to feel like he is

getting something. he is not just going to sign a clean daca bill despite what he said to senator feinstein. host: he said it should be an effort of love. >> one minute he is saying it should be a bill of love. the next he is signing -- siding with kevin mccarthy. he is tweeting that it has to have funding for his wall. really a complicated situation for legislators right now. in both parties how do you write legislation to get the signature of the president who on tuesday says he will sign a clean daca and seems to side with senator feinstein of all people and later he is tweeting that it has to have full funding for his border wall. there is no consistency right now from the president. i don't think a clean bill is going to get attached to a short-term spending bill that a few weeksthere is and they get f here on thursday night.

it's goingit's going to be a loe consultative and the president will have to feel like he is getting something and that seems to be border wall funding north of the 1.6. host: who is doing the work on capitol hill now to bring that to the president? aids for the whips in the house and senate are meeting today and they are planning another meeting between those leaders and we have heard speaker ryan and nancy pelosi say that group before. durbin, senator corbin. majority leader mccarthy and steny hoyer. that's the group to watch to see what happens. this bipartisan group of senators tried. the white house rejected them. it is up to what they come up with. host: gruber is next in virginia on the democrat line. everybody seems to forget that one of the promises he made when he was campaigning

is that mexico would pay for the wall. he is demanding mexico pay for the wall instead of being a liar. if they would take the money to his spends traveling vacation and his children, $3 million every time he goes down to florida. that would pay for the wall. thank you. host: the funding aspects of it. >> mexico has made it clear they are not paying for the wall. at this point i think the president has said maybe there's a chance they will pay for it through nafta negotiations. right now the issue is getting congress to appropriate the funds for the wall. it also comes down to what does the wall mean. what does it look like. we have seen the definition of the wall change from 2000 miles to$18 billion worth of wall maybe some technology. maybe some different types of materials used. maybe not the whole wall.

maybe address the fact that there are rivers and mountains and other issues that prevent the wall from covering the whole border. we do know the president wants to be able to say that he got some money for some sort of wall. it's not clear what that means. host: who in the white house will ultimately determine what this wall looks like or what consists of it? >> i think john kelly's chief of staff was homeland security secretary. he was commander of southern command when he was still a marine corps general. kelly on immigration, he and stephen miller depending on the day, miller will have something to say. he's going to be heard internally about this. john kelly is really driving the ship so to speak. i can tell you that white house aides have worked hard over the last few months to steer the president away from at least publicly saying mexico is going

to pay for the wall. they didn't want him to mention it. and if he did senior aides wanted him to talk in those terms that the nafta reorganization will create money for the u.s. federal government to pay for the wall. ask congress for it first. renegotiate nafta and some of those benefits after the fact can be steered back into that program. reportedly as nafta negotiations are having a tough go at it. >> it's not going smoothly. i don't think anyone expected that it would. this is a heavy lift when you've got three countries and very complicated trade issues. it's not clear that they're going to get there and it is not clear what happens if they don't. president trump has threatened to just remove the united states from nafta. i have been on the hill talking to folks, lawmakers and aides on the republican side. they are not so sure the president would follow through

with that threat. it's just another one of these huge question marks hanging over this presidency. host: do they competing visions over what the wall should be? >> i think they're somewhat of a competing vision. when the steven miller's of the world, the more nationalist. it was steveo say bannon driving the america first agenda. i think stephen miller is really the force behind that and i think in his mind it's more wall. the physical wall. the reinforced steel concrete wall. john kelly has been out there. former marine. former commander. he understands terrain. the rivers, the mountains. since kelly arrived at the white house we have heard more about fencing in places. you've got a raging river it's very dangerous to try to cross. you don't need anything there.

instead of encompassing the kelly border since arrived in early august we have heard this change that it's not going to be this giant concrete reinforced steel structure. you can do other things. even sensors, drones. host: john bennett reports on the white house for roll call. we also joined by arit john. next is shelby from tennessee. independent line. caller: hello. c-span for giving americans a voice when they otherwise don't feel it would have one. at least i don't. and the government possible shutdown i am wondering exactly what exactly does that mean and why if it's just a matter of err on the time to

side of caution because there are so many issues to me that would be common sense. host: ok. what do we mean by a government shutdown? down the government shuts there are still essential services that will keep running no matter what. nonessential government employees will basically be sent home and waiting for their paycheck to come in. that is the logistics of what a government shutdown would mean. then there's the political question of what that would mean. that would be up to people like our caller deciding who is responsible for this. keeping the government running is one of the basic rules of congress and if they can't do that there are questions of why did we elect you when you can't even do your basic job? host: in pennsylvania, republican line. you are next. hi. pedro. hi

i waited so long. i have so much to say. people should not be listening to dick durbin because he was a troublemaker in the obama administration. and we need wall -- the wall. we need to look at the amocratic party which is failure party especially for black people. they have done nothing for andks in all of these years they want to flood the united states with illegal immigrants and that means that the black people have to go to the back of the bus. host: ok. to the topic on capitol hill. steve bannon. appearing before the house intelligence committee. why is he there? >> the house intelligence committee has said that this is something that predates the .ichael wolff book

the comments that he made in the book will inform their questioning. he said the july 26 meeting in trump tower with the russian and hel was treasonous believes they probably took those people to meet with donald trump. that is sort of what's going to come up in that meeting. obviously it is behind closed doors. we are not sure. to theow does he get place where it is behind closed doors and not open? >> he said it was a voluntary meeting i believe. that's just the way they decided to go about it. how does it impact future testimony from corey lewandowski? on the one hand republicans are trying to wind down these investigations in the house and senate. i think the ban and comments and ban in meeting, there's going to be a lot more focus on the trump tower meeting and why it

happened on whether the president actually did meet those individuals. the president has sort of denied any knowledge of this meeting and russian collusion. what's the level of concern about this testimony today? >> it is pretty high. that's the collusion part of all of this. steve bannon and especially hope hicks. i know republicans probably don't want to go here the democrats on the house intelligence panel will. they are going to want to know about that air force one memo about don jr. that the president allegedly dictated to hope hicks. and she could invoke executive privilege here. she's the indications director now so she may not even testify. the steve bannon timing is convenient for democrats this week is been and

probably knew something about that memo and how it transpired on air force one. what was said. what did the president insist they do. the memo wasn't exactly -- it doesn't seem like it was as factual as it should have been. the president allegedly trying to cover for his son. of this these investigations are about collusion with the russians during the election. thehe other hand obstruction question. democrats are the panel are probably going to try to drill down with panel and -- abandon -- bannon if they get a chance. with bannon and lewandowski they are also going to want to try to get this obstruction question. host: there are several of these types of hearing on capitol hill. is this the only one that van and -- abandon -- bannon will

appear at? >> the senate judiciary committee which is running their own sacred line of inquiry will want to hear from them as well. host: from daytona beach, arnold is next. you are on with our guest. with mr. trump, we thought we were going to get somebody that could make deals. he is more and more showing me that he is just basically -- it's his way or the highway. vote, i put him up there because we got the senate and the congress. he can't get along even with his own people. i will be voting democrat in 2018. i'm going back to the democratic party.

