surface of the era. we are different. we have self-awareness. we can see the future. we plot, scheme, plan. perhaps we going to evade this conundrum and maybe survive that we need an insurance policy. that's how this book is different from the other books. the other books talk about the steps the what is the goal? at sunday night at eight eastern. >> coming up on washington journal, military times newspapers pentagon bureau chief tara copp discusses president trump's decision to have members of the national guard patrolling the u.s.-mexico border. then a discussion on how to make government more effective and less partisan with jason all my and former republican virginia congressman tom davis. later, robert attkisson

examines the role of big business in america. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. is next.on journal" ♪ trump throws out his script in west virginia, talking about taxes and trade with china. good morning, it is april 6th. friday,we will join with the trade strategy on china. the president returned to washington and threatened the country with another $100 billion in tariffs. the president says they will fight at any cost. investors, members of congress worried about a trade war. are you? if you live in the eastern and central part of the country, use 202-748-8000.

mountain, pacific, use 202-748-8001. you can also join us on twitter and on facebook.com. let's get your calls than a minute. we will begin with the president and what he said yesterday. unfairt of china's retaliation, i've instructed the u.s. trade representative to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301. if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs. the president previously recently announced $50 billion in tariffs, now saying he wants to triple that. china responded by saying that they would retaliate against the united states and put out this statement in response to the threat from the president, the u.s. that disregards opposition from china and the international community and insists on carrying out

trade protectionism, the chinese side will take them on until the end at any cost." the associated press sinks "world market among the latest threats of more tariffs on chinese imports." it is bouncing back this theing, considering that statement made by the president last night could be a bluff. reaction from capitol hill, the representative from nebraska, where a lot of soybeans are produced, which is what the chinese are going after. opefully the[ president is just blowing off steam." as trade brown, " negotiations continue, i will look at all avenues to prevent

these proposed tariffs from becoming a reality." in the representative from north dakota, "it is a gamble with u.s. farmers and ranchers across america. to of north dakota's exports china are agricultural products. trade policies need to be reined in, but this is not the way to do it." and "a full-fledged trade war will reduce exports and of these proposed additional tariffs are taxes paid by americans, not just numbers on a press release." growerseinrich, "pecan should not have to pay the price for the reckless trade war and an additional 15% on new mexico the cans will hurt our state's agricultural economy." some of the reaction from capitol hill to the president's strategy on china. what do you think? are you concerned? dave in frederick, maryland.

good morning. caller: i think that the trade war is counterproductive. i mean, it is going to hurt the farmers, the consumers, the manufacturers, it will drive up prices and a think it is another knee-jerk reaction from donald trump who has no idea what he is doing. flux,l put the markets in and again i think it is counterproductive for the president to really -- he needs to think before he does things. host: did you vote for him? caller: i did not. host: why not? were you concerned about something like this? caller: i am concerned because of all the rhetoric and the lying he does. it is hard to get behind somebody who is a habitual liar, who cannot tell the truth, who has no real thoughts on anything.

one day he says this, the next that he is saying something else. it makes -- host: are you an investor? do you have a pension or 401(k)? caller: i do. and i am about to retire, so again it is disconcerting. and you know, the economy is going along very well and i think that this is going to, you know, stop some of the progress that has been made. host: dave, some say -- the market faltered the day before yesterday, then recovered. some say it is because of what larry kudlow, the new economic advisor, had to say. isat the end of the rainbow a little pot of gold, and if you open it up it says growth, investment, jobs, wages. >> what about manufacturers and

farmers who say they will get hit by this? >> we do not know yet. >> they are worried. >> we are in conversation with understand, but let's not jump to the worst-case conclusions. the attempt of the president to grow the american economy, and look, our farm sector has been doing great. china should give them more export opportunities, that is important. same with nafta. this will -- you know, should not be viewed as strictly man o mano punitive damages, this should be viewed in the perspective of growth, that is the endgame. host: larry kudlow in the driveway yesterday, this is of course in the morning before the president decided to threaten an additional $100 billion on china, china reacting and

saying, we will continue at any cost to retaliate against the united states. times, fromncial going to the world trade organization yesterday to launch their official complaint. here is the headline, "the legal battle despite u.s. gun for trade war. the move to open a world trade organization case was made by officials to ease the looming trade war and is likely to feed out that the largest economies can read an amicable settlement." global financial markets rallied in hoping that the two sides would work on differences, recovering from the early selloff on wednesday. the trump administration has been split on protectionist measures and it appears to be dividing again on how to best deal with china.

some, including steven mnuchin, pushed for a negotiated settlement focused on reducing the trade deficit in goods with china, others are carrying of for a longer fight. with the bigger target of chinese industrial policy. ron in california, good morning to you. what do you think? caller: good morning. i tell you, this is a funny story. you know what they say about history, if you do not pay attention you are going to have to repeat it. and we of been through these, some of these things in the history of our country, but the word not being used is called "embargo." that is important, because once someone makes you so angry you do not like them anymore, you suddenly say -- you know what, everything you have in your country, you keep it appeared we are not taking -- it. we are not taking it.

