that will really make a difference come 2018. >> thank you all very much. >> thursday on c-span, live coverage of the house beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. c-span 2 has president trump at the annual national prayer breakfast. live coverage at 8:00 in later, senate members are expected to spending short term bill. c-span 3 is live 9:00 eastern with a british parliamentary heating on so-called fake news with testimony by executives from google, facebook, and twitter. broadcast asa live they discuss the legacy of watergate. >> coming up on "washington journal," the director of economic policy with the

bipartisan policy center on the possibility of a government shutdown at midnight tonight. we will discuss the mix of politics in the olympics with eric xoma -- eric host: the federal government will shut down in 17 hours a month the house and the net vote deal with the issue. including nancy, want to see a deal for dreamers. she was speaking for eight hours and seven minutes, the longest address and house history, to drive home the point. this is "washington journal."

in the first hour, your thoughts on the price tag, the issue surrounding the budget deal, and other related issues. here is how you can call us. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. for federal workers, your thoughts are welcome, (202) 748-8003. you can post on our twitter feed, @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. post has aton breakdown of these increases that could happen. reportingvan substantial increases would incur for military and the mystic spending. previous spending limits will be lifted over two years. nondefense spending limits will

be raised over two years. it would extend the borrowing authority. the plan would include a provision to spend the debt ceiling into next year. it has been a charged topic since the november midterms. it highlights the fact it would fund the chip insurance program and add 6 billion dollars to address the opioid and mental health issues and include disaster funding relief to the tune of $90 billion. it does not address the so-called dreamers in this issue. you probably saw nancy pelosi talking about this issue yesterday for eight hours and seven minutes. wewill address that, but want to introduce scott long. he talks about the impact and reaction to the deal announced yesterday.

mr. wong, thanks for joining us. talk about the house side. how was this bill received? guest: by conservatives and a fiscal conservatives, not well. coming colorful reaction from the house freedom caucus. it was called a debt junkie -- junkie's dream, someone called it a christmas tree on steroids. , number of other fiscal hawks people concerned about the rising debt and deficit in this these folks orf swept into congress in 2010 and 2012 cycles as part of this tea party wave, believing they were sent to fight the debt crisis. a lot of these folks are

of the package is not paid for. it is not offset. in particular, they have concerns with raising the debt for one year. this would extend the debt ceiling and the borrowing limit to around march 2019. those are points of contention now. host: what is paul ryan saying to his caucus about this bill? does he have votes to get it passed? guest: leadership and steve scalise's wit team will acknowledge this needs to be a will acknowledge this needs to be a bipartisan effort. they will need democratic votes to get this across the finish line. they are acknowledging that publicly.

that is where we see drama this afternoon. the point kevin mccarthy made last night was this was not a mcconnell/schumer deal, but negotiations and agreement between the four corners of .eadership mcconnell, schumer, polo see, and ryan -- pelosi and ryan. host: we have heard about the speech she made yesterday. what is she looking for dreamers as part of this process? a greater,wants stronger commitment from ryan, a promise he will bring a fair the to accommodate dreamers, the young, undocumented immigrants, that he

will bring a bill to the floor in the coming days and weeks. so far we have not heard a specific commitment from the speaker. wants this dreamer issue to be taken care of in the near future. before she agrees and releases her democrats to support this major spending cap and government funding bill. it remains to be seen -- i will democrats who said, regardless of whether nancy pelosi gets the commitment, they will be on .oard the spending bill what we don't know is if enough democrats are there at the moment to reach 218 votes to get this bill passed. the scenarios

that could happen by end of day to keep the government-funded. -- to keep the government funded. deal originated out of the mcconnell/schumer talks. they will go first. it could get a vote as big as 70 plus votes. that would give it momentum in the house of representatives. the house will have hours before government funding runs out to pass this bill. it is going to be a combination of republican and democratic votes. it could be republicans supplying half the votes and the democrats supplying half. the number is in flux. that is what we are going to watch for in the hours to come. host: scott wong with the hill.

thank you for your time. guest: thank you. of 300 billionse dollars over two years is the price tag of the senate bill. hear from youe to about the price tag and the issues surrounding the negotiations. again, the phone lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. andou are a federal worker you want to give us your thoughts, (202) 748-8003. the president sending out a tweet on the budget, saying the agreement is important for our military, ends the sequester, gives secretary mattis what he needs to keep america great. republicans and democrats must support our troops and this bill. we want to hear from you.

pittsburgh, pennsylvania, independent line, what do you think? you remember the movie ?ith jimmy stewart if you only send a nickel in for the little kids. i am an independent, a secondhand citizen. it is hard to get in on the ballot and into politics when you're independent. with jime civil rights crow laws and the ignorance from back in the day. to the idea of the budget, what do you think? sir, talking about with dreamers and stuff like that, to respond to that, they are human beings. why are they coming over here? mark.we will go to

dreamers are part of this problem -- part of this process, when it comes to democrats. mark, you're next. i am a retired federal employee. this, why don't be republicans think about the deficit? this tax bill, it is going to run on the deficit, now we have the freedom caucus lking at this agreement and they want to bring the democrats in to get it passed. the democrats want the dreamers to be legalized. you know?

i think the bill is great. good bill and i say pass it. government at the level it needs to be funded. there are health clinics. we have a lot of them in philly. poverty ratehest of the 10 largest cities in the country. a lot of people depend on the health care. russ,let's hear from washington, d.c. independent line. good morning. have not heard anything about the wall in this budget. i don't know if it will be funded in there or not. when you hear the

democrats talk about this issue of dreamers and making sure there is a provision for them, is that something you can support? caller: i support the dreamers. on anothermment thing. going to stick to budget negotiations if you don't mind. .ancy pelosi on yesterday a series of addresses concerning .he dreamers there is a bit of the presentation from yesterday. [video clip] >> with the speaker bring up the bill which is bipartisan. sufficient number of republican cosponsors, but others who have said they would

so for a. we would like commitment to bring it and other bills he would need to be considered on the floor as well. bill withit where the the most votes becomes the tovailing bill either support with the senate has done or to reconcile what the senate has done. that is a simple request. thatis a simple request, house democrats, in a bipartisan way, others have joined in asking the speaker to bring a bill to the floor, to give us that commitment. why should we be treated in a humiliating way when the republicans than that leader has in a that opportunity bipartisan way to his membership? host: it was after that address that nancy pelosi put out a tweet -- seeing all of these go,

nancy, go messages are truly moving, but let's not forget the focus of what matters here. the minority leader position is one position that gets the privilege of talking for as long as she likes, depending on the topic. it extends to other members of leadership. june, 2009, courtesy of our video library, this issue came up, john boehner dealing with in 2009.e back even the debate over this, back then, here is a bit of that. [video clip] isi am wondering, if there some limit under the rules on the time that a leader may take, even though the time yielded was