and i would like to make another comment if you will let me. on a subject you had before. host: we have to keep it in the context of this. inc. you the segue into 2018. everything going on this weeks ultimately affects the midterm elections. we saw the president meet with kevin mccarthy at mar-a-lago. we heard that at camp david he abouted a report potential outcomes of this election. talk about the role kevin mccarthy plays in all of that. >> kevin mccarthy even though he didn't secure the support to become speaker when paul ryan eventually did he is very plugged in to his caucus. he is very plugged in with his members. they have.e concerns he is seeing all of the polling data from the rnc from the house congressional operation.

he can play that role for trump. dialed uspresident back or do more of this. interesting reporting over the views mccarthymp emerging as his fixer. especially in the house. an interesting role for mccarthy. i certainly didn't expect it. we will see how long he stays in trump's orbit. go in and outly rapidly. i think that's the role he can play going into the midterms is to let the president know what they're are worried about, what they are feeling, what their own polling data might be saying and byn can the president help maybe not jumping on air force one to go give a speech somewhere. host: talk about the influence. >> kevin mccarthy is well respected and well liked and i think that he is an ideal person to be the liaison between the

president and members as they are looking ahead to 2018. we saw the tax bill passed at the end of last year and republicans were hoping that would be a turning point to say you give us the white house, you give us congress and here is our legislative achievement. you're going to start seeing more money in your paychecks and that would lead to more legislative achievements. maybe an infrastructure deal this year. they're hoping they can get the president to stay on track and by derogatorycted comments about african countries .nd books like fire and fury to focus on legislative achievements so they can go home and say look at what we did for you. please vote us back. host: 30 retirement announcements. what is leadership thinking about the potential of the 2018 elections? >> they are concerned. i think we are seeing some retirements are committee chairs

who can't run again. they will end up eating backbenchers. maybe some of the are worried about being backbenchers in the minority. charlie dent and the orange county retirement representatives, those are seats that republicans depending on how frank they are being if they say they are either gone or definitely in danger. more of those retirements that , the more concerned republicans should be and the more optimistic democrats are. host: how much of a force will he be in those midterm elections as far as campaigning and other matters? glimpse later a this week. he's going to southwestern pennsylvania. another special election for a house seat should be safely republican. democrats see an opening here and the president is going to shore up the base and keep them

engaged. it's an open question. very interesting caller saying he is going back to the democrats because the president has not been able to make these deals. i think you're are absolutely right that republicans in both mccarthyand i'm sure has delivered this message to theyresident this weekend need more accomplishments to really begin campaigning in earnest. every time the president seems to take a step forward in dealing with congress he takes and it's these situations of his own making for lack of a better term. he kind of shoots himself in the foot. we saw it last week with the comments on immigration and then his response trickling down on everything. it makes it very hard for his allies on capitol hill. host: on the independent line from salem massachusetts, this is megan. caller: i wanted to say that i

think the government will definitely shut down because of trump probably. i think the republican party definitely bit off too much when they chose trump. i think they definitely took a chance and a lot of their party members are going to be leaving. that's all i want to say. thank you. betweeny connection people leaving these retirements and directly about the influence of trump? >> republicans have said there tired of -- a lot of being on the hill is asking republicans. the president tweeted this, the president said this. what do you think about that. he sent out the first tweet saying that this bill was used to help government spy on my committee. the government is thinking we are trying to vote on this this afternoon and we don't know if

we have the votes and here's the president treating against this bill. speaker ryan had to call the present and that he tweeted a follow-up. constant chaos uncertainty about what's going on. people's constituents wondering what's going on. our previous caller saying trump is too uncertainty about much 'o the democrats. the idea of elections are hard, you have to run every two years in the house and this year looks like a democratic wave. people are saying enough is enough. host: john bennett? >> it was interesting the president tweeting criticism of .hat program republican leaders feeling they had the votes that morning and the white house dispatched john kelly and mark short. they were in the republican cloakroom off the house chamber making sure the votes were there.

tweets.d the there was a second tweet from the president saying he did support it in one of the house to pass it. they had to stop what they were doing and dispatch john kelly to the house chamber to make sure they got that bill passed. howple of the president and erratic he can be and how it really cockpits things. curtis froms missouri. caller: my understanding is californians in texas and mexico, nevada and arizona -- you all used to be part of mexico. if they all want to be part of the united states why don't we let them put it to a vote and see if they would actually want to join the united states. we would have to build a border wall. i have met a lot of people from mexico. they work around here. they are really nice people. they work really hard for pesos

and pesos aren't really worth anything. i don't know what the exchange rate is right now. if you get paid a dollar and you go down to mexico you might get 16 pesos or somewhere in the neighborhood. host: let's hear from arizona. joining us on the independent line. caller: good morning. i'm calling today about integrity or the lack thereof in washington. how can seven elected officials withto a room and come up four or five different statements? why do we trust these people? how can the dutch press hold our ambassadors more to what they say that our own press corps? the wayg is wrong with he is attacking our press and it not because he's intelligent.

it's because he does it out of audacity of his ignorance. and the fact that he has never had a job in his life or work today in his life. host: ok. who wants to start? presshink the white house corps has done a pretty good job in pointing out some of these inconsistencies and pretty false statements from the president. we ask, we press during the daily briefing. i can tell viewers that myself and others behind the scenes at the white house are asking questions all day. popping up toe sarah sanders office. people are working their sources. we arettacking the press still doing our job. we are working extremely hard and at least where i am most days at the white house press corps has tried its best to hold the president accountable and point out a lot of these. host: he is supposed to hold his own media awards?

where are we on that? >> that's a good question. i am in the pool on wednesday and i have asked for my own planning purposes if this is going to be the president after she goes back upstairs at the end of the workday. is it going to be a twitter event or an actual event on wednesday and they just kind of will let they say we you know when we have more on that. what we sure exactly are going to say. my guess is this may just be the president tweeting some of this. i don't know if we are going to see an actual event. that could just add to a wild weekend. , is this ajohn continuing story in your mind or will it eventually die down? >> i think there is definitely going to be a new controversy that will draw our attention in a few days. as far as the daca deal this

does hurt negotiations. there is mistrust that is brewing partially because in --t meeting the comments that is the meeting where the president shot down the deal and he previously said i will sign you guys bring to me. they brought him a deal and he said no, back to the drawing board. in follow-up tweets he said you have set this back. the daca deal is dead because democrats just want to talk. we are seeing basically the of the deal. this week members are back. we have seen other members saying that regardless of what was said in that meeting we need to focus on passing a deal of some sort and help these kids because dr. ann's on march 5. ends on march 5. good morning.