if you look at the global economy, $7 trillion, and we are only $1 trillion of that. we are small potatoes in the world economy. china is in the seat now and if they can trade with brazil, with everybody else into the whole world, and they have the leverage. host: the headline in the new york times is "why china is so confident that they can win a trade war with us." partly because china is saying, we are too big for you to stop us now. caller: i agree completely. i think what is so funny about this is donald trump is fighting inh our three best partners canada, mexico and europe. and that is where all of our trade goods come from. and he makes them mad and they will go elsewhere too. he is trying, i do not know whether he is trying to just destroy the concept of a global economy or what, but it is late

in the game to do that. we have technology that is overwhelming us and the technology is going to change so fast that we better start paying attention to what is going on. thank you for the call. host: michael in minnesota, good morning. you are in minnesota, is there farm area around you that could be heard by the trade policy? caller: yes, there is. to be honest, over 100% of my area is from related. my concern is if we start with this war with china, we already have the regulation and things like that in the country -- have the regulation and -- der egulation and things like that that those in the country cannot understand the reasoning behind this. when you start taking away the money that these young men and o feed their

families, and to feed the country, it is chaotic. i do not understand. and the bigger applications that will happen. peril.in we need to stand up and find out what is really behind this. host: michael in minnesota. let's go to kenny, who is in alaska, is that right? good morning. good morning. caller: hello. good morning. host: what are your thoughts on the president's trade strategy. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: yeah, yeah. you are missing the big picture. right. picture is -- host: ok, i will move on to paul

in wisconsin. hi. caller: i think donald is going to drive the world economy into a depression and i think it is his strategy. i think that they run the economy into the ground to get the stock market back down to 5000 or 6000, and then the family can buy up all that stock and wait for a democrat to fix the economy again and line their pockets again. i think he is maniacal. i think he is trying to destroy the country and people better wake up. host: what kind of investments do you have in the market? caller: i have a 401(k) plan, i am with edward jones. i am in the stock market. and i will tell you what, he is doing the same thing that hoover did, right before the great depression. he gave massive tax cuts to millionaires, then he deregul

ated everything, and hoover was a protectionist and it drove the whole world into a depression. all these people that voted for donald trump, that is why the chinese are going after the farmers, they know that he voted for donald trump -- they voted for donald trump. and look at the car companies, kia is here, toyota. what if all the other countries said, do you want to be protectionist, we will pull out the car companies. he is playing with dynamite, he will destroy the country. host: have you looked at your investments over the past couple weeks? caller: i'm afraid to. i know they are down. i only have about -- i got only like 25% in the stock market, so it would have to really crash. but i am in one of those investment plans, everything is not in the stock market.

just, it scares me. he is a scary man. somebody has to get him out of there. host: paul's thoughts. cnbc with the head like market volatility is reminiscent of the 1987 crash, from veteran trader it is a good deal more volatile than anything we have seen. he began his career in 1959 and it is unfortunately reminiscent of the volatility we saw in 1987. he is now one of six executive floor directors at the market exchange. began in asia, then spread to europe, and in the united states later in the day. traders reminded of black monday and black tuesday this week. mike from miami. you are on the air. caller: it is funny that you

call it a trade war. we already lost $275 billion deficit you said it we're calling it a trade war. in a war, we are the losers. ok? if this country thinks it will exist on agriculture, it ain't going to happen, no country has existed just on agriculture. look at your history. and the crab about what happened with hoover, that was a total different situation, that was not the global economy. we were the economy of the world . and these people, they are talking and they really do not know what they are talking about. host: so mike come a you agree with the president's strategy, it is time we go after china? caller: i think it should have been done before the deficit got to what it is now. somewhere,e to start and if it is going to take some

-- on our part, we will have to tighten up a little bit, more than we already are, ok? we will have to find other markets. there are other markets besides china. they only give us what they are giving us to appease us. host: the president tweeting this morning about another trade policy. the aluminum and steel tariffs that he raised recently, despite the tariffs, aluminum are down, a lot of money coming into united states. the president saying, "jobs, jobs, jobs." down favoringing those like a beer makers. and on the farmers who voted for the president, the washington t davisis morning, "bret voted for donald trump, acted

many fellow farmers in ohio, but as a brewing trade war begins to threaten exports, he and his fifth-generation farm will suffer. the far more davidson grows 1300 acres of soybeans may not withstand the long-term drop in crop prices a trade war could bring. although he supports foreign trade being more balanced,, he is concerned that the message could harm the americans that helped put donald trump in office. won forugh the counties donald trump by more than 20%, on wednesday, davidson and thousands of others woke up to the news that china had imposed in solitary tariffs -- retaliatory tariffs. farms, hisarge-scale business relies on foreign markets, trying to buy 60% of all u.s. soybean exports to feed his fleet of hogs and chickens.

bright spot of profitability for farmers at a time when many other crops are down. but the tariffs against chinese goods government to protect intellectual property and manufacturing interests, have brought on a retaliatory actions that the farmer say threatens their profits." me, bobmiami -- excuse in massachusetts. good morning, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to say that everybody out there, republican, democrat, independent, it is our leaders that have been selling us out to china. you cannot bring in $4 trillion worth of product every year and export $100 billion with a product each year. i know there are raw numbers and then numbers, but that is basically what goes on. we taken 10 times more than we export. sooner or later, we will run out of money. and china is not having any problem running out of money.

