in the oval office. he said who are you? come over here? night, washington correspondent katrina perry talks about covering president after the 2016d presidential election season. >> drain the swamp is incredibly evocative. he does what it says on the 10. playing on that notion that the ec you is built on a swamp. something voters believed he could the fill that or not. they were prepared to take a chance on it. >> sunday night on q&a. washington journal continues. >> joining us now, jennifer

cason all, here to talk about kavanaugh,jennifer here to talk about her book. about the rand corporation, what is your role? scientist.olitical rand is a research organization founded 70 years ago. many are familiar with rand's work in the national security. they have also done research on domestic issues including education, civil justice, energy , and the mission is to inform policymakers through research and analysis. onalso inform the public topics ranging from military strategy to evaluation of childhood education. is facts andopic

opinion making. the line between fact and fiction is becoming blurred. how so? trends,we point to 4 that we called truth decay. to describe diminishing reliance on facts and opinion in american public life. it,first time we look at objective facts and analytical interpretations. the debate over the safety of vaccines, for example. this is the blurring of the line between fact and opinion and compared to fact. you can see this on cable news, anywhere where fact and opinion and commentary and falsehoods are presented together in a way that doesn't clearly defined which is which. host: you brought up vaccines. about,the fax you speak

why is it becoming blurred? guest: there is an established science behind the safety of vaccines. any medical procedure has risks but there there's good science to suggest the benefits outweigh the risks. even as the science becomes convincing we see an increasing number of individuals on both sides of the political spectrum who have come to question that. we see this trend in the data. vaccine controversies are spread through social media and conspiracy theories. all of this information creates noise that makes it difficult for individuals to determine what is fact and fiction. host: that kind of philosophy, if you choose to leave other fax

other than that it taints policymaking process in washington. >> that is why -- guest: that is right. it becomes difficult to have meaningful discussions about different policy options. that can lead to an inability to compromise which we saw in the shutdown and policy reversal, rapidly iny shifts power. mentioned the shutdown. are there examples you see as far as established facts people hold to? issues, theme questions of the heart of this debate, there is objective data that can be brought to bear. the size of the immigrant population in the united states here legally, the rate those individuals commit crimes, there

is data to speak to those questions but increasingly that is overshadowed by anecdotes and personal experience. we are not saying those don't have a place. but fact should be the foundation. host: is it assumed people could easily recognize what is a fact versus what is an opinion? guest: that would be the hope. that becomes increasingly difficult when they are presented together and mixed in ways that could be misleading. especially when you are reading something at 280 characters on twitter. inalso see some shortcomings our education system. changes have been extremely rapid. it is not clear they have been able to provide students with skills they might need to separate good information from

bad and we critically evaluate that information. that exists in the adult population as well. topic, theis the report, truth decay, a threat to policymaking and democracy. jennifer kavanaugh is here to discuss it and the use of facts versus o opinions. jennifer, when did you first recognize this as a problem? this is a trend we have been observing over the past two decades. my co-author, our ceo and president began speaking about topics related to this as early as 2005. it is something we have seen as a growing problem getting worse and worse. it particular to this

white house or congress? does that force this report? guest: our research indicates this phenomenon predates this administration and the previous and is not tied to a specific political event. this is a trend we have seen unfold over to get -- two decades. the approach we took rather than blaming one party or politician was to understand the phenomenon and provide evidence raise definition to work toward solutions. r is: how much of the facto warms andperson opinion and only looks for information that reinforces that? guest: that is a huge part of that. on the back still conform to their pre-existing conditions

that is one of our key drivers. newsys a role in why fake is able to endure for so long. part you say the first about the biases, you highlight the information system, and you use social media. how much has that changed with the growth of social media? guest: it has changed a lot. we see an incredible increase in the speed and volume of information available through social media and an acceleration of the news cycle, and the shift to 24/7 news. that is a good thing but it also comes with unintended consequences including a decrease in the quality of that information as well as the difficulties people have

distinguishing between what is fact and what is fiction, and disinformation as well. host: people tell you i can read my websites and determine what is a fact and what is opinion. isn't that just common sense? guest: studies suggest that is not the case. people are not able to distinguish between a fact and falsehood and they often do have missed formed believes that are not based on data. believeple hold that that they are able to determine what is fact and fiction but evidence suggests otherwise. host: first call, from ohio. up -- you are first up. caller: good morning, pedro. have two statements.

i was a political scientist. but i got a real job anyway. internet, i got one of these two way radios, and there is a lot of grammatical spin the , digital graffiti that everybody wants to be heard and all of that. that is up to me as an individual person to glean the truth with the fact from the fantasy. the other point i would like to who, we have a president deals in disinformation and that disinformation is flavored with his opinion. objective and ,hat objective is to disrupt

you would use this information instead of fact. i would expect the president -- i may not like warm this like him, but he works for us and he is supposed to be honest with us. host: thank you, caller. guest: it is the individual responsibility to determine what is fact and fiction but not everyone takes the time to do that. when people consume information from social media or something else they are often passive consumers. it is great you are taking the time to distinguish between what we are and fiction, but concerned the volume of information makes that difficult for other people as a population overall. about theyour point current president. our intent was to focus on this as a bipartisan phenomenon. we see our data suggest these

trends go back to decades, rather than pointing fingers which would distract from the main goal, which would work toward solutions. this is jeff. taking myank you for call. i could not agree with you more. i would like to know if the rand corporation is helping k-12 educational systems in the country developing programs in helping students. i have been an english teacher for 20 years. i host a policy debate. them get involved in governmental affairs and policies. i do see there is a problem because as the other caller was newsg, people get their

from the white house, from government and a lot of times it .s not fact filled what is the rand corporation doing to help that? we actually have a project going on that we started when we neared the completion of this first report looking at media literacy. the first step is to understand the media literacy programs being implemented within our school systems. there are a good number. we are kind understand what are the good characteristics of these programs. in addition to collecting data we are trying to understand the populations in any outcome metrics collected. we want to see how we would evaluate these programs and measure the extent to which they are able to improve the ability to evaluate and analytically analyze information they are consuming. we are hoping to use that

information to improve existing programs or work to developing our own. host: what goes through your mind when you hear the president releasing fake news awards? fake news is only one piece of our broader framework. we see fake news as part of the inue but we see truth decay for specific trends. one, but we also look at political and social polarization. this is a broad phenomenon. host: does the media do a good job of establishing facts? guest: some do. we have -- one of the things we have seen is an increase in the number of news outlets that we have. some are digital, some are print .