we always hear that we need immigrants for agriculture because no americans want to do work because the wages are so low because they can get illegal immigrants to do it and they can't protest. look at the hundreds of years of work because the wages are manufacturing and machines that have been made to take care of the hard manual labor that is done on farms. there is no reason why artificial intelligence and machines couldn't be used to pick strawberries and do the agriculture that illegal immigrants are discriminated against and paid low wages for to do that. you have a republican on please ask him why they didn't bother to take the daca executive order to court to have its constitutionality questioned. illegal and it wasn't incremented. why couldn't they have dumb the same thing with daca? how many daca recipients or realized once they became of age when they were -- that their

parents illegally trafficked them came to the government to try to rectify their illegal status so they could be here legally? host: i don't know how all of those things get result. could there be some result of all of these issues? kids areof these daca either in the workforce or they are educated and they are going these are not -- i don't know how agriculture fits into that. the president has said we love the daca kids. that was the one thing it seems that everybody in that big meeting last week agreed on. of urgencyis a sense that we want to help these kids. and that even though republicans in the president believe that the daca executive order was unconstitutional they still ofee with the general idea

these kids through no fault of their own came into this country and have made an effort to be part of our country and they deserve a chance to stay here and contribute. host: john bennett. we are going to see eventually -- i think daca gets addressed. i don't think it gets addressed this week. the main person to watch this week is chuck schumer. drops this threat that you have to tie a government funding bill this week to the daca fix. we have seen senate democrats before threaten things like a shutdown and thenwe have seen ss say we are not the party that shuts the government down. we don't believe in that. we have an assurance from leader mcconnell and speaker ryan that we are going to get this done in the next few weeks. vote going to go ahead and for another two weeks spending bill.

just on past performance it tells me that's where we are headed. i think it will be a bumpy ride getting there. host: from oklahoma republican line, this is caring. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just thinking the border agents say that we need the wall. i don't know who would know more than they would. and so what if it is a couple of billion. obama spent 10 trillion and we have nothing to show. the democrats aren't willing to shut down the government over our opioid addiction and all of the people that are dying from that, all of our sons and daughters. they are not willing to shut down the government because we have military planes falling out of the sky because they cut the military so tight. there are not willing to shut down the government over teachers pay. want to keep illegals in here so they have more democrat votes. we feel sorry for the daca kids

but it's nobody's fault but their own parents and they should have already gone in and tried to get the legal citizens. that karen from oklahoma. ultimately to gets the blame if a government shutdown happens. aboutocrats are concerned being the ones who withheld the vote that actually shut down the government but i do think they blamelame republicans and the failure to reach a daca deal. they will point to the president's tweets. they will point to the fact that we negotiate in good faith and this is what we got for it. the derogatory comment and the denials about whether it happened. i think republicans will say there are other issues that you guys haven't pressed. end daca is to march 5 and you are not negotiating in good faith and you withheld the both -- but -- vote.

there is also the symbolic nature of it. 19 ise 19th -- january the deadline. there's the state of the union. republicans don't want to go to that with the state of the lien is we shut down government last week. host: what is the government line for the white house? >> the president wants to set himself up to be able to blame democrats. he loves to have a culprit and that of senator durbin. i think you see the beginnings of white house messaging. if the government does shutdown it's because of the proposal that senator durbin brought over. i will point out that bill was written by senator durbin. other democrats had influenced that process and it had almost $2 billion for the border wall. democrats are not opposed to giving the president funding for the border wall.

right now it feels like a fight over how much you would get in this fiscal year. if the president feels he has a culprit and he feels it's a winning message and it doesn't have to be a winning message for the majority of the country or even the majority of republicans. if he feels he's got a solid message for that 30% to 35% that makes up his base than he may feel comfortable going ahead with a shutdown of a week or less because again a lot of what the president does is for the 35% that make up his base. host: roger in illinois. democrat line. caller: pedro. good morning. i am a first-time caller. i just want to tell the democrats, stand your ground. that's a government shutdown. the republicans will own it. i want to ask the gentleman about the russian money-laundering going on. with donald trump.

ok.: the alleged money-laundering going on with trump and his company. again i don't think anybody has proven that. we don't know if the special counsel robert mueller has proven that. and reportinge from nbc and others that he is definitely looking into that or at least a trail that might lead him there. we don't know the extent to which that's the focus of mueller's investigation right now. itre's evidence to suggest is part of it. we don't know how big right now. host: msnbc reporting that steve bannon is at the u.s. capitol for that meeting. we are keeping a camera on that actual meeting that will take place.

calle we go to our next jeff flake expected to make a speech directly targeting the president. what do we expect to hear? >> we expect him to basically condemned thespeech directly tae president. way the president has spoken about the media. we saw jeff flake when he announced he wasn't going to run. it was because he didn't feel that he could run the campaign he wanted in the current political climate. basically that he would have to sort of except some things that the president is doing. way the president has spoken about the media. that trade him up to be a harsh critic of the president the way he has attacked the media and acted on other issues. have seen that around the hill. he has been more afraid to say -- free to say the president shouldn't be doing that. this will be a big speech and it will be interesting to see how the president reacts on twitter. host: reports that mitt romney is interested in running for the

senate to take orrin hatch's seat. any word on how he would be received? be very well received. senator hatch has said that he likes him. jeb bush tweet this week that -- mitt romney had tweeted something that martin luther king day and jeb bush said he would be a great addition tojebe senate. the question is what kind of senator would he be. but he continue to be a harsh critic of the president as we saw last year and during the political campaign or would he take the lindsey graham route as a critic before but now i want to work with the president. host: we saw the president directly implore orrin hatch to stay in the seat. as the white house concerned about what kind of senator mitt romney could be? >> they definitely are. lindsey graham was critical.

she said i have been working on these issues for over 10 years. even longer in some cases. they are concerned that romney would be a voice. mostly. even though jeff flake's of the world criticized the president, they also vote with him. i don't think there is much evidence that mitt romney would vote against the president. maybe on something like a short-term cr or something like that. it would still be a safe vote for the president. they just don't want the optics of someone like mitt romney who is a national name coming on programs like this and criticizing the president. they are concerned. they really wanted senator hatch to run again. heard senator hatch and other really veteran republican senators say that president trump might turn out to be the best president in modern history.

praiseoves that kind of especially from republicans and hatch was one of the ones saying those things. connecticut, john is next. caller: let's hit the reset button. a little schoolhouse rock. the republicans cannot shut down the government unless some of them vote against this bill. if they all vote for it -- same thing with the president. he cannot shut down the government unless he vetoes the bill. the only people that can shut down the government are the senators -- the democratic senators who wouldn't vote for cloture which means you've got to get to the silly 60 vote limit. so i don't know why they still have that. they should just eliminate that because the republicans have 51 votes and they could easily pass the budget. i just wanted to make a comment about arit john. i'm very impressed with her reporting. i like the fact that she doesn't put much commentary in her

response. i would like to see a lot more of those younger reporters on c-span. is he right in this perspective? >> about me? host: as far as the governor's role -- government's role. >> he is right that technically democratic senators are the ones who would shut down the government and i think that is the case that republicans are going to make and it is a little hard if those democratic senators don't vote for a cr it will be hard for them to make the case that they didn't shut down the government and i think that we will see heading into the election that they will be blamed for it. they didn't vote for the tax bill. they might not vote for future legislative deals like infrastructure and this will be one more thing to say your senator is an obstructionist. is part of the chuck schumer wing of the party.