they are not having any trouble stealing everything from any country that -- any company that goes to their country. now all of their airplanes look like f-35. everything they have looks like american equipment, because they bad.ripped us off so everybody wants to let them keep doing it. all of you, look at your representatives. they are in the pockets of these people. all of them. how could you make a deal like that? cornl tell you an ear of for one dollar and you can put a three dollar tariff on it and when you sell me a condo for $.20, you can put a $30 tariff on it. we go with that every day. so with the stupid traded things, go back to the table, redraw all of it, and get it done right so that people are not being ripped off. so that companies do not have to go under left and right because

china plays unfair. have a nice day. host: ok, why china is confident it can be trump in a trade war. you have seen the propaganda, the questionable methods china has adopted the squeeze foreign companies out of key technology markets. eyefact that in the cold calculus of economics, china is more vulnerable than officials admit. exports account for a big part of their growth, because the u.s. buys so much from china, washington has many more ways to hit chinese manufacturers. the retalix or tariffs from beijing cover more then one third of what china buys from the united states, leaving it fewer options to trackback. in the political -- strike that. in the political realm, xi enjoys advantages that will help them cope with the fallout far better than donald trump can. his authoritarian group on the media means little room for

criticism on his policies, even as donald trump must contend with complaints from consumers in american companies before the midterms in november. the chinese government has greater control of the economy, allowing it to shield the public from job cuts and factory closings by ordering the banks to support industries suffering from american tariffs. he can spread the pain or tolerate years of losses from state run companies that dominate major sectors. it goes on to say that one expert says, at worst, the mecca actions could shave 1/10 of a percentage point off of their economic growth in china, hardly enough to afford the drastic policies given an enormous benefits that the chinese leaders see and the state motto that they've shed a light on in recent decades. at the same time, chinese officials seem to believe they can take it vantage of what they consider vulnerabilities in the american political system. here is a quote, "the american agricultural sector is quite

influential in congress. china wants the american domestic system to do the work." cj in baton rouge. you are on the air. share your thoughts with washington this morning, what do you think? caller: first of all, this year i am getting $400 more back on my taxes than i have gotten last year or the year before. that is $400 i can really use, i only make $60,000. how far in debt did the obama administration put us? we were already in debt, but they doubled it, didn't they? iowa.ok, kim and -- in iowa. good morning. caller: about trade, donald trump, if he put the tariffs on

that ifhly, i believe the riches farmers, if they will rumpup being subsidized, t is just telling people that he is going to do it. but china is putting it on is for real. and i live in iowa. i have a far myself. on, but can put tariffs it is just too rough for iowa. to be honest, we will end up subsidizing. what about the-- regular farmers that are smaller? they do not get subsidized that much. that is my fear on the trade. host: let me share this story with you and others, this is in the financial times, companies on edge over threats to supply chains.

the trump administration says the goal with threatening tariffs on china is to bring back manufacturing jobs to the u.s.. a company ofg construction equipment, says it has the opposite effect. the business demonstrates how complex international supply chains mean, that terrorists can have consequences. the chief executive of the company, imports cabs assembled in a plant in china that it uses for drilling vehicles made in iowa. using the lower cost imported -- helps them stay competitive. in the u.s. market and around the world. but the components were on the list of imports from china, threatened with a new 25% tariff. if they follow through, his competitive position will be eroded. at our iowa jobs factory and as a result of being able to import products, and we have american production sold in

the global market. if the u.s. goes ahead with the unilateral tariffs, it will create global opportunities for companies in other countries to go after." ramir was planning to launch another line using a chinese component to offer lower price alternatives to customers, but the tariffs make the strategy obsolete. we are talking about 600 jobs dependent on this economic relationship between china and the united states. robert in michigan. good morning, what do you think? caller: i think that things are going to change, whether we like it or not. and also, i think that people better read isaiah 45, donald trump was put in there god, because of the corruption in washington and in the churches. god's waygoing to go

regardless. what god starts, nobody can stop. we have to get things back into america where they belong as much as we can. we can work out a fair deal, but we cannot let them run over us like they have done in the last 30 years. host: so time to fight back in your opinion? caller: time to come back and work for america and good jobs back in america and be on a level playing field. host: ok. mike in north carolina. caller: good morning, how are you? host: how are you? what do you think? caller: i agree with a long-term approach the president is taking, that is what it is. the short-term pain on this could be real. and i know that -- i know ramir, they used to be a client. they make great products. 600 jobs in jeopardy, possibly.

600 jobs out of 150 million in the united states -- as many people said in the article that you read, the last one, that was very incisive and very revealing. yes, the president of china is in a position because of authoritarian rule -- host: i understand. [laughter] caller: thanks a lot. as they have done for decades, they can hide the true impacts of a trade war from their people, and their people are scared to death. but there will be social consequences. look at what we are talking about between the two countries. we sell them food, we sell them timber, we seldom other things that they need to feed their people, to drive the economy. they are reliant on much of our advanced medals and electronics -- metals and electronics and so

forth. if this gets really serious -- on the other hand they sell us television sets, stuff on the shelves at walmart, not saying that this stuff is not desired by american consumers, but it is not -- we do not need television sets, we do not eat what is on the shelves at walmart, so i think that we do have, we have the upper hand but again, mr. trump and the republican party and whomever is going to be held accountable for this, as the chinese leadership will not be held liable. and if it turns into people, hundreds of millions, tens of millions of people who do not have food, they cannot feed themselves, and they have to put sh crushed social -- cru social rebellion, like they did a tenement square. just like north korea, the

trade situation with china goes back decades. donald trump did not invent this, he came into it. you may not agree with his strategy and maybe not, but we could not continue to go on with them pilfering our technology and the proprietary technologies of companies, including defense. but -- yeah, i will let it play out. host: while it is playing out, what about russia moving in? headline in the washington as they meet in moscow. go ahead. caller: what is russia going to do? russia is a gas station with an army. really. they do not have an economy. russia is a poor sister. they of nuclear weapons, they have a totalitarian ruler, they do not make anything.