not 20 or 30 minutes. the custom of the house to hear the leader's remarks. [applause] will the gentleman yield for an inquiry? >> i would be happy to yield. >> i know it is the custom of the house to give latitude. is there outside limit to the amount of time a leader might take and do we have historical records that might be broken tonight? [laughter] is this an attempt to get some people to leave on a close vote. >> the custom of the house is to listen to the leader's comments. >> reclaiming my time. att: minority leader boehner

the time making those comments. that is available via our c-span video library. go to our library for more. let's go to tina in georgia. republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i cannot believe the gall of nancy pelosi to say how humiliating the democrats were feeling after what the democrats did to the republicans during the president's speech. where were the democrats when obama was going to -- were in the obama administration was ?oing to raise the debt ceiling the democrats should do their part and stop holding the

government hostage. if they agree on it, agree on it and get it passed and not let nancy pelosi direct how they feel about it. host: rick, boca raton, florida. hello. good morning. thank you for c-span. i wish the republican friends would stop talking about obama and hillary and focus on the president. we have a president who is pulling all kinds of shenanigans. we need to get to the bottom of it. deal, what doet you think about the potential of the government shutting down and the price tag of it? caller: the president is wrapping himself in the american flag. we all love our military, but he is using this rhetoric to distract from what is an imbalanced budget. the russia investigation, he is

looking to distract us from it. $165 when he talks about military, increased a you are ok with that? no, we elected a businessman to help us lower the deficit and begin to lower a $21 trillion national debt. it is being swept under the rug again. it is a failure to hire a businessman who does not know government. we have a $21 trillion debt and the man is not addressing it. i am a simple businessman, but a good businessman. can do.e things you we have to raise taxes. my taxes should be higher than they are. i got a gift i was not looking for in this recent tax giveaway.

i don't need the tax break. times, a washington story about the president adding to the national debt after he hit the previous president over that. the annual federal budget deficits will climb to an estimated $1 trillion level of borrowing not seen since mr. first term. the deficit for 2017 was $666 billion. five hundredrom $86 billion in fiscal 2016, the last full year under obama. the deal would add 143 billion dollar in borrowing, pushing the deficit to at least $842 billion.

craig kaplan sending out a tweet -- the funding deadline is midnight tonight. senate followed by house plan to pass stopgap funding government through march 23 to a shutdown. mike is next, huntington, indiana, independent line. go ahead. caller: i do not think they should pass nothing until they get this settled, this budget, because that is what we hired them for. if they cannot pass a budget, they ought to cut their pay until they get a pass.

stopping do you think funding to the government is the best way to do that? i don't thinke they should stop paying the government. they should fund it. if the debt goes up, say we are , nobody drop everything is getting a tax rebate. we will go to a flat tax and everybody will have to suffer if we add to the debt. those guys would quit spending stupid money. host: woodridge, illinois, republican line. caller: i have several comments. they cannot fill a bust in the house. what nancy was doing was calming down the illegal immigrants so they don't march in front of her house. that is my opinion on that.

thatmade a deal on already. it will pass. my second comment is about the military. they havest 10 years, drained the military so bad. if people watch the hearings they have with the branches, they will see we cannot defend ourselves. we have so many threats, russia, north korea, china, we have to build the military up or we will not have a country. on the dreamers, the wall, we have to build the wall. how many innocent people have to be killed by drugs, and all of that? we just had a football player killed. they have to do all that. they did not cry about obama running the deficit up so bad. i don't know what the problem -- they need to watch when they have the hearings. they need to listen how bad our

military is now. twitter, the debt ceiling has been broken and collapsed. that is part of the senate bill that received passage yesterday, or that was agreed on yesterday. says we need a budget. we are deeper in debt. the day will come when we are in a bad situation. are all about more potential democratic voters. john, washington, d.c., you are next on our independent line. john, washington, d.c. caller: good morning. to make.ree points i am an independent for a reason. i was a democrat. i agree with some of the things trump is doing. it is hard for me to say it openly because he comes back and does something else that makes

if i agree with him on something, i agree with him on all things. i believe we need to put more money in our military. our threat are different. we need to boost our technology. antiquated military is going to take us to a situation where we will not be able to defend ourselves if something happens. treason whensays the democrats did not applaud to every word he said, but what about when obama was in there and they called him a liar out loud? happen.ings he needs to get out of his feelings and lead the country. host: federal news radio talks about employees who might be affected if the government shuts down.

employees and contractors walk on eggshells when it comes to fiscal appropriation. the are not optimistic federal government will reach an agreement by the deadline. congress has until midnight to budget or a continuing resolution. the senate has reached an agreement on a two-year spending cap deal. on the surface, it seems congress is on the way to a deal, not all legislators are on board. warrenton, virginia, republican line. go ahead. i was going to talk about how this will affect the trump administration badly. about "battletalk toads."

it is an interesting video game to play. host: let's go to georgia, democrats line. caller: it is a strange thing that youhave a budget involve the military. the military needs more weapons, but we have a military that we have family members, the veterans who need their money for their support. we need weapons, but if you put don'tinto weapons and you have a qualified military to use them, you are marking time and space. we have a president that doesn't know anything about the military. he uses that as a scapegoat. at more than helping the military, veterans, and other areas before we spend money on weapons we will probably never use. we need a safeguard, but be wise

with the safeguard you use. jim mattis, as part of the briefing yesterday, talked about the desired increases for the budget and talked about the current state of the military when it comes to funding. [video clip] >> absent a budget this year, we pay for ourable to troops by the end of the year, not be able to recruit the soldiers and airmen required to fill critical shortfalls. we would not be able to maintain our ships with a proper balance between operations and time for training and maintenance. we would have to ground aircraft, degrading pilot proficiency. delay contract for

vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize our force. i cannot overstate the negative impact from this uncertainty. host: the deal would increase two years by $300 billion. on the house side, looking at a short-term extension to keep the government from shutting down. that is what we want your thoughts on. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are a federal worker, call us at (202) 748-8003. line.irginia, independent you are on. caller: i want to talk about the budget deal and how they are trying to, with a bipartisan to avoid a government shutdown. i don't know how that will affect us.

through one shutdown, now we have another one on the horizon. if donald trump is trying to reach out to republicans and democrats, it would be hard because it is all bipartisan effort. host: had a you think republicans and democrats are doing on their own -- how do you think republicans and democrats are doing on their own to come up with an answer to the issue? caller: democrats are about this dreamer thing. the main reason for this is the fact that, since this inaugural address, the reason the shutdown is happening is because donald trump got launched in the cock or something.