they are just puppets for the democratic establishment and you should vote for the republican who is running in their place. host: montana is next. caller: good morning. directorally the state in the modern whig party montana. for those of you that are fed up with the fringes on both sides i invite you to go to modernwhi g.org. we are modern centrists and primarily veteran driven. the republicans controlled the house and the senate and the executive branch so if anybody shuts down the government it will be the republicans. wall.e to paraphrase one of the greatest commanders in history of this country fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. the areas that will has been built they have been going over it and under it. the majority of drugs coming into this country are not coming

across the border. they are coming through our ports of entry thanks to nafta and the majority of illegals in this country are here on visas that they have overstayed. -- showed more mexicans are returning to mexico and are coming in. people think we have to build a wall, let's help mexico build one on their side of the border. , we haven bennett looked at daca as a program. what about these other programs that allow people from other countries into the united states? what's the status report on reconsideration of those programs by the administration? >> it looks like the visa lottery program there's bipartisan support in the white house is very much behind it to end that program. to include chain migration in any kind of change -- legislation right now is going to have to be a form of compromise.

maybe phasing it out slowly. ramping it down to a certain level. the president did reject that. a gram durban bill would have started reducing it. it's going to take some compromise. there is agreement on fixing daca. there is agreement on the visa lottery program. not quite there yet on chain migration. host: how willing are republicans and democrats to compromise on these programs? >> we already saw some compromise from democrats on chain migration. they even reject that phrasing. they prefer family-based migration. they don't understand what that has to do with daca. they don't understand what the diversity visa program has to do with daca. with the family-based migration depending on who you are trying to bring over waitlist is like 15 to 20 years. the white house put out a

graphic a few months ago that shows layers and layers of people bringing their relatives and people pointed out that is over several generations. is not like one immigrant bringing 10 people over in their lifetime. arecrats feel like they already compromising just by including that in this conversation. anything beyond a clean daca bill they view as a compromise. host: oklahoma. hello. i want to let everyone in america know that everyone in andhoma is not as ignorant misinformed. there are lots of good people. oklahoma. host: ok. we will move to lauren in minnesota. >> good morning. this is america. since when do we reward people for doing wrong? if the kids come illegally they should send them all back.

why split up the families. debbie wasserman schultz said weiss and into a country where they don't know their language. that's baloney because they say over half of them don't know our language so they would be right at home. democrats say they are for border control. sot would be border control what are they trying to say. i think america has to stand up for our rights and don't reward people for doing wrong. host: even if we talk about the are other daca there legislative accomplishments that both congress and the white house want to take care of before the election. what's left on that list and what's the potential of getting done? >> i think the big one is infrastructure. that is something the president had campaigned on a trillion dollar infrastructure plan. i think we saw bernie sanders campaign on infrastructure spending. unions like infrastructure

spending. it creates jobs. we do need to repair roads and bridges and broadband. the question is how do you pay for it. have seen the administration proposed 200 billion in taxpayer dollars compared with private funding for state and local funding. democrats don't like the idea of a public-private partnership on infrastructure. there have been reports that the president doesn't think that works. there's the question of something that all sides agree on should be something to work on but how do you pay for it. can you reach a bipartisan deal and will we see people like red state democrats to what they did with tax reform saying we want to work with the president and then they get the final legislative tax and they are like actually i can't vote for this. >> the white house before the holidays also infrastructure is the big one. they were also talking about some sort of welfare reform and other entitlement bill.

that has year's day really fallen off their priorities list. sarah sanders last week kicked off a list of 2018 priorities and welfare reform was nowhere to be found. try to get something done on immigration in the next few weeks, and infrastructure bill will be a heavy lift. keep an eye on the senate. slowlyate is still plodding away, and trump and senator mcconnell want to remake the federal judiciary. that i think will become one of the big focuses of 2018 when justices-- how many can they get through the system? host: thank you for joining us today. coming up, a discussion about immigration policy, the future of daca, and efforts by puerto

rico to be a state. aguilar, with the immigration policy and future of daca. ♪ >> the c-span bus continues its 50 capital store this month with stops in raleigh, atlanta, and montgomery. will speakit, we with state officials during "washington journal." join us on wednesday at 9:30 eastern for our stop in raleigh, north carolina with our guest, the north carolina attorney general. , c-span's cities tour takes you to newport, rhode island.

with the help of our cox communications partner, we explore newport's literary scene. watched c-span's cities tour of newport, rhode island, beginning saturday at noon eastern on c-span2, and sunday on american history tv at c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. sunday on c-span's cute and day, all -- q&a noah feldman and his book. >> the constitution is madison's way, the and in that constitution is all around you when it comes to washington, d.c., the three-part structure of government, the way the government interacts, the way people speak to each other, all of that is medicines monument. -- madison's monument. mr. for rims monument says, if you seek it, look around you.

>> q and a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is alfonso aguilar, the president of the latino partnership for conservative principles, and served in the officer of chief of citizenship from 2003 to 2009. what is your corn organization? guest: we have been around for about nine years, and arming goal is to promote a conservative message -- our main goal is to promote a conservative message to the hispanic community. ronald reagan believed they were conservative but they did not know it. he did not mean it in a condescending way. he just meant if we engage them, they will respond favorably to our message. host: as far as the issues of daca, what do you think the

message that latinos are getting , given the current debate? guest: the messaging from the republican side is not very good, but specifically when you think of donald trump, with hispanics at the end it will be more about actions and words. he may say whatever he wants, that at the end if he is able to deliver a deal that includes relief for dreamers, hispanics will respond favorably to that. i suspect democrats know that, so there are some who are very cynical on the democratic side. wantt to -- i think they to make sure that does not happen, to keep immigration as a wedge issue for political gain. it is a tough issue. we do not know exactly what will happen this week. i hope they can reach a deal and cooler minds can prevail on both sides. let's be real and frank.

why we are here, ironically, is because of donald trump. he ended the program and called daca, soss to legalize we have an opportunity. host: as far as the six senators who presented a concept deal, what did you think and is that something you could have gone along with? guest: in general, yes. the problem is that it is how you go about doing this. while i respect senator graham and senator flake, they have been negotiating with senator durbin. senator durbin cannot negotiate with his republicans of choice. the white house has been talking to senator cornyn, the majority whip, and now with kevin mccarthy. they are part of what they call the number two group on immigration. if you want to get something done, you want to make sure that as part of a negotiation you include those individuals.