they do not make cars, computers -- they barely sometimes can feed themselves, ok? so i think we need to rally the nato, andr allies in the overall stability we have in the middle east, if people have been following that -- you have saudi arabia allowing flights to israel over their airspace. there has never been a better time for peace in the middle east. israel is on our side, saudi arabia is on our side, these are the power brokers in the world. russia is a third rate power, yes, they of nuclear weapons, but they are basically a gas station. if oil falls below $75 a barrel, they can barely feed their people. they are bluster. they really are. we truly have all the cards here, but for decades we have been afraid to play the hand. i am not exactly sure why that

is. we wantecause we are -- you to be fair, we want to keep peace around the world, we are militarily dominant around the world. if you look at every category, we have a huge debt and we have to deal with that, but we've been sending jobs to china for decades now and as they say, it is time to pay. host: i will leave it there, because the president has tweeted on this topic. "we are not in a trade war with china, that war was started many years ago by the foolish people who represented the u.s. we cannot let this continue." talkinger was just about how the president must rally our allies. that is what he plans to do next

week when he meets with latin american leaders. donald trump calls on latin american nations to choose the u.s. over china, already provoking a confrontation over tariffs, mr. trump will press lacked in leaders to restrain trade with china and do more business with the u.s. peru wills stage and be the summit of the americas, a gathering in the western hemisphere held every four years. it will make mr. trump's first trip south of the border since taking office. china has been expanding aggressively and its ties with latin america, its trade with latin america increased from $10 $260 billion00 to in 2016. they have set goals of $5 billion in trade, and $250 billion in direct investment. and china is already a top trade partner for countries like brazil, the world's biggest soybean exporter.

that is the crop that china went after in their retaliation for the president's first-round of traded tariffs. yesterday, as we said, when he returned to the white house, issuing a statement saying he is asking his trade representative, because china is threatening to retaliate, he is asking his trade representative to look at another $100 billion in tariffs. are you concerned about a trade war? bob in illinois. good morning. caller: one thing that would like to bring up that people are overlooking is the u.s. is china's biggest customer. i will just take you a walk -- you on a walk to any walmart, home depot, the small appliances, clothing, power tools, car parts, electronics, plumbing, furniture -- this was once made by americans and today it is all made by chinese, and

is being shipped here. they took the jobs of many americans, so we could be hurt some, but if china does not have a customer like us they could be heard big-time also. i just want to bring that to the attention of many people. a a lot of people have made sacrifices over the years, losing their jobs, factories shut down, how many thousands of factories shut down? so something has to be done and we have to start somewhere. that is my comment. host: bob, to your point, the "i york times this morning, n 2017 the united states exported only $131 billion in goods to china. it mathematically means it china cannot match the u.s. dollar for ," said a seniornio fellow. "if the trump administration

follows through on considering interest to cover $100 billion worth of goods, it will strain the chinese government to respond in a dollar for dollar manner. that is before you account for the chinese government's reluctance to put tariffs on goods that could carry political or strategic cost. for example, in its retalix were tariffs, the chinese government included narrowbody aircraft. this make sense strategically, only because two companies in the world make widebodied planes. china put a tariff on them it would restrict access to technology." china could consider going after the bonds that holds. and if things get nasty, "the u.s. and china are intertwined in ways that china could seek to exploit.

but it is a risk." olleen, what do you think? caller: i agree with almost everything americans have been saying this morning. night on c-span, there was a debate, globalism versus nationalism. and that tells the philosophy behind all of this. g5,n we had all of the g3, all those conferences, the people, it was all done in secret and we were the donors. the united states was the donor country. we did not earn that, because we are a very generous country, even during the cold war we sent wheat to russia. we sent, we helped all these countries. now we have created an economy

in the rest of the world at our expense, and our debt. we have had a very incompetent people running our financial situation for the government. and i support what donald trump is doing. and i hope that people watch that globalism versus nationalism, you will not like it. host: she is referring to a debate that we covered between the former mexican leader, fox, and nigel farage, who is a british leader who pushed for the u.k. to leave europe, the brexit movement. they sat down at the american university here in washington, and they debated globalism versus nationalism.. you can you can find that debate as

c-span.org, you can also download the free radio app if you want to listen to what those two had to say --. now we will go to lewis. are you concerned? caller: i am actually concerned with continuing the path we are going on now, which is unsustainable. the fact is the world trade organization, not the u.s., the world trade organization has already determined that what china has done as far as requiring u.s. companies to hand over their intellectual property to do business in china, is illegal. it has already been determined, it is not congress or donald trump, it is a third-party that has already determined this. so someone is stealing from u.s. companies. and we are allowing it to happen? no. i am concerned if we continue to do nothing, because we are