i don't know. int: let's go to pete washington. he is a federal worker. caller: there is a lot of going the-and-forth between democrats and republicans about government shutdown and balancing budgets. last president we had a balanced budget was bill clinton. host: i believe so. caller: since the clinton era, to getot get people together to sit down. it takes a government shutdown. it is disheartening for me, to see what happens. it is not all about the military. rely on thisvets money. congress needs to get their act together and come together and say you get what is yours, and that is basically my comment. host: if a shutdown takes place

at midnight, are you affected? caller: absolutely. i will be furloughed. host: what do you do? work with the department of defense, the air force. host: the last shutdown took place over the weekend. how affected were you buy that? coming in andfrom doing an orderly shutdown, i worked about four hours, put , tother items for pilots ensure their pay was corrected, only to be offset by a government shutdown. affects me and my family, the uncertainty as far as pay is concerned. the government workers, it will be a hard time. congress will be hard to say -- host: we lost pete. let's go to jaclyn, republican

line. caller: i have been listening to what everyone is saying. the illegals coming into our problems it is causing, no one seems to have a good answer. why don't we put them in our military? if we need military, it seems a good solution. host: democrats want to see a provision, out of this for dreamers -- want to see a provision for dreamers come out of this. do you agree? caller: put them in the military. we need them. the washington times looks at an offshoot of these negotiations. chain migration becomes a sticking point. with the senate beginning a

debate next week, contours of the fight took shape. mcconnell said he would bring a bill to the floor and allow senators to offer immigration plans as amendments. chuck pressley is working on a bill that would enshrine trump half four-pillar plan. john mccain and chris coons have amnestyhat would couple with promises of future border security. senator durbin is pushing for the proposal he and lindsey combineorked out to citizenship rights for more than 3 million dreamers. from minnesota, we will hear from jim talking about this budget bill, increased about 300 ilion dollars.

-- $300 billion. caller: it is tim. before oh obama left office, he signed a national defense authorization act, worth $619 billion. before this started, i think trump got $700 billion. eight look at the next industrialized countries in the world and their militaries, the united states military towers over them. look it up. do your own research. if i am not mistaken, after a while, if half the world lives in poverty, they start to see that. ast: washington post looks at speech nancy pelosi made yesterday.

some reaction to it. some moderate democratic senators found fault with the strategy. democrat from montana said he would back the compromise if the disaster relief funds included a provision to recover from the wildfires. he wanted to be all comprehensive, absolutely. all copper, so he would take way he could get. other democrats should consider a political victory. we have a chance to spend a floor time on it and that is an opportunity we have not had in five years. speechcriticizing the from nancy pelosi, one was --. here is what he had to say. [video clip] bethe speaker could not

honored that the minority leader hr1d take an interest in 533. there are members who come to to make speeches and those who come to make laws. speeches, is to would note the gettysburg address came in at two minutes and americans may think it had greater eloquence. leader quotedy frequently through her speech, it reminds me of isaiah us reason now, let together, says the lord. trump stood there in the state

hishe union address, with hand out, extending an open hand to work with members of both parties on an immigration reform package. he offered a fair compromise. leader, the minority slapped his hand and called it insulting, mr. speaker. she called it blame. she called it dangerous. -- she called it lame. called it dangerous. this is not someone who came to law.chamber to make .he president offered he did not off for legalization, he offered a pathway to citizenship. he offered it for 1.8 million and said let's secure our borders and make sure immigrants who come to this country come

legally and with their sleeves rolled up to work and build america. there are those who want to solve a problem and those who want to exacerbate a problem for the election. host: you can see more of that on our website. you can see the whole speech .rom nancy pelosi on c-span.org negotiations go back-and-forth in the house and senate to keep the government from running out of money by the end of the night. pete, washington, d.c., you are next. caller: we got cut off earlier. you were asking about the furlough. it does affect me. it is one of those things, we will keep the military working, but we will keep the civilian force. they are needed as far as continuity and having the

wherewithal to execute these missions. getting back to the balanced budget, back to clinton, it is about bipartisanship. i don't understand what has happened since that time, where people are writing such a hard hard-- are riding such a line that they will not listen to each other. is pete's. let's go to spring, texas, nick, you are next. caller: there has to be better accountability from those parties. to see peopleg think it is an open checkbook where you can increase the budget, there is no accountability. it would be good for someone to see what we have done, the money we have spent on both sides. what we have said

we are going to get? that is my biggest problem with both parties. think abouto you the current negotiations and the potential for a shutdown? government should not be shut down. the government is there to govern. someone that you are going to shut the government down, that is a bad idea for the people of america. budget, both parties need to say, what is going on here? about a $290ng billion increase in the budget. get all of these programs. what is the end point here? for all of these things we are

adding, we have to remove things. go to regina, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. the sanctuaryis withmoney, i am on board saying this bill is bad. i hope we can get this defeated. funding,litary needs let's get the money out of the sanctuary funds going to these cities where these illegals are notected and they should becoming into this country, and send that money to the military for our security and defense. dockers -- these doctors on the expose you did on dreamland, all

of those doctors who gave out those opioids, they can be busted for restitution and all of the money they made when they should have given proper treatment. they can pay for the opioid crisis. it is not my crisis. it belongs to the people who made it. we will continue on the topic of the senate legend and the potential of a government shutdown for the next 20 minutes or so. rob porter coming back into the news. porter's support had crumbled. he resigned wednesday, but denied allegations from his ex-wives that he was abusive. he was a key gay creeper for -- eeper date keeper -- gate k

for tron. -- for trump. weekis on the website the if you want to read it there. sam was on this program several times to talk about that issue. if you want to see that report, you can do so at our website, c-span.org. anthony, district heights, maryland. go ahead. the government needs to be funded for about five years. paid.ment workers being the three branches of government need to come together to create a government. , everythingar plan will be paid for, the money

needed for whatever is needed. the budget will grow, but decrease every year or two years, by cutting the budget, just like a business. youput more money in and make more money, or you cut more money to get the budget paid off. this is what needs to happen. congress and the president and the senate need to come together on the budget. everybody needs to know what we spend, where is the waste, so we can bring this to where everybody understands what is happening. host: bill, talladega, alabama, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call, pedro. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: i want to make a comment about what nancy pelosi said. she made the comment her grandson wished he was brown and had brown eyes. i kind of thought that was a racist comment. she is white. she lives a privileged life. this talk about the daca , i wishts coming here america would stand up for americans first. that is what i have to say. host: texas, republican line. caller: i was calling about the

spending for the military. c-span3,d a thing on on afghanistan, and the spending. $5 billion a year up in smoke. we don't know where it is going. we need to find that out. as far as the wall in mexico, people are leaving. china is building three new factories, with housing, just like henry ford did. i guess, build a wall if you want to. have a good one. on the senate side, a budget deal would increase the budget by $300 billion over those code years. on the other side, a short-term extension to keep the government open with resistance by some. watch c-span closely all day to

see what happens next. if you follow on twitter, follow craig caplan. he is keeping an eye on everything that is going on. minnesota, tina, democrats line. caller: hi. continuallyn, and i am frustrated with the fact that we keep acting like our government is broke. sureepublicans have made they government is not getting the money it means. if both parties could get a true , progressive tax, and have the people who are holding on to all

of this money and not letting it trickled down to everyone else be taxed properly, we would have what we need to do business. we could worry about policy and not have to worry about money. we have money. host: a couple of things to show you. george w. bush giving his comments for the first time about matters concerning russia. he said on thursday, there is evidence the russians meddled in the 2016 american election. trump myer mentioning name, he pushed back on the attempts toident's have warmer relations with russia. the white house did not immediately comment. the wall street journal, a story looking at the text between