the problem is durbin talking to graham and flake, excluding cornyn and kevin mccarthy, they go to the white house. who set the meeting? kevin mccarthy. senator cornyn, they did not include him in the conversation. we saw the reaction from the president. i do not justify. it was terrible language to people across the globe, but i think it is important to them. i appreciate their efforts, but they do have to work with other senators who can make this viable and an sure they can get republican votes in the senate. jeff flake cares about immigration, but i do not think there is any point he cannot sway any republican in the senate. host: give us a call to talk to alfonso aguilar, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

independents, (202) 748-8002. what personally would you like to see for a daca deal and what that include a path to citizenship? guest: i would like to see a full dream act with a path to citizenship. the mass majority of them contribute greatly to the economy. i realize that politics are the art of the possible, so we have to include the other elements, but i would limited to those three additional elements the president talked about -- ending chain migration, and what he means is doing away with visa categories that benefit children adults andts who are are married, and also sisters and brothers. doing away with the visa lottery program, and including funding for strategic fencing, i think those things are important.

ironically, i see democrats politicizing this, saying they are against the wall, but not so far ago democrats were supporting strategic fencing. a voted in the senate by a margin of 80-20 and the secure fence act passed, calling for a 700 mile extension of double layer fencing. chain migration, democrats are saying that is a racist term. recently senator durbin was talking about chain migration. let's go back to the u.s. commission on immigration reform that barbara jordan, and african-american democratic congresswoman chaired, calling for the end of chain migration. i think we should do away with those visa categories, but not reduce the number of immigrant visas. right now what is being proposed is not really reducing immigrant visas, which is great.

some's -- some conservatives would like to see a reduction in legal immigration. what is on the table is not that, just doing away with a specific type of visa. i would think we can reach an agreement on this, but as i said, there are strong political forces on both sides. on the republican side, a small minority of republicans who want to use this to please a very small but loud nativist base, and on the last, there are some that would prefer to have an issue rather than a solution so they can go into the midterm elections and say trump and republicans are racist, and democrats care about immigrants and hispanics. it is very simplistic. there is a lot of agreement. going to the hill for the past two months and meeting with republican members, they are willing to negotiate. democrats and republicans that

are serious about this debate are very close on the issues. sometimes you hear the public debate and it is totally unrelated to the policy discussions. we need to lower the decibels a little bit and have a serious conversation. i understand the president's stir, weaused a big have to put that aside for the good of the nation and our immigration policies, and the dreamers. members of congress cannot stop dealing with a tough issue -- the tough issues the country faces every time donald trump says something outlandish. host: alfonso aguilar, the first call comes from arkansas, robert in harrison, arkansas, democrats line. caller: i appreciate your comments, but the thing is missing in this conversation, these people working here and have been working here for generations are being hired. the northwest part of arkansas, we have pinnacle hills where all

the families from this area live, those houses were all built by undocumented laborers. hasow one labor -- labor 50. he talks about his mexicans. the statesme of when brought the woman of adultery to jesus. employers are not being -- there are trillions of dollars that are back owed. i had a friend put on a new crew, and he did not send 1099s, but they came in on him and he owed $75,000 in back taxes. e-verify is not the deal. host: thank you. guest: that is a very good questioning of the problem. it is true that many employers are irresponsible and knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. there is a bill in the house introduced by sherman goodlatte

and mccall of texas that would electronicerify, and verification system that allows employers to determine whether a prospective employee has legal status. look, i think that is important, but at the same time we have to recognize that our economy needs foreign workers. and it needs them at both ends of the labor market, folks with advanced degrees and folks that may not have education, that may who are doing jobs in construction and agriculture that are necessary for our economy, and necessary to create jobs for americans. i understand there are americans who will take jobs in construction and agriculture, but the reality is that americans generally do not want , or there are no

americans of working age to do them. there is a population issue. some believe the u.s. is overpopulated. i do not believe that. in an economy like ours, a free economy, we are going to need more population, a healthy population growth to be able to grow. the native population is not growing. we have to ensure we have the access to those foreign workers that we need. the legal priority should be to hire american workers, but if a company cannot find those american workers, they should be able to bring in the foreign workers they need. host: mickey in lake have a c city, arizona, good morning. , arizona, good morning. caller: i have to thank mr. aguilar for being so balanced. it is a breath of fresh air.

we have a program that ensures schooling, first grade through 12th, free. i suppose i am not sure, is that in the bill of rights? case,her thing is in that why, if you are not here as a citizen going into our schools, why do not have to have some kind of special government pass in order to get into the schools? why do we have to fill our schools? we have created daca, and i think the huge majority of us want to solve that problem and allow these youngsters to stay, but you have to plot the whole. host: thanks. guest: that is a good question. the outset, that undocumented immigrants do not have access to federal benefits. education, however, is one of them, and that is based on a ruling from the supreme court that said public schools have to guarantee access to undocumented

children. that is a reality. we want to make sure the people that are here have access to education. we do not want to marginalize them. i think what we want to do is to ensure that they have a path to legal status, and that their parents are paying taxes. however, their parents may be undocumented immigrant but many or perhaps most are paying taxes . paying taxes, even though they do not have access to federal benefits. i understand your position, but i think it is good for the country to ensure that those children receive schooling. i think the alternative is to provide them a path to legal status. host: june lake, california, republican line, lynn, go ahead. caller: good morning. the daca kids have some responsible adult in their life, which is never spoken of.

you always hear about how much they contribute to our society and that they need to be let in because they contribute billions, whatever. but they do not talk about the parents that brought them here. somebody needs to be accountable. englishte them, we pay language learner teachers. they may not get federal, but they get so much state benefits. a get medical and so much stuff, and that is why everybody is pretty angry, because the truth is not spoken to how much money. you can go on the website for the state of california and see what is available to them. also, this obviously -- these daca kids have been here and they are 30 years old, which is my kids' age group. honestly, whoever was in power at that time, this has been an

issue for that long. trump is trying to fix it and now he is the bad guy. i do not know who is responsible for this mess, but i know in california they are competing against my kids for jobs. they get the jobs because they are bilingual. my kids are not. host: thanks. guest: you are from california, i understand your concerns. i would oppose to you that the economic problems that california is facing is not because of immigrants, but because of big policies promoted by the state. we need to have welfare reform in this country. -- we have ay welfare system that is way too expansive and i think we need to reform it. i would propose that i do not think it is immigrants who are costing -- causing the economic problems that california is facing. in california, over 50% of the

agricultural production comes from an agricultural business in california, that would collapse if you did not have access to foreign workers. this is a very important issue. there is this impression that immigrants are taking jobs away from americans for lowering wages. that is -- or lowering wages. that is simply not true. they are taking jobs americans do not want or for which no americans are working age. by filling those jobs, you ensure you can create good paying jobs for american workers . some say immigrants are killing the middle-class. if we followed restrictionist and nativist policies, we will kill the middle-class. immigration is a pro growth policy. ronald reagan believed that and believed in having a healthy immigration policy, but we have to ensure it is consistent with the order of law, we have border