there are certain media outlets that do promote journalism that get set this information we are looking to increase, there are other outlets that don't do a good job of it or that intentionally blur to advance a political agenda or achieve economic agendas. people are posting things now become an information source. guest: that is right. there is a democratization of access and to become a source. that is a good thing. it provides an incredible forum. it also comes with unintended consequences. a decrease in the quality of information because there's no quality check and sometimes increasing dissemination of misleading information. the independent line, we

will hear from ralph. caller: great conversation. three points. i'm personally independent. you hear a line from both sides, half-truths. and a lot of it, critical thinking skills and the lack thereof, on the right side, you have half-truths like the wealthy pay more taxes, but they fail to say it is only federal income taxes. class pay many more taxes than the wealthy. you have the issue of immigration. somehow you are going to import 10% of the workforce in this country and you are not going to impact wages. it is worse when you look at the blue-collar worker, 50% of the

blue-collar workers. the construction industry worker and it hasvastated spills over into recidivism. host: ok. thanks. guest: these are areas where we withisleading information individuals on both sides of the political spectrum. that is part of the problem. our point is what we really need as a foundation of discussion on all of these issues, on taxes, immigration, we need a common set of objective facts and that should be the starting point. we don't see that happening now. host: you have to have people who have consensus on those facts. guest: that is right. that is a challenge. we are trying to suggest there should be a respect for understanding these are

objective facts we can verify. we are hopeful we can work towards a point through additional research where the importance of facts and having those facts is a foundation of the debate. host: colleen, democrats line. thanks for calling. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. about thisned information, which has always gone on. back when rand first started civil rights was a major issue misinformationof in the vietnam war. when talk about what people believe now, there should be objective facts. like climate change.

saying only idiots don't believe in climate change. i question the science. i have not seen any. but people generally believe it. we have a whole population, nobody is questioning where did you get this in the first place? host: let me ask you on that point, when you question the science, what do you question? caller: well, our solar system just went through the milky way galaxy. we don't have any data on the effect of that. i take care of my planet. but, what we can do about it, i don't know if everybody drove electric cars, i don't think that is going to change our climate.

host: ok. thanks for the call. one of the things we talk about in the report is the reasons why there might have been questioning of science. explanation, they have not seen the data themselves. that points to the difficulties the scientific community has in a wayunicating, that is tangible and understandable. peoplenot saying that shouldn't question and be skeptical of scientific information but skepticism is a good thing. the scientific minute he needs to do a better job of communicating. if this is an established fact, how can they communicate that in a way that is tangible? we are trying to point to these

different limitations. short ofone is falling getting to the point where facts are the foundation. host: and essentially have to take it on faith, to accept this. guest: in a sense, yes. one would hope scientists would show something that doesn't seem like faith. what is the evidence scientists could show that would help the population have faith in the findings. if you don't get a vaccine you are likely to get sick. that has a tangible fact people can latch onto. one would hope that might be an area we can make progress. host: people will say they have certain chemicals and affect certain people in certain ways, and go from there. guest: sure.

but there is little data to support that. where that does actually happen, they are few and far between. you can look at the positive impact in terms of eradicating diseases that to kill thousands weight ofto see the benefits outweighs the risks. host: jennifer cavanaugh with the rand corporation. guest: this is available on our and can bend.org downloaded for free. host: michael, is next. thank you for everything this morning. what is evidence here is you guys are doing what needs to be done. we are searching for a collaborative consensus of reality and fact.

wondering,, i am everything has a side, unfortunately. rand has a perspective that whether it is actual or not, it is perceived to come from a particular side. then there has to be another organization that is akin to the other side. answerndering if the isn't a coming together of both engaging publicly officials, who come out and make the statements. they make a lot of statements on empirical fact and then go behind closed doors and the facts don't get pressed. host: thank you. guest: that is what we intend to

do. we lay out a strategy for addressing the challenges we see in this space, identify what we need to know but we don't think rand can do it on its own. we intend to convene other ,nterested stakeholders journalists, and engage individuals. you can fill out if you would like to express interest in this topic, to move forward and look for partnerships, and help stir up a dialogue and broader effort working towards a solution to the challenges in this report. host: john, north carolina. are you there? silver spring? caller: hello. i really appreciate the work of the rand corporation. this is a wonderful project. it is a long-term project

directed at the technique of finding the truth. we have a republican party and the president that has decided the truth is what gets votes. who has elected a president wants to be emperor and a party groveling to him. the big deal is for the republicans to realize mr. trump will destroy them because at every turn he will want to be emperor, and the republican party will want to do something they have goals for. the sooner they impeach this man , the sooner they ensure their survival. approach is long-term because we think this is a complex problem. we don't think it has a simple solution. fake news is only part of the problem.

our approach, in addition to being nonpartisan, was to identify the things we still need to know to address these challenges. andeally did not try thought it would be counterproductive to attribute blame. identify ways to combat truth decay. you talk about the consequences of truth decay. list, the things you paralysis on the federal and state level. guest: the shutdown we just saw -- when you don't have objective difficult to be have meaningful policy discussions and get a compromise. that can happen on any type of decision-making forum and caused

delays in judicial nominations, rapid policy reversals, and all of these things have significant economic costs and other types it damages the credibility of the government itself. host: political disengagement could be a result. guest: one of the characteristics that we point to is a decline in trust in institutions. at the point of which people no ,onger trust the government they see the government isn't able to execute its basic function, to govern, it is easy to become disillusioned. we see people who opt out of the political system and decide i'm not going to participate

anymore. our democracy is based on the engagement and willingness of people to participate and be engaged in democracy. host: from alaska, independent line. margaret. caller: thank you for taking my call. the young lady that is on, she is correct, we do need facts checked. i am 78 years old. i thought i knew everything. my children are proving that. they check everything that is being said. say, thing i would like to i am from new england. i came the right way. i think everybody else should. way peopleke the that get on, all they can do is

thrash the president. i was not keen on obama but he got elected. i teach my children, when you play a game, you lose and you feel sorry for yourself, that is the way it goes. you try the next time to do better. host: thank you. our report was not intended to point fingers at one politician. certainly that it be the take away. the willingness to accept that you may be wrong and to update your beliefs when you get new information either from your children or some other source is important part of addressing the challenges we see. one of the possible responses is , to be people more aware willing to consume information resources that may not agree

with them but hundred percent. those are the things individuals .an do basically today it is a short-term fix. that and help reduce the effects of truth decay. host: joe, democrats line. caller: can you hear me ok? fear, weur biggest media0% of the commercial , fox and cnn, owned by the 1%, telling us what is real, and what is fake. we run the risk of real news stories, with the powers that be saying we can't let this go. they see fake news being put out by that 90% of that corporate media telling everybody you don't need to believe this.

if you look at the website of people who own the pizzerias, they have a lot of pornographic posts aimed at children on their actual twitter pages. he is gone. all,: i think first of truth decay is any -- is larger than anyone fake news story. fake news is part of this, truth decay is much broader. and ownership of media corporations, we do see consolidation and that is possibly contributed to this problem. and the number of diversity sources on the other hand, we

have social media that gives everyone a platform. there are trends in the media market that are working against .hat and that is a good thing it allows more narrative to get out. it also increases the noise. host: if there are trends happening, what is the main way of reversing that trend? something we are looking into. we have a few ideas. one is to consider whether there aren't market incentives that might encourage media companies to provide more factual information and to look at different funding models to support investigative journalism to increase the prevalence of facts in the media environment. and recognize that it can't just be a supply-side solution. it has to address the demand. we have to dedicate the

importance of looking for facts and teach them through programs how to look for those facts. host: from san diego, hector is next. caller: good morning. i agree with what you just said. i would add a couple of things. the demonizing of academics by politicians, the republican party, when you see not just trump, many of them demonizing get a degreeyou'd they would prefer people with little to no education. it, netr part of --trality and the control the television market is being controlled by few corporations. that is happening now.