agents of the fbi, saying a text message between two fbi agents said barack obama "wants to know everything we are doing." what that text is referring to is not specified. employees of the fbi said it refers to preparation to brief obama about russian interference in that year's election. jim, kitty hawk, north carolina. go ahead. caller: one of the problems we have is we are dealing with an omnibus bill. each congressman has something in that bill that he needs or wants for his constituency. if each department

budget was handled on a one-on-one basis, at least you would know where your congressman stood and what he represented as far as you are concerned. everybody gets everything they want and the budget keeps going up each year. the drivers of the budget are the pensions of negotiated over the last 30 years. able to get to a position where each congressman , thatfor his constituency way the law and budgets are set. the senate side, chuck schumer talked about the increase of $300 billion over two years, and the negotiation it took to get to that point with the republicans in the senate. [video clip] doesn't have everything

democrats or republicans want, but it has a great deal of what the american people want. logjams, this is a breakthrough. after months of fiscal brinkmanship, this is the first real sprout of bipartisanship. it should break the cycle of spending crises that have snarled congress and hampered our middle class. benefit oureal will country in so many ways. and women in uniform represent the best of america. this gives our fighting forces the resources they need to keep our country safe. host: mary, oklahoma, democrats line. ,aller: i would like to know are they going to come up with spending cuts, like cutting the

$116 billion the illegal immigrants cost the government every year over what they pay in taxes? that would be $116 billion a year off of that. at 8:00, if you are interested, the national prayer breakfast takes place at this time. trump is expected to make remarks at that breakfast. setup youme of the are seeing as we prepare to show it to you. you can watch it, if you want. c-span2 atso as 8:00, at c-span.org, and our radio app. the torilla, massachusetts, ,emocrats line -- the victoria massachusetts, democrats line. caller: why does congress have

to wait so long to work on these things that are necessary? our soldiers are working hard to keep us safe. hope they can have a better plan for solving these problems. story out ofay, a washington about money given to , saying thempaign campaign spent more than $688,000 at trump properties. the headquarters are housed at his midtown manhattan, and his washington hotel took in more thanast year, 60% of that came from the

republican national committee to host events at the property. maryland, independent line. up,er: my paid is not go up.-- my pay does not go mythe tax law is enacted, paycheck will go up. i like to have an up in the economy. host: linda, you are next. people i don't know why don't understand this. if the house passed the appropriation bills that went to the senate, the democrats have been blocking those bills. republicans are trying to cut the cost of the government, but as long as the democrats block everything, it is not going to happen. thank you.

wall street journal looking at the 2018 elections. julie looks at funding on the democratic side, saying donor money has flooded 23 republican held districts, giving those candidates a $4 million fundraising advantage over republicans. across the country, democratic candidates out raised -- out raised at least 40 republican incumbents. both democratic and republican strategists expect at least 80 seats to be competitive. manassas, virginia, chris. caller: i have two comments.

a lot of the fear mongering coming from the conservatives about illegal immigrants murdering or killing people. i have heard your callers mention that. that is false. it is statistically false. more people are killed and murdered by mass shootings from a lot of white supremacists, things of that nature. that needs to stop. we get more killings from mass shootings. the second, and i have is on the budget. one of your callers mentioned we spend more on defense spending than the next eight countries combined. it is ridiculous. were talking about shutting down the government, the military is going to get paid. veterans might not, as far as social security, but that is

something that needs to get worked out. to say our military is not going to get paid, that is false as well. especially with trump wanting to have a military parade. he isount of money spending golfing, that money could be spent on more social programs. host: one topic at the white press briefing that james mattis was asked about was the idea of a military parade. here is his response. [video clip] affection andnt's respect for the military, we have been putting together some options. we will send them to the white house for decision. laid out the argument for fully funding the military, why you think every dollar counts. why divert time and financial

resources to a parade? >> my responsibility is to make sure i lay out the strategy and make the argument for the oversight of congress to make a determination of fully funding -- as far as the parade goes, the president's respect and the military is reflected in him asking for these options. that press briefing is available for you on c-span.org. joe, washington, d.c. caller: there needs to be greater accountability on how the money is spent. a lot of the money will go to defense contractors. that money is not being accounted for. needs to be more

accountability. it does not make sense to increase the budget. they can spend it how they want on $500 hammers, billions of dollars going to waste. that is not right. from in the,e call clearwater, florida. caller: hello. this is randy. i am a permanently disabled military person. couple of things, so don't hang up on me. all, the news does not report that the house of representatives passed all the appropriation bills by september for thisunding full-year. the, shoot, what was i going

to say? it there.ave to leave we appreciate you calling. we will continue on with this topic of the central budget and federal shutdown, the various work on budget deals. of the bipartisan policy center will be along for that discussion. of drexelillmer university joins us to talk about the olympics and the political issues underneath the olympic games. we will have that discussion later in the program as "washington journal" continues. ♪ on "afterwords" black lives matter co-founder

with her book. by an authoriewed and journalist. >> as we created black lives matter, we knew we had to get people on board. we also have to interrupt when people try to co-op black lives matter. we spent the first year ensuri ng it was not co-opting. challenging people that we love in our own movement sometimes to lives matter, but really focus on black people and be in solidarity with black people. then we took it to the world. c-span p.m. eastern on two's book tv. >> saturday, american history tv on c-span3 is live at 9:00 eastern with all coverage from the new museum of the bible and washington, d.c. with a

symposium of historians exploring the bible and the founding of america. speakers include a baylor ,niversity history teacher author of "benjamin franklin: of aligious life founding father. :" and a vanderbilt university divinity professor. watch live on saturday morning starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. with this is shai akabas the bipartisan policy center. good morning. a little about the bipartisan policy center and who is behind it? byst: it was founded in 2007 4 former leaders.

we are one of the few think tanks that proactively works towards bipartisan policymaking. we're looking for good policies that have a chance of passing on capitol hill. there are a lot of organizations focusing on policy favorable to one side or the other. nonpartisan think tanks that come up with policies that are not partisan in nature. we are trying to find policies they both can agree on. host: the senate majority leader minority leader were touting the fact they came up with this deal. what does it do for the budget? guest: there are three good things about this deal. first, it avoids a shutdown. a shutdown is something no one benefits from. it has real harm to real americans that rely on the federal government in their everyday lives. and it makes us look like a laughingstock to the rest of the world. the second thing it does is it

puts the budget process on a sustainable path for the next year and a half. with the top level spending will be for defense and nondefense programs. hopefully, that means we will not see more shutdowns in the near future. hopefully, it also means we will not be operating on continued -- continued revolution. we are four months into the current fiscal year -- continued resolution. we are four months into the current fiscal year and are operating on a month-to-month basis. that is not sufficient for everyone. hopefully we can have a regular budget process for the next year and a half. third, it provides resources for certain areas of the budget that has been starved. defense and nondefense agencies. many of those are the investment portions of the budget. both categories are close to 50-year lows as a

percentage of the economy. one keeps our national defense and americans safe. the other is planning for the future and investing in the next generation. we are at levels of spending that are too low and it can have real impacts down the road. the problem is what is not in agreement. nothing addresses the long-term debt problem. the problem is that this makes it worse. it adds an additional 300 billion to 400 billion to the debt. if you extend these policies, as they probably will, we are talking $5 trillion in debt. it is roughly the same estimate as the tax cut added to the debt . we're doubling to the policy where we add to the debt in relatively good economic time. it increases in bad economic times. in good economic times you are supposed to be working it down.