security, and i appreciate what mr. trump has said. i support fencing along the southern border. heroin comeshe from the southern border. fencing works and the democrats have supported it in the past, so i support president trump but i think we need to have a more balanced bait and based on fact -- more balanced debate, and based on fact. host: the latest tweets from president trump, he writes "the democrats want to shut down the democrat -- the government, amnesty for all. the biggest loser will be our rapidly rebuilding military, at a time we need it more than ever. need a merit-based system of immigration, and we need it now." guest: in principle, i agree with that. i do not think we should blink

immigration -- link immigration debate to the government shutdown. i do believe there is an opportunity in january to get a deal. let's work toward that. i think the democrats are playing politics with the wall. it is important, they supported it in the past, and they look hypocritical saying a wall is not necessary. host: another tweet from the president -- we must have security at our very dangerous southern border, and we must have a great wall to help protect us and stop the massive inflow of drugs pouring into our country. very dangerousth " southern border," do you agree? guest: border security has increased dramatically under president trump, and we have to give him credit, that it is still dangerous in certain areas of the border where there is actual criminal activity, drug trafficking. there are areas in texas and the

rio grande valley that are totally out of control. it has improved, but we need to strengthen border security to reduced even further the number of detentions. host: he uses the word "wall" all caps. about when we are talking the public discourse and the policy discourse, no one is proposing, congress or the white house, a 2000 mile wall. in the public, that is the debate we are having. host: the perception. guest: we are talking strategic fencing in areas where there is drug trafficking, a lot of illegal entry, but nobody is talking about 2000 miles. there are areas of the border that have natural barriers that simply do not need fencing. obviously, andp, the president talks about the beautiful wall that will be paid by mexico, but that is why i think this is a challenge.

in this air of trump, the president makes crockett's statements, how can we -- provocative statements, how can we put that aside and look at policymaking? there is a lot of room for agreement with democrats and republicans in congress, and the white house, even on fencing. host: this was a campaign promise. what if his base does not see a wall structure? guest: i think if he gets the funding -- i don't think he will need $18 billion -- they will see strategic fencing. under the bush era we saw hundreds of miles of fencing. he will have something to show that it is a wall, a physical barrier, and that will reduce the number of people entering illegally. we will see in the statistics, i think his base will be happy. host: brian, woodbridge, virginia. caller: first of all, daca is

just an extension for the people to adopt citizenship. if they graduate college and grad school, they can certainly apply for image -- citizenship. you said something incorrect. 1960's,he 1950's and 90% of the crop pickers were american. only 10% were in legal. once -- illegal. once they started to unionize, illegal immigrants were important to replace them. during the 1980's, i was in the construction industry during the reagan administration when he devastated the air traffic controllers union. 90% of the workers were native american or citizens. once he started trying to unionize to get better benefits in between jobs, all of a sudden they got construction workers imported that are illegal and

undocumented and starting to replace us, and they busted our union. host: thanks. guest: i appreciate your point, but let me correct some things you said. under daca, there is no path to citizenship. it is questionable if the forrred arrival -- action childhood arrivals program created by president obama, i'd do not think -- i do not think it is constitutional. having said that, the program itself only shields beneficiaries from deportation and allows them to work, that is it. it does not give them a path to citizenship. we have to see what congress will do, if it is going to give them legal status, codify daca, or give them a path to citizenship. the 1940's and 1950's, in agriculture we

oepended on the bracer program. during the war, we had our men fighting in the pacific and we created the program to bring workers from mexico. that certainly helped sustain our agriculture industry. i am not saying we should bring foreign workers if we do not need them. we need a process if an american employer can find an american worker, he should be able to hire that person, but if they can't, they should definitely be able to bring foreign workers. host: our guest is here to talk about issues of daca and puerto rico. statehood for puerto rico, talk about the effort and your role. guest: this is an important issue, an issue of american document -- democracy supported by republicans and democrats. we just announced the beginning of the work of a shadow congressional delegation that has been set up, of puerto rican

republicans and democrats that will come to washington to the hill to put pressure on congress to act on statehood and put puerto rico on a firm path to statehood. it is an institution -- issue of constitutional rights. our constitution guarantees rights for every citizen, but they cannot vote for the president and we have had hundreds of thousands of puerto rican serve in the military. we do not have for voting representation in congress. this is a basic issue. i think congress has to ignore the effort. jumpstart -- this effort has been ongoing. since thethis year united states invaded puerto rico during the spanish-american war and made puerto rico part of the united states. we are basically saying, we are going to start a national

movement that will put pressure on congressional districts and states, and not ignore the issue of puerto rico, especially not after maria. there is a lot of people who want to politicize the issue of maria and blame trump, and i am tired of people bashing trump over the recovery efforts. host: you think the recovery was going well? guest: i worked for five years in the government of puerto rico. i have seen storms and the federal response to other storms . i have never seen this type of federal involvement. could more be done? absolutely. we cannot underestimate the magnitude of the storm, but the biggest problem with recovery is that puerto rico is not a state. it is treated as a territory and does not have the same legal protections are benefits that other states have, as they have full access to other federal programs. this is concerning.

this is a process that will take many years, and sadly, people who forget about maria in a few months or years, we found the political representation in congress will be difficult for the people of puerto rico to advance their interests and make sure congress continues to pay attention. host: we have heard stories about puerto rico's debt and infrastructure. you talked about maria. what does statehood mean for the united states as a whole if we take on those responsibilities? guest: that is an important question, because some feel puerto rico would be too expensive. the transfer of federal funds to puerto rico would increase, that is true. if the concern is cost, how much puerto rico will cost to the federal government, then the federal government and congress should end its territorial ,tatus because in the long run

the territorial status is much more extensive. under statehood, puerto ricans would pay into the system. they would pay into the system, and while initially they would get a lot of federal funding, with time as the economy improves, and every single territory that has become a state has had an economic boom, as the quality of life and economy improves in puerto rico after statehood, in a matter of five to 10 years studies show puerto rico will pay more into the system then it will actually get in federal funding, and the quality of life of puerto ricans would improve. it is a win-win situation. if the concern is cost, end the territorial status. there are some people on the island and some puerto rican leaders the try to give the impression that the current territorial status can last indefinitely. for my conversations this past 10 to 20 years, it is very clear. we are in a path for ending the

territorial status. if we do not push for statehood right now, congress will put puerto rico on the path towards independence, and i do not think the people of puerto rico want that. it is time for u.s. citizens of puerto rican origin to unite and pushing this with other civilization -- other civil rights organizations. host: brett is in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: i agree with a lot of what you're guest has said. it is a very complicated issue. i want to get to the immigration issues. i have personal experience with that process. years. the past 25 i married a mexican national, and she came here illegally. upon her arrival, we married and have remained married through the years, had children, and