to see what your thoughts were on that. role: experts play a big providing factual information and they have an important position for that reason. they are increasingly being questioned. we see an explosion in the number of so-called experts that get degrees from questionable institutions. host: such as home? guest: i'm not pointing to a specific institution but some of in anline, get your phd year, that is different than going to university. people often called experts that may not have credentials we would expect. part of this is to fill time. there is a pressure to bring on

experts. you don't always know what quality of the experts are. is of the things we point to while skepticism has its place, we need to understand there are objective facts, and those facts need to get out. when there is a body of evidence support those facts there is a reason to believe them and put skepticism aside. had a chance to present this material to anybody and policy? about these findings? guest: we are focusing first on getting our message out to other research organizations, spreading our ideas through the broader state journalists. those are the areas where we see synergy.

we are interested in engaging policymakers more directly. we have had some interest. line, bill is there. hello. caller: i appreciate the conversation. from an observation perspective, it started with president are parsinghen you the word is, there is an erosion of fact. that is an observation. have, inion i always the academic discussion, i would ask if this is a fact -- what i understand, nine of 10 journalists are liberal. how do you score the circle that

is biased, how is that not advancing a position in the epidemic spear -- academic sphere. i appreciate the conversation. i think that an individual's political views don't necessarily have to taint their research. in academia, at rand, we are expected to be nonpartisan. most researchers are able to do that. data is the foundation of research. if you let the data do the talking there isn't room for personal opinions. i also -- i am not sure nine out of 10 academics are liberal. that has not been my experience. similarly, part of being a journalist is being able to be objective and let the facts tell

the story. i am not saying partisan bias is it an issue but studies that have looked at buys in the media have an found a strong bias in either direction. i don't think there is good data to suggest partisanship, whether or not the distribution is as you described, whether that affects the quality and tone of research, or journalism that we see coming out. host: the report is called truth decay. kavanaugh as part of this report with the rand corporation. thank you for your time this morning. we will have open phones until 9:00. for democrats -- if you want to participate on social media you can post at c-span and on our facebook page.

the president using his twitter account this morning to give comment and analysis about the shutdown. he says nobody knows for sure they will be able to reach a deal on daca by february 8 everyone will be trying with focus put on military strength and border security. the democrats have learned a shutdown is not the answer. if you go to the daily item, a story about congressional districts in pennsylvania. this is out of harrisburg. pennsylvania's congressional maps are illegally gerrymandered in order the general assembly to redraw them. it is less than a week after lawsuit -- they for the midterm

elections. that is the daily item newspaper and website about this story looking at pennsylvania and its issue with congressional maps. we will go into open phones until 10:00. brooklyn, new york. republican line. caller: hello. for your guest, i have -- i graduated from johns hopkins. i am now a u.s. researcher. the owners can't fall on an individual to parse the meta-of information. it is an unrealistic task. policy change needs to occur but it is important to teach people to think depth instead of breath , and have good mental hygiene.

and how to assess facts. the number of domains people tried to be subject matter it is unrealistic and inappropriate. and because of the amount of information we are seeing, and the impact it is having on certain faculty areas of the brain people are relying on intuition and impassive data to assess the world around them. host: let's go to sheila, in washington. i am here. good morning. i was hoping to talk to your guest. one of the things that bothers me, when we look at cable channels talking about the polling, but they never break down areas. --t polling is done

[inaudible] you can identify people with their zip code. again, they don't break down the areas they surveyed or the number of people they surveyed. one of the things i would like to see is independent committee meter, shown on the tv screen or they are able to check in real time whether or not what is being said is truthful or not. morning. have a good day. host: up next, independent line. caller: i was calling because i feel like it is hard to get actual facts of information from the government and media because too much of what is being put out there is us against them.

whether democrats republicans when sims to be more important than whether we as a country win. i don't think we can get the truth and have a level playing field as long as that is the norm. post in the washington this morning, the justice department inspector general is investigating why the fbi did text messages involved in the probe of hillary clinton and donald trump. jeff sessions has spoken to michael horvitz and that a review is under way to ascertain what occurred and whether the text messages can be removed. we will use every technology available to determine whether they are recoverable another source. he asked the fbi to explain why

did not preserve text messages between senior fbi agents and lisa page between december 14 and 2016. adding the! -- adding the exclamation point. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: in regards to the guess that was just on, there is a book i suggest everybody read, about changing demographics and voting, call the next america.

was ineresting statistic of4 there were an x number counties where you can guarantee they will vote to the credit or republican. today,earch found out there are three times as many of those counties. thinking, does the modern political strategy go from trying to get someone to vote for you, or trying to get someone to just go out and vote? wasorth carolina the gop found to be illegally gerrymandered the districts. me the democratic strategy is to get people to come out and vote and the republican strategy is to get people to not come out and vote. host: this is mark.

hello. to the previous guest comments, i was hoping to speak to her that i know this is open phones. i will just talk past you. i wanted to share the point there is a difference between fact and truth. that is why when you go into a court of law you are asked to swear to tell the truth. line from a poet, a truth that is told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. i think we have a lot of that. decay, peopleuth are hungry for truth. they do know there are facts on both sides of a story, usually shared to influence you. they look past facts and try to understand the person talking and what they are trying to get

across. if i can respond briefly to the last caller, that america's becoming more polarized than ever. with the internet we are free to move and live in different places more than ever. people are choosing their neighbors more and more suspiciously. the people that pay taxes want to get away from those who spend them. they won't ever stop spending it. the people that want to spend taxes are looking for more contributors. host: we showed you senate reaction from a vote that took place in the senate to reopen the federal government. that is paul ryan, the house speaker. -- an opento impart the government. here is paul ryan talk about what has played out. >> this did not need to happen. inflictedief, it

needless cost on the country. there are no winners today. no winners except the millions of families who depend on the children's health insurance program. the longest reauthorization will become law. this is not a moment to pat ourselves on the back. we very much need to heed the lesson of what just happened here. when to move forward in good faith on daca and immigration, on funding our military silicates the resources our military needs. let's address these urgent challenges. host: those debates took place on the house and senate. websiteo to the axial's , this is the fbi. jonathan swann reporting the attorney general has been pressuring the fbi director to fire andrew mccabe.

his resignation under those circumstances would have created a media firestorm. also adding the attorney general told the white house counsel upset about the pressure to fire mccabe. the issue was not worth moving the fbi director. this is stafford, virginia. good morning. caller: how are you doing? my comment is on the news. is a couple of media corporations. with allhould be done facts, no opinions. most of the news is slanted.