this is working backwards on where we should be headed on our fiscal policy. ways toy not build in pay for the increases? guest: good question. they do have some they are quite small compared to the additional spending they allocated. the problem is that for each party they care about the debt more than other party's priorities but less than their own priorities. that means that when you get an agreement like this where both parties get spending that they out, the debt worries go the window because that is for the next generation to deal with. both parties now get to tell their constituents that they provided additional spending for areas of the budget that they care for. host: topics for our guest, shai policyof the bipartisan center p review can ask questions on the line. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats.

one of the elements from yesterday, what you think about the debt ceiling. talk about the debt ceiling, its importance, and why they focused on this in the package. guest: we have been working at ceiling sincedebt 2011. we forecasted what we call the x date. when the government can no longer pay its bills in full and on time. the debt limit limits the amount of borrowing. the we reach that level country is not able to borrow to pay our bills. we are in a time with the treasury secretary has been a fudgeasures that give factor. additional time to extend the debt limit. our projection is that if the debt limit is not addressed by march we could reach that x date. that is like staring into the

economic abyss. we have never been to that point as a country where we have not been able to pay our bills. this would extend the debt limit . that means it will not be in effect through march of 2019 and they will not deal with it for another year or two. the reason they are dealing with it now is because that x date is getting so close. we are pastat december. what does it mean to the process they are thinking about making that go away, so to speak? guest: they're allowing to account for the tax decisions we have already made. we are the only country in the world that effectively has a debt limit. that is because the debt limit does not restrict what we do on spending or the tax side. it only restricts the byproducts. it is ineffective in helping us control spending or controlled revenue to pay for anything. it really says you have already done that, now we are not going

to let you borrow for it. that is not an effective tool because we have already spent it. if you have a credit card and you already spent the money coming cannot say you are not going to pay it. host: it sounds like a political tool more than anything else. guest: is seems like policymakers draw attention to the debt. it does eliminate the fact that we have a $28.5 trillion debt. we would be better served to say that process and refocus on parts of the budget that are inefficient driving the debt, like major spending programs that we have and revenue we bring in. in recent days, those have been getting worse, even though we have the debt limit in place. host: our first call in virginia beach for our guest shai akabas of bipartisan policy center on the democrat line. caller: thank you.

bipartisanship under ronald reagan. when ronald reagan started we had $209 billion in debt with no deficit. when he left we had $4 trillion in debt. when bush got into office he took tax cuts. debt.icans are running up the only time it makes a difference is when democratic presidents are in office and they talk about debt. you remember dick cheney? bipartisanship is the worst. if democrats vote for this, they us taking resistance from here they are going along with trump. schumer is in new york looking for a deal for trump. democrats are losing resistance, losing everything that we built up. they are going along with trump. host: we got you. guest: you make a good point in that there have been presidents of both parties that have added

to the debt. in fact, the only administration where we paid down the debt in the last several decades was the clinton administration when there was a republican congress and democratic president. we had several years where the debt went down. most other demonstrations -- of their administrations, it has been a steady increase. most parties have the spending or the tax side adding to this. was ax plan republican-driven up rent that added to the debt by all objective analyses. the plan now is a bipartisan deal, so both parties are signing on to the debt increases. when our policy makers going to make the difficult choices for the next generation that will help us control the debt had and put us on a more sustainable fiscal path? host: ralph? caller: tying into that, i do

not think we will find a responsible formula. the government is so corrupted that they are not capable of balancing the budget. the latest thing, deferred tax where all of the hedge fund managers get taxed at 15% of their salary. on top of that we cut down the top tax bracket to 35%, yet we have a 15% tax on capital gains. which is where some people make a living, including myself. if we go down the path we are going we will end up with major inflation. we already have inflation at 5% or 6%. 90% goes to the top 1%. nobody, including democrats who harp on social justice, are willing to say we need to raise taxes on the wealthy. thank you. guest: the decisions it will take to address debt are

difficult for policymakers to swallow. they are generally unpopular. whether entitlement programs like social security and medicare that are driving debt upwards, or taxes that people feel in their paychecks. that is the other side. neither are easy decisions because they affect constituents now in a negative way for their finances. it will take americans collectively telling their policymakers that this is an important priority and that we need to address it now before it gets worse. before we get to the point where policymakers feel like they have the space to address the major challenges on fiscal policy, they will keep looking to the area of the budget easiest to cut. the domestic agencies and defense department. this undid some of the damage done in recent years from the sequester policy that cut those areas, but they are the easiest to target because people feel

than the least in their everyday life. host: what is the likelihood the tax law will open a discussion on cutting spending from the programs that you highlighted? guest: republicans talk about cutting spending, but democrats are saying you added significantly to the debt, and now you're saying we need to cut the programs that our party cares about? ae issue is that when it is political battle about cutting or not cutting, it does not get at the underlying issue. these programs need reform. it will mean some people get less funding, but social security is a good example. we can change it in a way that could increase benefits to people who need them, deserve them, who worked long careers at low income and are living under the poverty line on social security. we need to make decisions for population the that is living longer and in some cases does not need the additional funds.

make sure they are allocated in a way and bring in more revenue to make them sustainable. we have a plan of the bipartisan .olicy center in that involved plan there are several policy priorities that need to be changed. ands lifting the bottom adjusting benefits through a slow increase in the retirement age for the general population. we have been increasing the retirement age passed in the 67.'s right now to age we can put in place these policies that taken place 20-30 years down the road, but we need to recognize that people are living longer. host: salt lake city. hi. caller: hello. i wanted to ask, can the united states of america go bankrupt?