have been through the immigration process. we started that process immediately upon her arrival and our marriage, and i want to clarify for your listeners, many of whom are under the impression that people don't go through the legal process either because they are lazy or just willingly avoid it, do not want to do it for their own personal reasons, you must understand, american extremely is an afficult, and cannot be positive process if you involve lawyers. many people that are here illegally were brought here, the daca kids, for example. if there was a reasonable and manageable, navigable approach ,o immigration, to their status

to changing their status to a legal status, they would go through that. host: we have got to leave it there. guest: i think that is a good point. people who are here illegally come here not for benefits, that they come here because they are looking for a better future for themselves, their families. they are coming to look for a job, and there is a demand. that is part of a free economy. have demand for workers and they know they can find a job. the problem is, if people say they should enter legally, we do not have an effective way to allow foreign workers to enter the country. the guest worker programs we have in our country are highly dysfunctional, some are capped on unreasonable numbers, and some are just highly regulated. if we were to facilitate the legal entry for those workers to come here to work, they would

not stay here permanently, but we do not have the system that allows for that legal entry. for all the people who talk about the rule of law, i support you 100%, but the system is dysfunctional. we have to demand there is no way for them to enter legally, so they enter illegally. host: bert in portland, oregon. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: e-verify requires employers to report whoever comes out positive in the program. i don't feel like reporting anybody. i will not hire someone who is illegal and i do not want to do the policing part. host: expert. guest: certainly there are people who have objections. is this interest groups have

pushed back against e-verify, so that is a controversial issue, but it is not part of the negotiations that the white house and senate republicans are having with democrats. is alfonso aguilar, former chief of the u.s. office of citizenship from 2003 to 2009. he is also part of the latino partnership. open phones until 10:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can post at c-span wj on twitter or facebook.com/c-span. we will be right back. ♪ the c-span bus continues its 50 capitals tour this month with

stops in raleigh, columbia, atlanta, and montgomery. on each visit, we will speak with state officials. follow the tour and join us on wednesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern or our stop in raleigh, north our guest is the north carolina attorney general john stein. c-span's cities tour takes you to newport, rhode island. with the help of our cox communication cable partners, we explored newport literary scene at historic sites. watch this weekend beginning on saturday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2, and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. sunday on c-span's q and a, author and harvard law school professor noah feldman and his book. >> constitution is madison's

, theent, and in that way constitution is all around you in washington, d.c., the three-part structure of government. the way the government interacts, the way people speak, all of that is medicine's monument -- madison's monument. monument,k madison's look around you and you will see it everywhere. >> q and a sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can post on our twitter feed at c-span wj or go to our facebook. i want to show you a

back-and-forth between reporters and sarah sanders, asked this morning about the president's language used in the oval office. credit stall negotiation's on daca? worried aboutis the democrats' unwillingness to put country before the party is what is stalling it. --democrats are using [indiscernible] >> i do not think there is an excuse not to help this president get something accomplished, which is a sad day for our country if they are willing to throw away the progress and negotiations and not make big steps that we need to happen, whether it is funding our military, supporting our government, or making a deal on daca, which they say is a huge priority. the president brought them all here and had a very candid conversation that you were all witness to, on getting that done and laid out, things that all

these individuals have voted for . it seems hypocritical that all of a sudden they do not want border security, they do not want merit-based immigration system when they supported it, voted for it, and spoke about it in the past. everybody wants the same thing. it should be simple and hopefully democrats will stop playing politics and start governing and getting their job done. >> if they tried to use it as leverage, they said last night, user moderation, mr. president. >> that is an outrageous claim, and if the critics of the president were who he said he was, why did nbc give him a show for a decade on tv? why did chuck schumer and others beg donald trump for money? -- who they want to betray him as, why did they want to be with him for years and years in various activities,

whether it was events or fundraisers or other things? it is an outrageous and ludicrous excuse, and they need to get on board and do what they were elected to do. host: sarah sanders in front of the white house, talking about the status of daca and the president's statements. that will be the topic of the white house and capitol hill, as legislators work to come up with a deal on daca to avoid a potential government shutdown. if you go to the senate side of the capitol building, the senate judiciary committee is where a hearing will take place at the sick terry -- secretary of the department of homeland security. that is set to start at 10:00. we will take you to that hearing. and then steve bannon is expected to testify in a closed door session with the house intelligence committee. that is set to take place.

phones right now, open phones until 10:00. jay in connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would like to say on this merit-based immigration -- host: go ahead, sir. caller: it should include the language that a journeyman in any skill, skilled labor and journeyman should be included in the language as far as merit-based. host: let's hear from jeff in mississippi, republican line. caller: hello. it costs a legal immigrant about $10,000 to become a citizen.

[indiscernible] think for each illegal immigrant that comes to this $5,000 for birth. they pay back taxes for the next five years, they get in a , and they start to teach them our language, laws, and constitutional ways. the day we do not have workers in this country, youth american workers will not work because of too many entitlements. [indiscernible] person for$5,000 a 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, they will pay for the wall. host: james in new york, you are

next, from spring valley. caller: good morning. new year, thisd last past year, to watch what is going on. politicians and news people are all the sideshow. it is horrible. month to get an appointment in the brooklyn v.a., 30 days. i do not care what that had guy -- head guy is saying. who thinksesident the virgin islands is part of the united states and also puerto rico. what is going on in puerto rico with fema? who is watching the people watching the people? host: mercy in shreveport, louisiana, democrat line. caller: i am in calling --

calling in reference to the race relations and daca. got is something that something to definitely make a consideration. ,ike someone said, the parents they would all go back. the race relations thing, i see for eight years the republican party did not want to do anything and all of a sudden they're trying to do things and democrats do not want to cooperate. eight years, they sat there and mitch mcconnell told them to days after -- two days after the president was elected, we will make sure it will be a -- president and i did not think they were serious. they did not do nothing. [indiscernible]

president, all the lies he done told, 1900 some wise. that guy who was standing with trump when they asked him was he races, he part of the ku klux klan. he went to meetings, at the meetings with the kkk. the new york times reports about diplomatic work going on with africa in light of the president's statement. they have all protested mr. trump's remarks. botswana asked the united states to "clarify." africa and the african diaspora has contributed significantly to the united states and the development of the country that is today, a spokesperson for the south african department -- the african and international reaction --

if you go to the wall street journal, the op ed by a law professor at arizona state university, what is the matter with norway is the title, stemming from the president's statement about norway. norway is fabulously wealthy. capitanomic output per is 25% higher than america's. allowed thes country to become a cradle-to-grave welfare state with free university tuition and university health care -- universal health clear. norwegians topped the global happiness meter. rather than praise norway, president trump should be holding accountable for how it chooses to spend or not spend for the geographic lottery. norway should not be investing in enemy governments while