ore this terrible shutdown the democrats cause a shutdown. -- nothingd be no but facts in the news. if the author wants to put his perspective in a paragraph after the news. that would make everything easier. host: from greenwood, john is next. this will be a great opportunity for c-span2 put on a show called fact-based. as a consumer it is hard to find a channel like that. host: justin is next. hello. a couple of things. in response to your meeting with

jennifer kavanaugh, she was decay. about truth she kept referring to the united states as a democracy. it is not a democracy. it is a republic. as you guys did a story on gerrymandering in pennsylvania. it is controlled by two places. pittsburgh and philadelphia, which does represent the entire state of pennsylvania. that was all i had. host: ok. another pennsylvanian. caller: mary? ok. we believe it there. host: "the wall street journal looks at new tariffs imposed by

the trump administration. reports, that jacob they were announced monday in response to pleas for relief from cheap imports of a series of trade enforcement actions. they are aimed mainly at asian andfacturers, solar panels washing machines. there are a few exceptions for any countries indicating a willingness to impose protections against global competition. it would affect trading partners in mexico, canada and europe. the term administration will defend american workers my farmers, ranchers. paula, you are commenting on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i was calling regarding a

comment on the shutdown. i am a federal worker. i am an hr manager. affects a host of people but for me, it is a situation where i am directly working to implement the shutdown. 2013, anddo it in yesterday. perspective, i have always voted democrat. --eel now that i have because of what i see as grandstanding by both parties, i feel they are just not directly impacted by what they do. until that happens i think we ofl continue on this road

grandstandingnd for whatever your cases at the moment to relate to your constituents. the federal government is ending. there was a host of opportunities to get this done. as a manager in the federal government, if i did my job the way congress and senate did theirs i would be released. host: tell us a little bit about this new deadline that has been imposed. when you get concerned you're going to have to do this all over a gun -- all over again? caller: immediately. they want to keep the staff fully informed. discussing howly to ensure people are aware of

what is going on but not in a state of panic. to work now. we will begin this process. but to regroup and see how we could have done things better this time and next time. it is a situation where it is constantly costing time and money to be prepared for the senate and house to make their decision. host: how many hours did sure workers have to spend to prepare? onler: we have been working preparation of the shutdown at thehe first time -- end of the fiscal year and through the holidays.

people hours, it has been months. we may not do it every single day but there has been preparation. i know that is different from agency to agency. we are considered a midsized agency. the federal trade commission. host: thank you for calling and giving that perspective. caller: i'm a world war ii veteran. my only question to the american i want open borders. the democratic party seems to want to open borders and we don't. host: that is joseph in new

york. and mike pence is traveling into israel talking about the embassy it wassalem saying difficult to see how it would stage progress. one held up a sign. officials snubbed the visit. here's members of the european union to recognize a palestinian state alongside team 67 borders. israel, that story in the washington post. we are going to talk about the national parks and how they could have been affected from the shutdown.

what faces them even further on other issues? then we will take a look at the politics behind the shutdown with james of the washington examiner. washington journal background on the upcoming series. >> by popular demand, it's co-production with us and the national institution center. callers this he morning talking about race, they're talking about the powers of congress, the institution and so what we've got in season two, 12 landmark that really cases take you through the history of the country and deal with all really, really have something to do with today. along with the national a titution center, we had

very long set of cases and what we wanted to do was take cases human interest story to them because in the end, these human beings across the country. the cases came down did they dthey change ime the court or the country in their time and how relevant are they today? all of them are relevant today. versus maryland, laws can overrule the states. in 1886, anthony kennedy mentioned many times on is all eme court, it about immigration. we'll have two good guests on washington and we've got a video journalist producer ho will go out around the country to places that help tell the story for the cases. will go to san francisco to talk about chinese lawnedymats. civil rights cases, case in 1875 uninstitutional

after the supreme court ruled into t jim crow laws went effect in this country. frederick douglas makes an afterward.ech a week we'll take you to the speech. that is on the set. calls, your phone tweets, interact with the audience to talk about how the relevant today. >> watch season two of landmark 26, 9 eginning february p.m. eastern, live on c-span, with free or listen -span radio apptochlt help you better understand each case, we have a companion guide written by supreme court journalist tony landmark cases volume $8.95, plus k costs shipping and handling. the c-span.org to get book. "washington journal" continues. joining us now theresa peirno of the national park association,

president and c.e.o., here to talk about challenges to the national parks. morning. a little bit about your association, who does it represent, what is the purpose? existence e been in for almost 100 years, created by director.onal parks we have 1.2 million members and supporters, our mission to we'ret national parks and nongovernmental, nonprofit organization and we've been at years now.st 100 host: one thing the association in, topics of shutdown come what was it like this time national parks, compared to the last shutdown in 2013? uest: it was difficult, the last shutdown lasted a couple weeks and everything was shut down. it shutdown was difficult, wasn't quite clear what was going to happen and of course it was a shorter time period, we a third of out national park units shut down. of also have reports graffiti and looting in the days, saw just in two

trash building up and many things happening inside parks. parks third of the closed, a lot of visitors were shut out. happens, n a shutdown no staff on national parks to help with guides or safety or that? like what is the scope? guest: typically, the guides are not essential, they don't them essential, visitor centers, bathrooms are closed. patrol have, you know, person, but when you have some parks that are two million acres, no way n you can guarantee safety for isitors, so it is a very, very small crew in any national park that would be there primarily for safety. local papers he talks about how the shutdown took place, it didn't deter coming, but as far as money collected, that was affected, too, i imagine. guest: absolutely. no fees collected and visitors closed, with interpreters not available to do their job, people were on their own. intrusions in the

park in yellowstone and things allowed to donger with two-stroke engines, snow mobiles, impact to parks happened just in two days. have tanned, it could have been serious. didzeinke perform? guest: the information given to the superintendents was vague. a lot of pressure to keep the protect n, but duty to the national resources, historic resources, is critical. think there was a lot of confusion and if it had lasted longer than two days, i think we would have seen significant impacts to the national parks. north kor host: national parks, topic for from national park conservation association, if you want to ask her questions in the eastern and central time 202-748-8000. if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001.

you can post thoughts on twitter c-spanwj. give us scope of national parks in the united states and how as lved is the government far as funding and upkeeping the park? guest: funding, overall budget 3.2 billion, but when you think about the shape of the in, we have s are backlog, funding maybes backlog consists on and that of roads, water systems, bridges, all kind of historic ture needs, buildings, the parks have about 75,000 structures they have to maintain. the backlog like that, that is significant and then just the operations, the parks right now have 10% in staff than in previous years and so they are lready strained and so the parks are in really difficult situation with inadequate backlogg and maintenance that is -- host: result of this administration or see this one?rn in the previous guest: it certainly has built

up, but the problem is the president's budget that was just introduced this last year was the largest cuts to our national world war ii.ce it was an enormous cut, wasn't the y that budget that moved forward, we don't suspect quite frankly bude budget.he next solution to fund parks as needed. parks did see increases on the side in previous years and of course, you know, with many federal government hiring that existed the first four months of the past year, damper, as put a well, as being able to fill the positions that needed to be filled. proposal from n the environmental department about increasing the fees at parks, what could they be? parks fees generally, that charge fees generally $25, some are $30. typically have gone up in a very small way.