thank you. guest: the united states cannot go bankrupt in a traditional sense because we have the ability to borrow in our own currency. the only way that we would encounter a fiscal crisis, a bankruptcy of some sort, is if we owned bills to people and were not able to pay because we could not borrow the money necessary. we are a long way from anything like that, but the problem is that we are close to a situation where with the debt levels we have now, 80% of our overall size of the economy, if we encounter a financial crisis like the one in 2008 or an unexpected global event like a war or something else, we might not have the fiscal room to put money towards that. we passed a stimulus package. there were debates about how

effective it was and how large it should have been, but it is clear that it helped prevent something that could have been worse than the great recession. are we going to have the fiscal room to do that? if so, what will the debt look like after that occurs? host: borrow in our own currency, what do you mean? guest: some countries, like the european union, the country itself does not control the currency because it is part of a broader currency zone. when that happens, it is difficult to guarantee that the country will be able to pay its debts. we could manage the value of the dollar in terms of how much the federal reserve is making and what interest rates are here and we have some control of our own destiny and that financial sense. it puts us in a more secure position we would be otherwise if we did not have our own currency. we have a new federal reserve chairman. what does he bring to the table and matters concerning debt, how

that should best be managed? guest: chairman powell is someone i worked closely with at the bipartisan panel. brings a lot of experience to the table. he has been in the private sector in the financial markets and has a long experience serving in the federal government in the george w. bush administration. he served at the treasury department. he understands these from a market perspective and a policymaking perspective. the thing about chairman powell is that he is a consensus builder by nature. he tries to take information perspectivesy of and incorporate them into his own thinking to bring people together around a clear policy path. he in the mind of the previous chairman that put money into the market and put quantitative easing? is he one of those minds, or does he take restraint when it comes to adjusting the money

and currency to solve problems? guest: he's levelheaded about these questions. he is not a monetary hawk or dove. he will not increase interest rates or keep them low without evidence. he is good at looking at the data that comes in, talking to people that are knowledgeable and have perspectives, and figuring out what is the best economic path forward for the country as a whole. host: interest rates, will it continue the increasing of interest rates this year? guest: i expect he will keep in a fairly similar path. i do not think he intends to make radical change in terms of how they will increase meeting by meeting i am not making forecasts. the indication is that he will generally continue the study policy they have had. host: darrell, virginia, independent line. caller: your guest has done an

excellent job in describing the budget and revenue problem we face, and also the political conundrum in addressing it and doing something about it. in terms of how we can solve the problem, i think that we think too narrowly. really, the way that we do taxation, taxing production, beat it capital gains or wages, there is a perverse incentive that harms the economy and fromh and prevents people taking on additional work. by doing that, it is always going to be unpopular and perverse incentives will get in the way of doing something about it. if we can open our minds and think about taxing net worth

instead of income, it does not have those perverse incentives. guest: the caller is definitely right that some have more economic drag associated with them than others. income tax is a good example. it does just incentivize economic activities we want to , forrage, like work example. there are others, like the estate tax, that do not carry those incentives. wealth tax.arm of from an economic perspective, putting more of a tax burden on those taxes and proportionally less on something like the income tax makes sense. there are a lot of other countries that have larger consumption taxes than we have. in the u.s., we do not have any national consumption tax. we only have it at the estate level.- at the state

what we can reduce income taxes as a whole is increasing taxes through consumption. the issue is that it is regressive because a taxes everyone at the same percentage. it hurts lower income households. the way you can accommodate that and make sure it retains the progressive nature as attack system we have today. i am an upper0, income individual, i am on social security. i want to praise the quality of this conversation. it is clear. it is helpful. it is educational. i want to suggest a new kind of based on a combination of washington journal interviews like this with your three-our in-depth format you do for nonfiction and recently,

experimenting with fictional. the clarity of the communication is spectacular. i heard representative adam kinzinger to an honest and clear interview on this topic. if you were to bring together, out of your archives, a series of interviews with people like and others. even going back to the 1986 budget deal. the consistently good ideas versus the consistent political blockades. adam kinzinger said that we can solve this problem, not on current retirees, but dealing with future numbers on the social security and medicare. when you hear someone of that youth and vigor, combined with this man and his youth and vigor, with incredible clarity to make the people understand.

what he said in the question about the answer to the woman's question, can the united states go bankrupt, that is a question i've always wanted to know. when he talked about no, because of the nature of our currency, that is the part where i need more education. take all of the q&a from the good questions and answers from this interview and make it into a three-our in-depth on the budget would be helpful. host: thank you for the suggestion. anything from the you want to add? guest: thank you for your kind words. the social security element. i wanted to mention that we recently launched a new campaign called funding our future. you can find it at fundingourfuture.us. social security is a huge

component of that. helping policymakers with what they need in addressing social what hasand attacking been the third rail of american politics. how people save for retirement through 401(k)s and preserved that income when they retire and live in increasingly long lives. host: steve mnuchin was asked about the volatility in the market. he said monitoring that situation, not that concerned, how much concern did you see your self? guest: everyone is worried what will happen with their savings. when you look at the bigger picture, the market has been an incredible run for the last seven or eight years. triple, times, double, and looking at a couple of days of that does not take the full picture into perspective. even the last few days it has leveled out and we are net down from the top peak a couple of

percents. are taking a long-term view. that is something chairman powell will do. he will not act quickly were rashly to these situations. he thinks about the long-term trajectory and what will come next. host: we heard the white house take credit for the market when it is on the rise. how much falls under the power of the president? guest: very small amounts under the actual power of the president. he can create through policy environments. what the market sees and how companies perform, there are a lot of factors. from interest rates to the general global economic climate. there has been a political issue about what he takes that for versus what he does not take credit for. that is true for virtually every administration. lots of administrations point to good numbers and not to bad

numbers. it is the president, policymakers, the federal reserve, the economy, the business industry, all of those are factors. democrats line, you are on with shai akabas. caller: i am on the republican line. host: sorry about that. caller: i want to thank the gentleman for speaking this morning. i think one of the biggest areas that need to be addressed is the government's responsibility is to fund the military to protect the american people. i understand the bipartisan bill that the democrats and republicans did in the senate. however, when a demand we spend as much on domestic as the military after negating spending for the last 10 years, letting the military deplete, this is why we are having an issue with

having to spend so much on the military now. the other issue, one of the biggest areas that we can cut, you talked about clinton being the last administration that had a balanced budget. i do not think his administration was dealing with spending $115 billion a year on $19 al immigration and day on housing illegal criminals. that is a day. your first point, the bill they are talking about today. you're right that the military has been starved. that can harm readiness and the morale of the troops when they are not getting the resources that they need to protect our country. at the same time, the non-defense portion of ,iscretionary spending there are a lot of important

programs investments in our future. like infrastructure, research into health care and science, inspection for foods, or new drugs coming onto the market. inefficiencye and in both portions. the military is one where people point to where there are areas that could be reduced if there is a careful look at how we are spending the money. that is true in the defense and non-defense portions. looking at the levels at what those are at relative to history, they have been starved. when we talk about the broader budget challenges, focusing on that 1/3 of the budget, those of thebined are 1/3 budget. those on autopilot are medicare, social security. those are the pieces we need to tackle to get a hold of our budget. not cutting the defense and

nondefense discretionary portions. ben in california. caller: the only long-term solution for the dead is to tax -- for the debt is to tax the rich. additional taxes will almost inevitably have to be part of the solution to our fiscal challenges. even with extremely aggressive to major spending programs and phasing them and quickly, our debt will rise to high levels if we do not bring in more revenue. it has been doubled by the fact we passed the tax cut. not only will we need to undo the revenue loss, we will need to bring in more revenue on top of that. sooner or later we will meet that reality and have to live up to these challenges. the government shutdown,

will that cost us? guest: that means we effectively pay people for not working. hundreds of thousands are furloughed and do not come into work. we saw that in the 2013 shutdown. the flash shutdown was one business day. when those workers do not come in for several weeks they are not getting the critical functions that government does like food inspection and drug inspection. that is not happening when the employees are not there. is wethe shutdown ends, pay those civil servants because they deserve to have a reasonable expectation of being paid. that means we have been paying people to not work on the federal time. -- federal dime. not only through that, but through inefficiency, there are a lot of problems that come from a government shutdown. ,ost: shai akabas

bipartisanpolicy.org is the website. ericl athletic director llmer joins us. that conversation, coming up. ♪ "q&a" doug mills talks about the photos he took well covering president trump. >> he enjoys having us around. commentsis constant about fake news, i feel he enjoys having us around because it helps drive his message and the news of the day, which he can do every day and does every day. he is constantly driving the message. having us around allows him to do that.

>> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> 12 new supreme court cases. historians and experts talk about constitutional issues and personal stories behind significant supreme court series. february 26 at 9:00 p.m. eastern. to help you follow all 12 we have a companion guide written by tony mauro. $8.95 plussts shipping. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by american's

cable television companies and is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is dr. zillmer from drexel university sure to talk about politics and the olympic games. good morning. how political do olympic games generally good? how much more so this year because they are in south korea? guest: welcome to the 23rd winter olympic games, also known as the political games. they have been political since the beginning of time, since the first olympics were staged. a sleepy village in olympia to get away from any perception there could be power in a town or region. since then, the selection of where the olympics are hosted has become a political hot potato. think about four years ago in

sochi. , a mere 50ngchang miles from the border of north korea. in 2012 it will be in beijing, china. a far cry from saint maurice and chamonix, france. a country club of winter olympics in europe in the 1930's and the 1940's. host: is there a political concern or political outcome because of the location that you described? .uest: of course north korea and south korea are in a cease-fire. there is a demilitarized zone. it is thinking about the cold war between eastern and western germany in the 1960's where the east was trying to field an olympic team and was only allowed to do so in the 1960's and competed as a country.

north korea has sports. the first political item on the agenda is what they show up on an olympic stage at their neighbor. they are. will have an integrated women's i've stalky team called korea. members of the south korean and north korean ice hockey teams will play on the same team. i feel that although all the olympics are political, there are issues going on within the olympics -- cheating, gender issues, the nhl professional players are not sending players. there is always the weather. there is the politics of the also known as my way of life is better than your way of life. south korea, that close to north korea, and all of the things we have discussed on your channel about the politics in that

region, it will be interesting. ust: what is history tell about politics overshadowing the games themselves, and what is the potential of that playing out in these games? guest: the moment that the flame drops, onlyhe puck the sports matter, the athletes. the moment that we will watch sometimes lasts a lifetime. that is what history tells us. whether the hitler's olympics in 1930 six, the tainted olympics in sochi with the human rights violations, the post-olympics invasion of crimea. we will have to see. is all aboute news the politics of the game and not win a goldvonn will medal going down the mountain at 70 miles an hour. it is a sight to behold.

it will be interesting. will be. eric zillmer joining us until 9:00 for a discussion about the olympic games, particularly the politics within the olympic games. you can call the lines. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. republicans. .or democrats, (202) 748-8000 , (202)ependents 748-8002. but we had with larry nassar, do they play out in this stage? guest: with such a big scandal with the u.s. gymnastics team. the way that i look at sports is you cannot separate it from social issues that we as a society deal with. sports, music, and art is a way to examine our culture.

whether it is cheating, race discrimination, how do you win or how do you lose, sports plays a role in being a catalyst for social change. people will look at the medical coverage and how athletes are being evaluated by physicians, as they should. i feel that in the background this is an issue. it is not as big as russia being banned from the games. that is big news which is overshadowed by the location of the olympics. all of these are important. sports is about winning with grace and losing with grace, but also about how do you position ,ourself as a country, a team and an athlete in trying to follow the highest level of integrity and exercising your support. host: in the new york times,

there were several athletes in russia that are unsure if they can participate. how will that be treated? guest: the whole thing is at a stalemate. there's so much science trying to promote doping for athletes. there is tremendous pressure by athletes to make a living. there is the anti-doping agency trying to catch up with all of the things happening, from blood doping to performance-enhancing drugs. and the systematic switching of urine samples from the russian government to the point they are not being allowed to participate in the games. it is a big issue. the line is that russia's continuing to deny the existence of a state-sponsored to open program. let's go to our first call in thousand oaks, california. caller: good morning. i have a simple question on the politics of the medal count.

i have noticed in the summer and every olympics, almost country measures the winners by the number of gold winners. in the u.s. we measure overall medals. that creates a discrepancy in who won. guest: this is a good question. you can answer it your self. which is more important? events.e over 100 medal winterhe largest olympics ever staged. it is growing. i think that every country measures it differently in terms of how well they do. norway is favorite to win the most. they have in the past and our favor to do so. america is better off, if they want to look at it this way, and this count could be cheaper than hosting a military parade to show pride for your country.

although, we'll see. you, the medal count, if have all of the metals, gold, silver, and bronze, accumulated, the american teen will look better in the view of global sports. other teams that are smaller with more gold medals could look better. there is no agreed-upon way of looking at it. in fact, many sports stations that cover sports will do the medal count at the end as an afterthought. it is about the athletes. of a political warfare. it was during the cold war, were bloc countries more successful in sports than the west block. in rio the u.s. won 121.

the next country was at 60. the american women, if they were a country, they would have been the fifth most successful nation on the planet. caller: i was curious. what if the north korean athletes decide to defect. do you have something set up for them? guest: another good question. this happened routinely. east german and romanian and soviet athletes would go on an international competition. my sister was a figure skater in 1968 in france. there was an amazing amount of security forces with those athletes. during the cold war, the athletes had families back home. they would be scrutinized if their family members would have defected. nevertheless, many did.

there is a small delegation north korea is entering. i think it is around 50 athletes. vetted.e all been i do not believe that these athletes will defect into south korea. it would make this news station if that happens. host: there was news that kim- partun's sister will be a of the delegation. what do you think about that? guest: it is common to have people that are politicians or high-level monarchs, ranking people, visit the olympics. our vice president will be there. it is a good thing. seeing interaction between north and south korea that you would not have seen outside of sports. this is truly a sports diplomacy. they reallyre, is

going to be higher level interactions between north korea and south korea around or after the olympics? interesting science of one were to think of progress that the two countries are talking with each other and playing with each other on the level of a sports competition. the opening ceremonies are interesting. all of the countries walk in with their flags. the ancient greece, mother and father of the olympic games. then every country comes in. of the democratic country of north korea will enter the stage and the response. , areoreans, south koreans very proud people. i have been to athletic events 2 years ago. i was in south korea for the world university games. 11,000 athletes under the age of 26 competed. they did an excellent job

organizing and competing in the games. as they did with the soel soul, koreathe becks. this will be an interesting organized winter olympics. have two questions. one is what is the relationship with the middle eastern countries. there is israel and the murders that happened at the olympics, but also syria. last year there were some defections. my second question, who -- how privatized are the athletes?