losing technology, losing jobs, and in the short run it may hurt as far as buying products at walmart, which we do not even need in the first place, but in the long run we will reap the benefits because we cannot allow our companies to be abused as they going to china. so that is my comment on this matter. host: lee in georgia, your thoughts? caller: i agree with just about everything everybody is saying. my first thing that i would say is, the reason why we probably helped other countries is because it is like when they have something, if we helped with russia and china, if you have a tribe that has nothing and you have a tribe that has a bunch of food, they are more likely to attack, but if everybody has a little something it is more peaceful. on the other hand, people would always say, we get this cheap stuff -- it is fine when you get

cheap stuff, but when you have to buy stuff over and over again i would rather pay more and create jobs in america for something that could compete for better microwaves, because i have purchased so many washing machines and microwaves, they keep tearing up, why not create the jobs here. and you hear the thought of people with food. you cannot eat a microwave. what farmers think, if they -- china something, you do not have to have anything but food. that is one necessity you need in life to survive. so we could just turn and retaliate and put a tariff on food. , buthere is no meeat in it if they come that way they have to have what we have. thank you. host: ok. programming note, up on capitol hill next week the ceo of facebook will be sitting down

for several committee hearings, a couple of them, on the senate with a joint hearing on tuesday at 2:15 p.m. eastern. mark zuckerberg will be testifying about how the company uses consumer data. and we will have coverage of that on c-span3, c-span.org, and the radio app. the next day he will be before energy and congress committee. mark your calendars for coverage of that. on c-span, c-span.org, and on the c-span radio app. -- facebookection donations raise eyebrows. the panel that got the biggest conservation of the house energy and commerce committee, which announced it would question zuckerberg next week on april

11. members of the committee, whose jurisdiction give it regulatory power over internet companies, received nearly $381,000 and conservations tied to facebook, this according to the center of responsive politics. it is a nonprofit group. noting thatntinues, the second total, $369,000, went to the members of the science and transportation committee, which announced later that they would have a joint hearing to question zuckerberg on tuesday. the judiciary committee members have received $235,000 in facebook occupations. republicans got roughly twice as much as democrats, of the $7 million and conservations to all ied to thendidates toe covenant, democrats got 65% in republican 35%. and in energy and commerce, all but nine have gotten

conservations in the past decade. the average republican got $6,800, the average democrat with $6,700. the republican of oregon received $27,000, while frank cologne in new jersey got $7,000 -- pallone in new jersey got $7,000. cheryl, good morning. caller: i called because i really object to the words "tr e de war." which was a label by the democrats. this is not a trade war, this is a fair trade negotiation. with all these countries. that is what i think it should be changed to and i think that the news should use that, a fair trade negotiation. host: it is not just them across, republicans -- just democrats, republicans also raising concerns that we could be heading toward a trade war.

a republican tweeting out, "america can no longer stand by as china engages on practices that have the success of american consumers and businesses. tariffs are an important step to hold china accountable for this theft." robin kelly tweeting, "trump has filled farmers. -- failed farmers. i will keep working to expand to bring their products to market without foreign tariffs." and another representative, "deeply concerned, it is not clear to me that they of reasonable plans to contain or manage the situation. you cannot govern according to the whims of the president." trade tensions is a bouncing act between the need to correct or dysfunctional economic relationship, while protecting our agricultural exporters. i am by you to view my for the nvite youhe said -- i i

to view my other remarks, he said. there as wellt for the president. bob in oxford, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. gosh, it is such a complex issue because when you say free-trade, you have to go back to win whenlicans passed -- republicans passed it. up with all set manufacturing to go over to china and buy the cheapest things they could and do anything they wanted to do, and send their products back here. i would urge you to have a list of how many companies are sending their product back here that are not chinese, they are american. and it was all set up to benefit

the people that make all the money in this country. and screw the worker again. we are not trading with china or most things, we are trading with ourselves. we sent our own jobs over there. and as long as the supreme court says that money is free speech and of money runs this country, the working people are never going to get the benefit. it is not free trade. in thealways put an ad paper for my wife's memorial, for her birthday, that paper, they used to have three people who handle those ads, now it goes to india and then it comes back to this country. and i am still paying top price for that ad, but they are getting it done for much less than they did when they had their american workers. it is not fair. host: ok, bob in pennsylvania. more calls coming up, but under the program note.

this weekend, the cities tour explores the american story as book tv in american history tv travel to norman, oklahoma to feature that city's history. here, the norman mayor talks about the land run that led to the city's founding in the 1800s. >> norman is a town of about 122,000 people. we are just south of oklahoma city, but we are a very separate town. and i think that is largely because of the university of hat was a key factor in the founding of this community. i think that something that is really important about norman is the fact that norman and oklahoma are so young. norman was actually incorporated right after the biggest land run in oklahoma. and that was in 1889. people came from the states all around. people who are having trouble in

economically depressed times. they were offered 160 acres for free, if they could stake of them out. so in 1889 when they lined up along the canadian river, a gun was shot and they all came in theirtate -- staked land and that was the beginning of our town. the capital had already been determined as oklahoma city. a decision was made that we would try to become the main university, the university of oklahoma in norman. and we begin the county seat. and we became the site of our county government for cleveland county. so all of those things gave norman kind of a head start. host: make sure to tune in this week and the book tv in american history tv as we travel to norman, oklahoma. to watch a video and all the