parks, they are public this is something you want to make accessible to everyone. know, many families don't have the means to be able to spend significant dollars. proposal could raise, could triple in some places, the iconic parks and most arks here in this region, shen andoah national park could see of $70, that is a park people go to for the day, many people from the urban area use local communities will be impacted. it is a really significant people are time when still struggling. host: how much of the overall fee?t comes from how much do they supplement that? guest: very small. we're talking in the realm of $75 million increase in raising from the increase and when you backlog, look at overall budget, it would have a

negligible impact in benefiting the parks to increase it, but negative impact what it would do for visitation. host: the cost of backlog, is budget issue or management issue when it comes to parks? guest: absolutely a budget issue. annually, the parks need about $600 million a year to current facilities. so when you see budgets come in far less than that every year, falling into deeper and deeper serious need. o, we've worked and there is a bipartisan bill, that is national parks service legacy $500 hat would provide illion a year, current revenue directed to maintenance backlog that would be able to fund and progress with current funding, that is important, bipartisan piece of we think really needs to move forward with the president talking about infrastructure, the priorities, here is an opportunity to do something really important for the national parks. website for the association is npca.org, to

thek them out for yourself, national park conservation association. theresa peirno serves as president and c.e.o. first call for you comes from california. fairfax.amy in amy, you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: good morning. we had a shutdown of alcatraz and near woods, i know she doesn't probably have exact think , how much do you that impacted those two park necessary terms of the money that might have been spent or lost? guest: well, just from that individual park, i don't have a number, but i can tell you that talking billions of dollars per day are lost when closed. parks are hat impacts contractors and concessions, hotels and estaurants, impacts an entire community and the actual loss receipts for visitors going to the park. it is not dollars that typically

can be made up, those are just lost dollars. tois very significant impact the entire community's economy. alcatraz a national park? people think national parks are forests and trees or do they not think it expands to other thing? guest: i think they do. 417 national park units, every state has a national park unit, at least one. the statue of liberty, they are historic sites tubman and joseph stonewall, put in new york this past year, we have everything historic to and ncredible natural resource sites like zion and grand canyon. history, basic story of our democracy and things like civil war sites. really critical people understand the impact it as economically for the nation when our national parks are closed. host: here is brad from international falls. hi, brad. caller: good morning there.

i live around a national park. around boyser national park, i have been here since park.tion of the national i don't believe national parks are for people. i think they create e to make and national parks, lock them up and throw away the key. -- st think that this is this is just a smear campaign, andn, on the trump campaign so, here we're at, you know, talking about the national park which is foolish on all sides, so i don't know, good luck. guest: well, brad, you know, it s funny, actually national parks have had 330 million this rs annually, so just last year centennial parks saw so people sitation, are coming to parks and people all have their favorite park or history.ry in their

we talked about, parks are beautiful, parks like voyager canyon, yosemite, and henandoah, and important history they preserve and it is one area where we've always been it to find common ground, is a nonpartisan issue and one hat every president, theodore roosevelt through republican and democrat have honored our civil l parks and those servants that work hard to protect them. from michigan., go ahead. caller: well, good morning. think this is terrific topic because i think people love their national parks and we trash our streets and throw garbage all over the place. parks could post signs saying that you can't bring food in or anything like that, but so many naturalists out clubs, including hunters, the boy scouts, the girl scouts, thatrganizations out there could help in maintaining parks

needed. inwhy introduce ideas cucome and trash the parks in the first place so people have to lean up fter you, when we should, as human beings, clean up after ourselves, if we do make a mess. we to value our parks and we use them, it is part of who we are. we need places like this to go to. caller.anks, guest: thanks iris, i agree completely. alarm whenning we see a war on national parks like we've never seen before. seeing leases give for oil and gas, right up to the parks of the national that will have significant impacts and we saw the monuments president took unprecedented action and to look t what secretary zeinke has done in reducing two million grand bear's ears and

stair case escalon. the water in beautiful maine, a park that has been protected and preserved, well.tened, as we are continuing it see this effort that feels like an attack we are a part of what makes the national park amazing. it is about the history and the people and it is about all of ur public lands, they are our lands. host: a story based out of alaska this morning, king cove, action by interior department on monday, the interior secretary signed agreement for that will allow construction of road between king cove and all-weather airport in cold bay, something obama administration blocked because of concerns on impact of wildlife refuge. what do you think about the land strategy? guest: land swap strategies can be good, depends on the actual area. an area that is a wilderness area, critical for wildlife habitat, you have to

pay attention to that and that area has to be protected. look at the few wildlife areas where we have and those areas that are the last great wilderness, alaska is one of places in north america, really the last great wilderness. to protecto critical wildlife there. adds, the people of the community can drive through the refuge, the airport, why not give them access like that if they need access like this? that hasis is an issue been controversial and there they have ther ways been able to provide access, but i think the reality is with they are so s, special, these are places that determined to be necessary, that we have to do everything we can to protect them. wilderness icular area, certainly has been one that has continued to raise the s, but we're seeing

attacks on national parks like we have never seen it before. allow timber harvesting, oil and gas in the national on the waters as and shores that are critical to our marine parks, i mean, we're threats from every single area and this is something that impact to clean water, the impacts to the clean water act, impacting the natural resources and the ability for parks to really wildlife andkind of resources we care so much about. from the bearsal ears, state officials glad, they can manage this better than the federal government ever could. guest: yes, that hasn't been the case. remember, national parks belong to all of us, not to one state. they belong to all of us. and whether it is federal, national parks, public lands utah or within virginia or anywhere in this so important they

have highest level of protection and that is one thing the does.nal park service they have tremendously skilled workers, some of the most staff in the federal government, work for the national park system, but they ablehave the ability to be to impact and have a uniformed system of protection that is highest level. we had a situation where every state could determine their own protection and have really hodge-podge of protection, it would have impact.s host: this is jim netarpen springs, florida. good morning. how are ood morning, you today? guest: good. caller: thank you for taking my call. have been cross-country four times over the year, been yosemite, been to cradle lake, oregon, the parks is agree, we need i my opinion, id in believe the reason that they are

because theydge et want oil, coal, gas, it would be public was the llowed to let that happen and at this point, i don't know what can be done to stop it. it is kind of scary. well, thank you, thank you very much for those comments and of course, one thing that you can do, cuhelp npca by going npca.org, there are ways we can voice, we've had to create because of the defense we've had to play, a legal defense fund. we've had to increase our legal able ty, instead of being to be proactive and look for ways to improve and be able to on that, we've had to play major defense this time, which unusual.mely and as you say, these parks are

us and art of all of something we've been given short time to be stewards of this land generation, for our grandchildren and children's children and if we let them will be gone rks and they'll be gone forever, it is not something you can turn back. critical that everybody voice, raise their on, call ud, sign congress, really engage and understand that these are the treasures that we have in this country and we need to do everything we can to protect them. lynn, lives in utah. go ahead, please. ofrinkings, as far bears ears, our four u.s. entatives, representatives, are all owned industries nd oil and the ranching industries.