in some countries the government subsidizes, others it is all a private enterprise. i'm wondering what is the difference in terms of competition on that? guest: 1972 during the summer olympics in munich, i lived there at the time, my father was a kernel in the cold war -- a in the cold war. i was there when they entered the olympic village and held hostage the israeli team and killed them. in return the german authorities kill the hostage takers. this was a big event surrounding the olympics. one of the controversies was if the athletes should compete while hostages were taken in the village. the president of the international olympic committee said that they would.

that is what you're talking about. now, we were not prepared for that in 1972. in 1968 when my sister was competing i went in to be village without any security clearance. in 2018, there are 2000 athletes, 5000 police forces, 10,000 security. russia paid $50 billion to host their olympics. a lot of the if the structure goes into security. the second question about how athletes fund themselves is a good question. how do you follow the olympic dream? my sister skated for west germany. the german government of her stipend each month to allow her to compete. is morenited states it decentralized where we have national governing bodies that do help, but we are a country that is privatized. we believe in entrepreneurship.

for many athletes, especially individual athletes like someone jumper, theyski would have to find personal and private sponsorships or donations. wealth.have accumulated it takes time away from working, it is expensive, and you have to be very good to be in the olympics. you also have to be an entrepreneur and figure out how to support yourself while you are doing so. host: the u.s. olympic committee, talk about how -- have there been controversies within these bodies? guest: i think it works fairly well. i'm a liaison for the olympic committee. i visit in colorado springs and watch how they organize themselves. they have given up freedom to the individual sports like

figure skating or skiing to allow them to pursue their own admission while creating an infrastructure of high performance excellence in terms of having a high-performance center in colorado springs, providing sponsorships, and overall guidance. it is a business. 120 one medals in rio, your business is doing good . not only do i think we have the best athlete in the world, we have the best organization in the world. the team that is the most organized wins. i feel like this is done well. white -- shawn white, you have lindsay von. i think the premier events will be figure skating and downhill skiing.

america is captured in one person. she is a woman and comes down a mountain at a high speed. it will be electric. those two minutes of her coming down. can she do it? that will be electric. i think it will put everything into the background about all of the things that deal with politics. host: you mentioned the doping situation and larry nassar. do these bodies have an honest to investigate these things and keep them from happening? guest: the doping situation is more centralized. isorld doping organization trying to manage it internationally. you have an international governing body looking at the world doping. you have to have doping throughout the year when you practice. sports that are high-performance, that use a lot ,f aerobic energy, like skiing

the first to hope are ever caught was in 1968 and he was a cross-country skiing. skihave to cross-country for 30 commoners. some people feel like in bicycling they cannot do without doping. our teams -- with how our teams are being managed medically is interesting. i think it is more decentralized . and a lot of athletes have their own medical teams and trainers. one of the incredible controversies and tragedies that gymnastics, the only silver lining is that we need to look at how we manage howathletes medically and we protect our young people. my sister in the 1968 olympics was 15 years old. her,les for managing

sports administrators. we have come a long way. coverage, it is a good time to look at how we manage that. host: sandra, go ahead. caller: our children are being sent to the olympics. parents are usually with them, supposedly. then we have all of the people in place that supposedly take care of their health and well-being, yet they were being molested right and left. who will pay the consequences of that and the consequences of these children that come back with mental injuries in the end because they were. host: sorry about that. go ahead.

caller: you are right. action inn illegal usa gymnastics. it exposed 150 athletes into a situation where they were abused . it is a serious, serious situation. it will be hard to undo. parents interact with athletes is interesting. a lot of the times the athlete does not want the parent at the event here at it is so distracting to not only worry like aoing down a luge, cafeteria tray going down a mountain at 70 miles per hour, and having your family and cousins and what are you doing after the event? a lot of athletes go alone. and a lot of parents go without telling the children and are

separately supporting them in the audience. my mother was the coach for my family. sometimes parents can play a role in supporting their children. it is up to the athletes. when you're are dealing with the documented,e whether it was penn state and sandusky with football or usa gymnastics, these are done in secrecy. part of the mo is manipulation, secrecy, making the victim feel like they are not a victim. cked.get tri they can even keep it from their own family and the families of those they are abusing. that is what you are facing when you're looking at this kind of abuse. host: usa today reporting that vice president pence's arrival is as he is trying to downplay northll between the

korea and south korea before the lipid games. have you ever seen such an agenda before? guest: the united states typically does not weigh in on the olympics. it before. think of jimmy carter boycotting the olympics in moscow in 1980 and not allowing u.s. athletes who have been practicing for their entire lives to represent our country. in turn the soviet union boycotted the l.a. games four years later. that is heavy-handed to say we are not going to participate. it is not appropriate. it will be interesting if you use a mere spectator or if use is trying to position the american agenda into the fabric

of the olympic games. that will be an interesting story to follow. you have all of the layers. athletic cheating, even the weather. in the second winter olympics, they had to cancel them. it was too warm. temperatures look like they are in the 30's and 20's, all of the --nts are executed o executed on snow or ice. we will see how the american political agenda will be expressed through the vice president. host: we are running short on time. go ahead. caller: have two questions that are not necessarily related to each other. the first is dealing with global warming and the lack, especially in the united states, the production of snow. have you given consideration in that seeing how much snow and ice is needed for quality games.

and we just passed the budget. how much is given to the olympic quality athletes, deliberate caf au lait's, -- the olympic athletes, further training and getting them prepared? host: we are really short on time. no ahead. --go ahead. guest: climate change. the olympics can only be stage where it is cold enough to have them. there has never been an olympic games in the southern hemisphere. -- a town like that that has the same elevation, but because of climate change they do not have consistent snow. sometimes it is not even cold enough to make snow. are they games going to extinguish because of global warming?

no, but you have to be careful where you put them. in terms of the budget, i don't understand how much money goes into olympic athletes. from the athlete's viewpoint, they do not get a lot of support . it is up to them to figure out how to sponsor themselves. if it is a team like a hockey team they have to find sponsors for their athletes, skates, travel, and to train. i feel like in our country, the burden of the expenses associated with participating in the olympic games is mostly met by the athletes themselves. host: your favorite games and why. guest: my favorite sport is the biathlon. you have to cross-country ski and shoot. it comes from military patrol. the winter olympics were started

in 1924 after the first world war. it is such an odd sport to carry a gun, lay down and shoot. and if you miss the target you have to take a punishmentthat i. or curling. host: thanks for your time today. we take you to the house. speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 18, 2018. i hereby appoint the honorable rodney davis to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. --pursuant to the order of the house of january 8,chair will now recognize swante, the members from lists submitted by