cities visited, go to our c-span cities tour. c-span.org/cities tour. left,e about 10 minutes are you concerned about a trade war with china? jamie diamond, the ceo of jpmorgan, has this to say. "we should acknowledge the complaint about trade, the various to trader often not fair and intellectual property is frequently stolen and the right to invest in companies in some countries are not equal. countries subsidize state owned enterprises. when the state talks about free and fair it is essentially meaning the same on all counts. this is not what has existed, it is not unreasonable for the united states to press ahead for ncy. equivalen so the president has decided with $50 billion against china,

china retaliated yesterday going after soybeans and other crops, then the president responded by saying maybe we should look at another $100 billion in tariffs. we are asking you, are you concerned about this? thatinancial times notes this is not around of the corner, as larry kudlow told reporters yesterday. there is a public comment period that have to happen until may 11, before the administration goes afford with tariffs. and capitol hill will be letting the administration know what they think as well. larry kudlow telling reporters, we welcome their input and we will talk with all senators. now fairfax, south dakota. doug, go ahead appeared caller: good morning -- ahead. caller: good morning. i am in south dakota and these $340 they are making about

a bushel on corn. by the time you put in the ground, that is not cut it. so they are switching to soybeans the next year, because the soil uses different stuff. now they want to put the beans in the ground to grow, but they have no idea whether there will be making anything on that are not. they will have problems. also, donald trump is likable and a china store -- is like a bull in a china store and destroys everything. he could have used other countries to help us do this, but he goes after nafta and everything else and just blows it. i do not know, does not look good. last year, and made $68,000, this year i will be looking to make $20,000 because of the corn prices. host: are you a farmer? caller: no, i am a contractor. i do water lines and stuff like that, so if they do not make money i do not make money.

and like i said, $40,000 last year because of corn prices. host: explain what you do. caller: i put in water lines for the pastures and so forth, stuff like that. and i dig sewer lines and all that stuff. but it is hurting me already. droppedopped -- beans yesterday, came up a little bit from the day before, but they had dropped $.36. they are going to miss the farmers up. you better be wondering where you will come up with your food. host: would you say in south dakota that the economy is largely dependent on the farmer, like you are? caller: oh, yeah. donald trump is right, the little towns are closing up. time for change is here. just like horses and buggies. host: frank in las vegas.

good morning. caller: yeah, just some numbers here. 25% billion in trade debt, is $125 billion. that would equal almost what we sell china, so how could you possibly lose a trade war with these people? thank you. host: ok. article, theaper news about the epa administrator. from page has a lengthy piece in the new york times, starting on the front page it goes to a full page inside of the newspaper. the officials have raised concerns and were ousted, at least five at the epa, four of them high-ranking reassigned or demoted or requested new jobs after raising concerns about the spending and management of the agency's administrator. concerns include spending on office furniture and first-class travel, as well as demands for security coverage.

his request for a bulletproof vehicle and expanding a detail. according to people who worked with the epa and have direct knowledge of that situation. onet pruitt bristled -- political appointee confronted him, said people who are not authorized to speak publicly. he goes inside to note that the revelations about staff turnover, which have not been previously reported, demonstrates the concerns about his suspended and leadership, resonating within his own team will before they became the subject of media reports and investigations by the epa inspector general and the white house. so these concerns were raised internally before they became known to the media. as you know, mr. pruitt in an interview said that these attacks were coming from liberal organizations that do not like his agenda.

the wall street journal editorial stand up for mr. pruitt today, the pruitt test, writing that the president needs to show him loyalty to his leading reformer. they say that mr. pruitt's mistake has been to underestimate those against him, he showed protected himself better against even minor claims. they say that when you examine the charges, minor is the right word, according to the wall street journal. the large turnover in mr. trump's cabinet has been unusual. the way that many have been price, andm gsmaster, bring reluctance to serve. the washington post in their piece this morning, saying that mr. pruitt clarified he did not -- oh, this is about the epa inspector general. the epa press book deputy

general counsel had written in a march 30 memo that pruitt's -- condo owner for $50 a night, charged only when he stated there did not constitute a gift because for 30 days it would of equated to a monthly rent of $1500. it is described as a reasonable market value. yet in a new memo, first reported by cnn, he emphasized that he had evaluated the terms of the release only and did not see the activities that the document do not cover. he also certified he did not examine whether prewitt's arrangement violated impartiality rules, which would have inhibited him from having dealings with other employees at hart's lobbying firm. his colleague, a senior ethics attorney and agency veteran, said she learned of his unusual housing arrangement last week when political aides called her while she was at the movies and told her the outlines of the lease and asked for a ruling.