something like 80% of utah against shrinking of the our ents and representatives don't care what the people of utah want. out.are willing to sell it i just want to say that the guest you have on today is so spoken and fighting for american's treasures that i hope americans will wake up and what they have got. think they kind of take for granted the amazing parks we were blessed with and i just much iate the speaker so and i hope you can have her on telling ause she's americans what they need to hear and i just hope they'll listen. you.k host: apology for that, caller. guest: thank you so much, i your comments. just the other day i was walking a show, "rock the park," and the that traveled through the country and go to the parks and show us how amazingly are were in bears

ears and they were there and ooking at the dwellings, the rock structures and amazing dwellings that still exist and can still be important y are not to protect, i mean, what is? it is astounding. said, 80%, even in utah and across the country agree the worthy and our parks of protecting them. is it in some cases officials and leaders are not listening to us? host: theresa peirno, there was headline about national parks, resignation, mass resignation of the advisory board. is on the advisory board and tell us about the resignation? unbelievable at is and painful. the oung -- the people on national park advisory are scientists, educators, leader conservation and the members of this advisory served on the second century of them, under

george w. bush and provided then ck to secretary kimthorn. this is not a political issue, the really important that public understand, these are leaders in conservation and protection and their advice is critical. for the secretary, for secretary zinke, not to meet with them in a year is just appalling. couple know, when you that with eliminating all the science, all climate science and that has been done that show the impact that parks are face nothing our public land increased fire and drought and be able to eliminate science not listen to your board is frightening. national running the park system? we don't have a director of the national park system. after a year, nobody has been that position, we're ontinuing to see a lack of leadership from a secretary who came in saying he, you know, theodore roosevelt was

somebody he wanted to model his leadership. look at ase, please what president roosevelt did, it is not what secretary zinke is leadership role. host: the secretary in response o resignations said we welcome resignations, expect nothing ess from members who thought convenient to throw a blind eye people -- can you expand on that? appalling.s every sense in my body is just appalled by that statement. shows the lack of understanding. these aren't human resource people, these are science advisors and education advisors, nothing to do with happened in t personnel regarding this issue. and to do that and to throw that the it just really devalues office of the interior, secretary of the interior,

disheartening for public servants that volunteer, unpaid heir time to support national parks. host: nevada, next, this is bret, hi. caller: hello. theresa peirno, live 14 miles from lake ojave, we had -- wanting to close down the land and our here are dying from bark beatle infestation and disease. you talk about lumber business. trees are dieing and become a fire season.n the let people get in there, private with trees on them, their trees are healthy. f you fly a plane over nevada, look. horses, round them

up, killed 48 of them. host: thanks, caller. of course managing forest and the forest service out of the department of agriculture is for a budget to be able to really manage the forest appropriately, as well as manage entire fire season. we continue to see that as infestationll beetels or whether other creatures impacting the orest because of changes in climate. more important than ever, make sure we're using science and anaging important land appropriately and that is something that supporting the management of lands absolutely, going in and allowing timber parksting inside national that need to be protected and it management, forest but about supporting extraction and logging, there are places that need to be off limits and to be able to make sure the planning takes place in for when itto allow

is appropriate, the kind of efforts you suggested. host: is there a place for burn in the management process? guest: absolutely. many national parks, you know, in the rockies or other places have controlled burns and and manage it very well. and fire is really part of the forest, of ns in a course when you have these fires that are out of control, have hot, you are seeing droughts like we've never seen impacts, wed so, the need to be able to have scientists and to be able to happening and s manage them appropriately. host: why when it comes to forest service you talked about, hasn't been significant change in budgeting process which deals abilityagement and also to fight fires itself? guest: good question. is of the budget constrained, these are areas, ll competing for funding and

the funding pot hasn't grown. it continues to shrink and so we continuing to see where there is not enough adequate service, or forest bureau of land management and national park system. underfunded letely and to protect and maintain adequately, need more funding. host: from nebraska, this is brenda, hi. caller: hi. i hope you won't cut me off, i c-span uestion to ask when i'm done. but a lot of the fires we've because of the overreach of grabbing up land maintaining it and that is caused a lot of these fires happening.en and i don't understand why isn't more interested in american people on use i watched hearings

your channel about how much arassment and sexual abuse is rampant throughout the last eight years in almost every department, including that departme department. he secretary has actually done a really good job trying to clean that up. and i just have two quick questions, please. you don't disclose on bottom of the screen where it ays c-span, that you're actually owned by cnn. host: that is not true, caller, not true, funded by the -- caller: i checked it out. host: you have false information, let me finish. false information, we are funded that is ale industry, well-known fact. caller: cable industry, but cnn, baseline. host: cnn, is cable network, not an industry. leave it there. thomas from north las vegas, nevada. last call, go ahead. yeah, i wanted to say, i

a lot. visit lake mead the park services came in and put up couple booths, start shows ing fees, nobody up, then they have to start paying for advertising to get eople to show up and now the parks, nobody goes. that ms like it is always one, especially in the west, the east coast, they want to control what they do in alaska instead, if they want more forests, why don't the eople that keep voteing that way, make them in their own states, where they exist? seems like the west, the federal government owns more land than everybody else combined. to leave it ave there. guest: yes, of course the make up a rks really very, very small slice of our it is important to remember, we all benefit and from really nefits

protecting these critical treasures. they really are the very basic left in this country that is developing. we're seeing really development across the country and very few places left that we really can protect. important those we have that we do everything we would encourage people would ee to go to npca.org, contact us and we will direct you in ways you can get involved and be part of the solution to protecting parks. host: theresa peirno of the national park conservation association, president and c.e.o. thanks for your time. you.t: thank host: final segment feature politics editor from washington antle, talks es about effects of the shutdown and what happens next. we'll have that conversation when we return.

>> with landmark cases returning next month for season two, mark history producer farcas shared background on the series. it is opular demand returning, co-production with us and national institution center. callers this morning talking about race, they are talking about the powers of congress, the institution and and so what we've got in season two are 12 cases k supreme court that really take you through the history of the country and deal all these cases that really today.mething to do with along with national institution center, we had a long set of wanted to do we was take cases that had human interest story to them. cases affect e human beings across the country. cases came down to did they have in their time, did they change the court, did they change the country in their time relevant are they today? all of them are relevant today.

versus maryland, power of congress that can write laws the state.errule great case in 1886 that anthony kennedy mentioned many times on is all court and that about immigration. we'll have two good guests on washington and we've got a video journalist producer around the out country to places that help tell the story for each case for yick to san francisco, chinese san francisco. civil rights cases, case in 1875 law making it uninstitutional after the supreme court ruled against that effect laws went into in this country. frederick douglas makes an amazing speech a week afterward, take you to the place douglas makes that speech. the set. little bit on we want your phone calls, tweets, interact with the udience to talk about how the shows are relevant today. >> watch season two of landmark

26, 9 eginning february p.m. eastern live on c-span, with free listen c-span radio app, to help you better understand each case, we companion guide written by veteran supreme court journalist cases rrow, landmark volume two, the book costs their 8.95, plus shipping and handling gto c-span.org/landmarkcases. > "washington journal" continues. host: james antle of washington politics oining us, editor talking about the shutdown and the end of it, hello. it going.'s host: talk politically who gained and lost from this? think it was setback for chuck schumer, the thought as republicans always lose government shutdown battles, that's how it's been for 20 one now, never been stalemate that has ended well for the republicans.