-- these actions are part of a growing pattern in europe. many governments are happy taking shelter under america's defense umbrella while boycotting the companies that make it possible. york, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you are on. caller: i am on? host: yes, go ahead. caller: thank you. i have been listening all morning, and it just bothers me from theyoung lady congressional report was there is a synced. cinct.synced -- suc it is unfortunate she could not have been on to discuss with mr. angular. this business about migrant

workers in the crops, andorically poor whites poor african-americans follow the crops. it was only when they began to unionize, as the gentleman called earlier, that mexican labor, illegal labor was brought into the country. the gentleman from arkansas called and he was talking about this contractor person hiring all these people and not doing the proper filing and paying them lower wages. forwardhope that going people would be very honest about how we got into this mess, how this immigrant labor began. go to patrick in oklahoma, republican line. caller: the nasty little secret

that nobody wants to talk about is the reason why we have to fill all these jobs now with illegals, is because 1973 when you started aborting babies and now we have 50, 60 of aborted babies that would have grown up. he would have been those workers, but because we passed this and all of those babies were murdered, now we are bringing in all the illegals, because nobody wants to talk about the nasty secret. we have to replace the workers because companies need workers. that is the biggest problem in america. that is why the supreme court also legalized the education of these people, because they had to bring in these people and get them educated because we aborted 50 to 60 million babies. that is a nasty secret no one wants to talk about. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for ,epublicans, and independents

(202) 748-8002. a story, saying opposition to the employer mandate are fined for not meeting coverage or federal standards for affordable coverage. the internal revenue service has notified many businesses that they own money because they failed to offer coverage in 2015 when the mandate took effect. republicans recently introduced the bill, canceling any penalties imposed for any year from 2015 to 2018. care lobbyist at the afl-cio called the proposal a very bad idea. it also highlights the fact that the congressional budget office that employers will pay $12 billion in penalties this year,

and a total of 200 billion in the coming decade. ron in michigan, you are next. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: i need to get this out, because this is very important. in our michigan va hospital, the emergency room has been shut down. how many across america, i don't know, but there are thousands of us up here who need the emergency room. and then come april, all the veterans who have been hurt and got hurt in wars or whatever, their medicine has been cut out by april. we will not get any. what do we do for our pain afterwards? nobody is saying anything. more veterans need to speak about this because it is wrong. from lake charles, louisiana, independent line. caller: good morning. i actually am blown away by the

way our president has divided our country. you spoke about the norwegians and all of the things they are doing hurt our economy, and we sell them some nonexistent claim that does not exist. the president does not get the briefings, he does not read the briefings. he does not give us the facts as they stand, and in the meantime, he is cutting us off from the entire world by saying these disparaging things about african-americans and haitians. we built this country. african-americans built this country. we built the house he is in. i don't understand why we are not valued as much as the norwegians are. come on. host: michael in california, walnut creek. blue. democrat, i

would like to say that i totally disagree with your previous guest. mr. aguilar was kind of mixed. in the earlier segment, the lady was talking about what president trump had said. my feeling is that i blame dick durbin. since the negotiations before, you don't walk out and stop talking about what was said. if mr. durban had kept his mouth shut, all this hoopla would not be going on. secondly, you are talking about .mmigrants taking american jobs you have a caller call from houston, texas who said i cannot compete because of the illegal immigrants. that is taking american jobs. -- a lot offar as americans will not do it and you need some system set up that you can have people come in and do these jobs and follow the crops all year round.

benefitsld give them to cover for that work they are doing, is anybody else would be. host: any watchers of this network for any length of time will know about our c-span bus. i am talking about the mission of c-span, currently back on the road as part of our 50 capitals tour. we will visit 50 state capitals by this november, the 20th anniversary of the bus program. our next stop is raleigh, north carolina, and tomorrow the attorney general will be a guest on "washington journal." if you want more information or if you are in raleigh and want to see the bus, go to c-span.org . leeann from albertville, alabama. caller: i had some thoughts about the medicaid and the illegals coming to pick our crops. if they want the medicaid people

theyrk 20 hours, why don't get those able-bodied medicaid recipients to pick the crops that the illegals are picking? i also have a second thought about these highly educated immigrants that come over here. why don't they go back when they are highly educated, go back to their country of origin and fix their country so that those people don't feel they have to flee their homeland? thank you. host: ginny in north carolina, your next. just wanted -- i am listening all morning, and it drives me nuts but i guess people have their opinions. trump has said he wanted the wall and the chain and a lot of -- the wall, end the chain and the lottery. the democrats do not want a win for trump because the last three presidents approved the wall, they wanted the wall.

what is holding up the democrats? , am tired of the russian thing tired of cnn and msnbc only playing money laundering for trump, when i'm waiting for the foundation, i waiting for these other channels to bring all this up. if they want to keep the daca kids and turn around and screen them and keep the good ones that speak english and are working, use that to get the wall, that is fine, but we need the wall. host: it was recently that the federal communications commission voted to change rules when it comes to broadband providers and how they provide the internet, net neutrality. there is an effort in congress on the senate side to change that. "50 senate lawmakers have endorsed the legislative measure to override the fec -- fcc's measure just it leaves supposed -- it leaves voters just one

vote shy." resolution aims to overturn the fcc's decision and prohibit the agency from passing similar measures in the future. it has the support of all 49 republican senators and one democrat, susan collins of maine. they must recruit one more republican member to their ranks and it must be signed by president trump to take effect. john, deerfield beach, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the one thing i don't hear anybody asking democrats, and i think it is the most important when theseat happens people are now documented? what happens in the next three to five years with three to 5 million more? what do the democrats have planned for that? do they plan to stop it or let

it happen? from arkansas, you are next up, on our republican line. caller: yes, i just have a few things to say. i am sick about all these black african slaves. my relatives were irish slaves. they are white. the democrats need to get off of their, and start working for the people that elected them. from day one, hillary clinton was on donald trump about he would not accept the election and roku is causing all the ruckus in the united states. it is not the republicans. it is not donald trump. it is the low life democrats who are nothing but hate filled racist bigots. host: mitchell in portland,

oregon, independent line. caller: good morning. i am wondering why our nation is such enablers. , the kids in the summer used to go and our next room on a picking fruit out on these farms. moneyout and earn extra picking fruit out on these farms. my relatives followed vegetation, that was their way of life. they made decent money and that was kind of a gypsy life, but that is what they embraced. work, couldld not not contribute to their families. now we are saying what we need is welfare reform. a lot of these people that are collecting thousands every month that are able-bodied, to be out there harvesting instead of blaming this on illegals and everything. we need to quit enabling our own nation and children to be

dependent on the government that really does not care about them. host: one more call, theodore, hillsboro, kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just got three comments. [indiscernible] to gete going to have ready to [indiscernible] host: ok, that is theodore in kentucky, also the last call on this program. this is the senate judiciary side that the secretary of homeland security department will be testifying before congress on issues of national security. we will take you live on c-span.