she gave her approval based on the specifics they shared, only later did you learn other details from the news reports. 'what they gave me was not the full picture. on thursday,dulous advice given by ethics officials are only as good as the information provided. the rental deal with under intense scrutiny because the husband of hart is chairman of the firm williams and jensen, which lobbies on energy issues along with other matters. a copy of the lease shows that stephen hart's name was a scribbled out and his wife's name, handwritten in, according to a senior administration official. hart made the change. joe in virginia. good morning. caller: hey, thank you for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: scott pruitt, i think donald trump likes his people to be loyal and the thinking needs to stand firm and be loyal to

scott pruitt, after the completely corrupted administration of obama and the hillary clinton email scandal and everything else that took place. i think what scott pruitt it is very minor and he needs to stand firm and backup his appointee. as far as trade, i'm not worried. it amazes me that 15 months into this administration people still do not understand the art of the deal. these threats of tariffs are temporary negotiating tools that donald trump is using to produce a more positive outcome when it comes to trade. and my device for the trump administration is even if china goes nuclear and calls the $1.25 iillion on bonds we owe them, would tally all the money that they owe us for stealing our

technology and for copyright infringement, and i would tell them to go ahead, we will default on $1.25 billion because you owe us way more. host: ok, brenda in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i am very concerned, but i cannot help but feel like this is just another smokescreen to cover up for all of the other ia,sia poor and stars -- russ porn stars, and all that stuff. i feel like this is a cover up. i am from the auto industry. i am retired. have seen all the foreign cars coming in, and i have seen them driving all over the country, especially the south.

and i feel like something should be done, but it is the people that buys them. we have wonderful cars here that we make in this country. that we make right here in this country and there is no reason that the people cannot look at it that way. host: one last phone call before we end the conversation. sean has been waiting in columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. the lady before retouched -- me touched on a subject. we as americans have a responsibility to buy and focus our money on american companies rather than going toward china or more foreign product. the trade war is very concerning because we have to pay taxes. we as a people are trying to

survive. we have to make up for the imbalances. we owe a debt, we have to pay it. that is the fact of it. host: we will leave it there. when we come back, take a look at the president's decision to send national guard troops to the border with tara copp of the military times. twothen we are joined by former congressman, tom davis, jason aldean liar. a discussion on how to make government more effective and civil. >>on this weekend on c-span, saturday at 8:30 eastern, the 50th anniversary of 60 minutes.

sunday, hillary clinton at rutgers university institute of policy. saturday, 1:45 eastern, the annual national black writers conference in brooklyn. sunday at 1:00 eastern, yell professor amy chua and jane a book aboutbout tribalism in america. on c-span3, saturday at 10:00 eastern,on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of dr. martin luther king jr.. sunday, walter star, author of "edwin stanton." this weekend on the c-span networks. theoreticala, assist and author talks about his career in science and his

latest book "the future of humanity." >> the norm for mother nature is extension. if you dig under our feet right now you will see the bones of the 99.9% that no longer want the surface of this earth. we are different. we have self-awareness, we can see the future. we plot, we scheme. perhaps we will evade this conundrum and may be survived, but we need an insurance policy. that is my this book is different from other books. the other books talk about the steps, but what is the goal? >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the

supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d c at around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. tara copp is at our desk, pentagon bureau chief with a military times here to talk about troop deployment to the u.s. mexico border. i want to begin with the dhs secretary yesterday. she was asked about the role that troops would have along the border. it is in conjunction. we have offered up our best advice. in partould be similar to the aerial surveillance. the border is really big. we need to know where the people are crossing in who they are so we can take action. >> support mission? >> they will look at the

technology, surveillance. there, weuring down have mechanics there. we can free up officers trained to do law enforcement -- [indiscernible] >> what i would like to hear from the governors is what they want. get to border security, so we will do everything we can to do it until and when congress acts. say theyn officials will be unarmed, is that true? 2006, therest, in were weapons, so it's been done before. we are continuing negotiations. host: tara copp, fill in the details. guest: let's start with the border itself.

about 2000 miles along the mexico-u.s. border, about 16,000 agents there now. what the proposal is really is to use the military to fill in support, to allow a role, logistics, surveillance, maintenance, to have the military fill in those spots so agents can get into more of the law enforcement role. the military will not be used in a law enforcement role. host: how many troops are we talking about? guest: president trump envisioned between 2000 and 4000. the pentagon says that number has not been determined yet. it will depend on the requirements, cost, what the governors are willing to generate in troops. even though trump wants 2000 to 4000 troops, he may not get them if the governors don't agree to send troops because they are under state control. host: that is the distinction. the president for said that he

would send the military, now the national guard. explain the difference. guest: he could federalize the national guard. ,e could put them under title x where they would be under the command and control of dod. right now, national guard troops are funded under title 32, which provides federal funding, but keeps them under state control. for example, in hurricane harvey, when texas national guard, they were under state control but received federal assistance. host: so who would pay for these 2000 to 4000 national guard troops? guest: this would be title 32 funding, so that's the question. would it be dhs? you have heard this is a homeland security mission. the military is engaged in many different countries around the world right now. can they really afford to assume this mission and pay for it?

dhs, border security, that is their mission, and they have the coast guard under their purview as part of that homeland security mission. , congressmanweek thornberry, chairman of the ,ouse armed services committee suggested it should be part of the homeland security budget and not dod that funds the bill. when who funds the bill the national guard goes to iraq or syria or afghanistan? guest: those are federal funds. as soon as they are activated, they go under dod control so they are no longer under state governor control once they make that transition into being activated, which they have multiple times. host: so logic would follow in this case, dhs would pay. guest: potentially, although trump has looked at that big bucket of money that dod just

received, $700 billion for 2018. it is very tempting for him to say you have all this money, let's pay for a wall, pay for these forces along the border. could be as much as $25 billion. that is a lot of money in anyone's budget. that is bigger than other federal agencies complete budget. od, if you had to cut $25 billion to pay for a wall -- let's put it in perspective. maybe he wants to build a $35 million ship. $425 billion, you could buy 12 destroyers or some of the super hornets that the navy needs. the question becomes, is is the right use for the money? members ofould congress go along with taking money from the defense department for this. guest: thornberry has already cautioned against robbing the