this one was a little bit different. i think there was no clear end game for the democrats, what to were actually going accomplish extract from president trump, i think the hope was that there would be overwhelming backlash, that it would reinforce the idea chaotic.ashington is i think a lot of democratic base this was uprising of orts against a racist individual. democrats that the had, they have a number of senators who are up for states ion this year in president trump won. there are 10 trump state democrats up this year. clear that democrats in those states and some other in reddish states were not super enthusiastic about the shutdown from the beginning. saw some moderates and democrats from red states as early as buckle friday. it wasn't clear senator schumer

able to hold his caucus ogether long enough to talk about that. favors democrats nationally, but wasn't overwhelming and starting to go the wrong way. so, mitch mcconnell obviously comes out of it, something of a because it is another case where he was able to sort schumer.neuver senator the moderates in both parties come out a bit of a winner because they were very important to the deal-making process by resolved.s was host: you saw susan collins and this morning. guest: collins was out front leadership. senator mansion is running in a state president trump won by 42 very important to distinguish himself from the national democratic brand, so resolve this so quickly relatively speaking is think for rtant i mansion politically and for ollins as a leader in the

senate c. ost: our guest is with us, democrats 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can post questions or comments on twitter at c-span wj. side, how did can messaging go, particularly with shutdown, he schumer did that go a long way? guest: i continuing helped. democrats had a conflict in message. they were saying the shutdown was unnecessary and the president's fault and it was the fault, but two, they were also saying at the same time, it was a very the daca to shut down issue is so important government shutdown is justified. either one of those arguments, but you can't make them both at once. their mplicated messaging, whereas republicans had a pretty clear-cut message democrats have an immigration driven government pushing and are while it is possible democrats could have won the messaging war

was putting their vulnerable senate incumbents and house incumbents, particularly red state senate incumbent necessary a tricky position. we have a new deadline, how do both sides capitalize on deadline? guest: you heard senator schumer say yesterday, there is 17 days dreamers or he people are going to be getting deported. intended to put pressure on republicans, you know, obviously republicans are going argue the real deadline is march 5, maybe with this court that., later than democrats are going to counter, day over 100 people per losing daca protection, we really have to act now, it is an matter. there is no guarantee that the -- likely court ruling will appeal.urned on so, i don't think there is a lot of confidence the courts will in favor of issue the dreamers necessarily, so

democrats are really going to legislative solution soon and the two sides don't together in ose that solution would look like. republican, scalise saying not beholden or tied to what the senate did. think that is the problem, progressive activists ave with the deal senator schumer struck, it really goes very far in the direction of mcconnell's itch guarantees and even if you accept his guarantees at face lot he can isn't a guarantee. you can't guarantee president trump would sign the bill, you that the house would pass it. so immigration hawks in the have more leverage in this fight than they have ever had. this has been de something that the both parties have been battling, but usually negotiating table, you have republicans and democrats who agree with each other on trying to carve a bill that might have enough

border security concessions to few stragglers into the coalition. this time, president trump has cotton ody from tom lindsey graham at the table together. on one hand that presents option to are real compromise on mmigration, but on the other hand, it means dealing with eople who have diametrically opposed views, that can sometimes make it harder to get a solution. in t call from mike pennsylvania, independent line. ahead. on, mike, go the loss, i on still can't understand what in the world something like daca with the with anything budget. republicans do the insist that would be included in the first place? separate completely issue to me. my second question, or, for

pedro, that woman who called in that c-span ating was owned by cnn, was just example of the ignorant, that goes oninking in this country and i just don't understand what anybody is going do about that. i wonder if you have an opinion that. host: we'll leave it there, mike and let you answer the first question.at guest: mostly democrats wanted dak take in continuing if youion, they believed attach to must-pass spending bill, they could get a clean legislative fix with minimum or maybe no concessions to republican immigration hawks whatsoev whatsoever. so it was people who wanted to passed who daca fix wanted this to be part of the spending plan. that was part of able to licans were push back against this successfully.

n the past, it was auch the republicans looking to insert extraneous policy battles into must-pass government spending doing nd then were for so. it may not been the political rule where republicans always perceived as the aggressor in the government shutdown is at disadvantage. host: another mike in maryland, republican line. mike from hyattshaving. juan, in howard beach, new york, democrat's line. good morning. pedro. good morning, 00 a --00 anyhow,sk mitch mcconnell will hopefully to the president and -- ption, when we become, you know, the senate becomes have -- they would

have a nice day. on that. context guest: risk of making changes, forever, ority although the map is favorable for republicans this year, same not a good political climate for republicans overall. there is a risk, so the very ent has been frustrated by the ways of in ington in general, particular the fact you have allows er that democratic minority to block a lot of legislation. get the en lobbying to senate to do away with the filibuster or alter the rules so a 60 vote super majority required to end, culture, which effectively gives minority some legislation.er i don't know that would happen, number one, mitch mcconnell is idea in about that general, you have a lot of senate institutionists in both

disinclined to do that. immigration might be tough issue simply at in general because your core defectors are republicans themselves. so it is not clear when you have lindsey graham or jeff flake or who is off the reservation, so to speak, on 51-vote ue, that a threshold would resolve their problem. host: when it comes to the factor he how much stayed in the background? guest: i think it was helpful certain extent to have some degree of message discipline. he cannt trump is not -- at times be a skillful slap dash and like a stand-up comedian seeing what sticks, whereas, i think mitch mcconnell polished, veryre stable, very consistent messaging. the roblem with what president does, he will

undermine what the strategy legislative leaders are pursuing r republicans think they have consensus on some bill and the resident will tweet something that maybe he doesn't support a bill they thought he supported. i think him staying in the helped and took away a weapon the democrats could use. i think the democrats wanted to be the trump shut down and they wanted to use trump's and past recent controversial remarks against him and that to be the big governmenton for the shutdown. him receding in the background made that more difficult. been to be fair, he's tweeting about it this morning. guest: of course. ost: republican line, jenny, hi. jenny from olympia, washington. i'm sorry, denise, go ahead. caller: i'm calling about daca. think ember 5, 2017, i the president is making

proclamations, instead of laws. asked congress to fix daca. if there have been so many proclamations, i think americans are confused about proclamations. elected officials are forgetting americans do not appreciate proclamations and now the wall,ent is proclaiming a not now, but forever. i think americans will pay for wonder how much interest we will pay? host: okay, thanks. was a well, daca itself creation and executive action by ormer president obama, it has no basis in law. it was justified on the argument executive branch has prosecutorial discretion, i think the legal problem that it that it simply wasn't outlining enforcement creating a but program, issuing work permits,

things that have generally been be policy that is under the purview of congress. so at the very least, by decision and p's phasing it in over period of time, it allows congress, should do so to pass a law, which would be better from powers tion of perspective and also provide more stable legal status for the enrolled in daca. you know, wouldn't be at risk of rescinded by future president, wouldn't be overturned by the courts. the sole reason the president made the decision he made. clearly he believed that to get immigration policy changes to put wanted he needed daca on the table as a bargaining chip to do that. about dn't be talking chain migration or diversity, astery or anything like that things democrats might see to if

daca was not on the table with real expiration date. was onenator dick durbin the floor talking about bipartisanship effort with the shutdown and going forward, i a little bit and get your thoughts on it. senator: what i have seen on the floor of the senate in the last few day system something we have not seen for years. constructive, bipartisan conversations and dialogue on this oor, not just about issue, which is obviously front and center, but about the future this institution and what the senate will be from this point has been hat to me encouraging because it says to me, we do have an opportunity to work together. host: james antle how long did last?entiment guest: not very long. now, on immigration there have been bipartisan efforts dating least to 2005, where you do have senators on both sides who wanted variety of reforms that would address the status of the undocumented

would united states that legalize large percentage of them, get them out of the term they often use, but there hasn't been though because even there is bipartisanship, there diversity ofreater opinion on the issue than exists ithin even the bipartisan coaliti coalition advocating for reforms. typically what happened, super majority for even comprehensive immigration reform in the enate, that has been the case since at least 2005. but it hits up against a brick the house. so you have a lot of conservatives in the house, vote increasingly seeing people on the left in the don't n particular, who even want to make the border security concessions and other concessions that are necessary get more republicans to vote for these kind of bills. host: virginia, next from john democrat's line. caller: good morning, pedro, thanks for taking my call.

presidentsay that the already say that he wants to -- love in eautiful it to bring the table so he can sign it. the issue here is this. i think the president that john kelly, advisor with the who is t, he is the one changing his mind. let me say to the americans one thing. grow up g kid, they this country, we educate them, they -- some of them, they do some of them serve the military and we know that about ng has to be done immigration. so, it's not genius to figure the hat we need to fix problem, the problem is one is wants to do t who something, john kelly will change it, the president, his problem.t is the the president, seems he is listening to john kelly when he lawmakers,ys are the you change the law, when he was homeland security and say to the change the law and we will follow.

so the congress trying to do the problem is, we can't have this. lawmakers, we ur can't every time that we write budget that we should shut our government, this is not how you run a government. host: okay, thank you, caller, i appreciate it. one of the things that came out of the same meeting country the s-hole comment was there was confusion in the president's public he would bout what sign and what he would not sign. i think the white house essaging has been pretty consistent in terms of what they want and i think the president that n the context of meeting stuck by most of the at times , but he did signal he would be open to more maybe at times that he would sign whatever congress was able to put on his desk, but then walk that back. i think a problem was he said so meeting gs in the everybody came away hearing what they wanted to hear and those

be gs couldn't really reconciled. i think john kelly, some people i think the miller, president campaigned on immigration issue, i think he come out of this looking like he's gotten a win. i think while he would like to go down as somebody who solved daca issue when past presidents could not at the same to tlifr ink he wants something for enforcement first constituents. has to have something in the bill he signs to point to and this.i delivered on host: john kelly was topic of a tweet this morning from the resident, who wrote thank you general john kelly doing fantastic job for a job well one, long hours and fake reporting make your job more difficult, always great to win won more -- few have than us. glowing words for john kelly, where is this coming from? guest: there was a vanity fair be on hat said kelly may the way out. kelly made comments that

the ated some things president said during the campaign was maybe not well nformed, seemed to contradict the president's reported accounts of the meetings, seemed to contradict the president at times on technical details. it is well known fact that resident trump does not like that kind of thing, so it was reasonable to think that there could be something to it. is a lot of palace intrigue in this white house, as houses, but this seems to be getting out more in ealtime, tend to read other white houses, you read more later after it is over. the think, you know, president has to support john kelly if he's going to remain a public taff, have show of support for him in the face of these kind of reports, undermines what kelly is trying to do on the hill if he can't be seen as somebody who the president, kelly relationships are not as long traditional s more white house chief of staff, but it does seem you do need more

reign in this white house. host: from hastings, nebraska, mike.s caller: good morning. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: good morning. yeah, i have a comment about wall.immigration and the host: go ahead, you're on, mike. well, i'm ay, yeah, thinking we've been invaded by over , we should take mexico, get rid of the drug cartel, we won't have a problem or the a immigration wall. host: okay, michael in grand rapids, michigan, democrat's you're next. caller: two things. one, if you will. one hings, one about daca, about the military industrial complex. said that resenter he democrats wanted daca attached to the military spending bill. however, when they had the big one of the lady representatives asked can we

daca bill from the spending bill, at first mr. yes, then he said no. ask ther thing i'd like to about is this idea, eisenhower, we tary industrial complex, spend more on the military than the major powers isis as ep filling up major threat. isis has no missiles, airplanes so again, please that hten out the quote "i'll accept daca," and then change his mind and the threat industrial complex. host: okay, michael, thanks. the president has at times moved the goal post in terms of what he would accept and wouldn't accept. realities is the main driver for including daca in the who ing bill was democrats wanted the clearest path to the

cleanest daca fix they could get. thought that gave them leverage and would make to that.ns larnlly republicans wanted to separate the issues, although republicans wanted daca to be part of it, but mostly also cleanest wanted the daca fix they could get. host: washington examiner.com, you want to read the work of james antle and his colleagues there. you can find it there. washingtonexaminer.com, james antle is politics editor for joining us forn, the next few minutes. bingingham, new york. go ahead. caller: hello, good morning. i'm calling because in the of the segment you said you feel like the democrats have lost. because hink they lost they have opened their door to compromise. february 8 comes, which is not so far away, they have in the world ge now.

republicans have promised the daca deal, if the government shut down from february on, republicans will be only ones to blame. thank you, bye-bye. host: james antle. guest: yes, some democrats do in the next fight they leverage more lfrj th-- in the past fight. you will not have children's andth as a bargaining tool, that is possible and certainly i don't think what is happening a huge w will have political impact on elections happening 10 months from now. democrats have the same fundamental problem, number of in te incumbents trump-friendly states, states where trump is still popular and they are running for re-election. they don't seem to be particularly enthusiastic about a shutdown strategy. where that changes february 8 or any time in the future. host: enraged base be a problem

for democrats because of this decision? guest: absolutely. think the problem democrats have, they have a base that want see action. they have legislative fix for accomplish to liberal policy goals and to motivate the base, turn out in but they have some incumbents, particularly in the of te, where those kinds feelings are not necessarily reflective of their constituency. a huge national progressive base, a lot of blue state areas which are already democrats, where this sense.pular there are some house races where this could be a positive, five to 10 senate races this year, it would be a

negative. willie ller, this is from jacksonville, florida, running short on time. in. right caller: okay, real quick, the wall icans, they want the paid for. crisis paid for. i want all the stuff, how we going to pay for this? all the money out of health care, going for tax cuts. toell you how they are going pay for it. the democrats pay for it. every democratic program there is. host: james antle. uest: we've had this unstable compromise for the last, tax rates, how the math works out for that long-term is indeed complicated. politics s antle, editor for washington examiner, thanks for your time. to theow, we'll take you senate medical professionals and iosecurity experts set to

testify before the committee on preparedness and response capability for public health threats. will start shortly.

>>