military to fund this. the military also has enormous responsibilities around the globe and that money gets used a pretty quickly. you have a 2 million-man military. cautioning against using this as a catchall to fund everything because they had such a big budget. the: we want to hear what viewers have to say. give us your comments and questions about the national guard guarding the border. what are your thoughts on this? --ublicans, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8001. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 independent, (202) 748-8002. national guard members, (202) 748-8003. where exactly would these national guard members go to? four states along the

u.s. mexico border. right now we have a small cell, about 150 military personnel in el paso, texas. they have been there since the 1980's. george h.w. bush set that up to assist with border control and surveillance and being a coordination cell. they have air force and coast guard members there. we do already have a small military presence that helps with coordination. where the rest of the troops would go with depend on where they think the biggest border crossings are. host: have grave president said national guard to the border? guest: yes. we have had troops sent to the border ever since ronald reagan. that was part of a 1986 immigration deal where they millionto legalize 3 currently illegal immigrants in the country at a time in

exchange for enhanced border security. george h.w. bush is the one that set up joint task force north. that has continued for 30 years. host: hasn't grown at some points? guest: it has, but it is smaller than it originally was. there were marines are part of the joint task force that were involved in a tragic incident where they shot a goat herders in texas and that led to the temporary cancellation of the program but it was reinstated in continues to this day. host: that brings up the question, will they be armed? guest: they are not supposed to be in a law enforcement role if they are sent to the border, they would be in a support role which means drones, surveillance, coordination. do you need a weapon for that? that is a question that governors will be asking. host: what about the pentagon stands on that, whether or not their personal should be able to defend themselves? guest: they have the right to

defend themselves, and even though under title 32 they cannot do law enforcement, there are couple of scenarios in immediate self-defense, and if there was a situation on the ground where they could not get higher command approval to take command of the situation, they would also be allowed to use weapons if they have them. host: tommy is in tennessee, republican. good morning. believe theto say i united states has the right to defend its borders, just like any other country has the right to defend theirs. as long as we detain the people crossing the border. the main thing is not to cross into mexico to try to get them because that would be considered an act of war. hopefully, these national guard soldiers will be allowed to detain them without causing

international incident. thank you. host: does mexico have their military along the border? guest: no, there are checkpoints on either side. , national guard, if they are sent, they will not be in a detention role, they would not be apprehending immigrants as they cross over. that would remain a border patrol role. that is why you send these guardsmen in. they would be filling in some of the roles of border patrol agents have to conduct that are more just to go or administrative, to allow the agents to conduct a greater law enforcement role. host: jessica is in sparks, nevada. democrat. caller: good morning, everybody. i really believe that what president trump is doing right with regard to

protecting the borders. ofelieve the dispensation the guard to the borders is a good idea. where the other part comes in perhapsard to funding, using that trade thing we were just talking about, with regard to trade, maybe we can focus our trade in other areas and pull our guards out of those areas, boost trade in that area to support that area. for instance, whatever. look at the global chessboard. let's say, africa, what the heck. if you were to pull some of the troops from africa and increase the trade with africa so they can protect themselves, which i think might be part of the strategy -- i don't know. , weif that was possible

could take that money, and using the dod, so they could have protectionism if they have to protect us at the border, they have that availability. so it would probably have to go through the dod. i don't know. host: ok, jessica. guest: secretary mattis, when they were supporting earlier this week said homeland security is national security. at the very core, if you cannot borders, house occur can you be, can you project that onto other nations? as far as taking troops from other missions in africa or abroad, that is a resource in question. possibly those are national guard troops over there right now but i suspect there are more active duty than national guard in africa at the present moment. i think states would be generating their national guard from within and sending them to the border and rotating them. host: these troops would come from states and the governors

agree to send them. here is a headline that our producer found, the iowa governor saying he would send troops. then you have the star-telegram t send troops to the border. interestingll be an debate to see state powers versus executive powers. can the states say no? governor schwarzenegger, when he wascan the states say no? governor of california, when president bush and obama wanted to send troops, he said no. this may be a bigger disagreement in the larger immigration debate, the roles of the states compared to what federal government can or cannot do. host: dan is in goose creek, south carolina. caller: good morning. listen, this is all ballyhoo and smoke and mirrors. if they were serious about people crossing the borders

illegally, they would go after the people hiring them. how many people have been arrested that are hiring illegal aliens in this country? you are going to go after some poor family in guatemala trying to survive instead of the person hiring them for pennies? good day. host: ken is in beaumont, texas. republican. what do you think? good day. host:caller: good morning. i spent lots of time along the io, brownsville, also sometime in guatemala, honduras. i understand those sides of the equation. it is really devastating for these folks that are trying to make a better living. the opportunities in these countries to create jobs, opportunities for them, if we could provide leadership and assistance to provide opportunities for schooling, i think we would see a lot of this coming down.

for the folks that have not been along the border, it is extremely dangerous. the mayor of del rio was hijacked when he went across the border. the mayor of del rioas you are s the rio grande waters get really technically are not what backs. it is a very poor area. we do need to have some controls document and see in. is coming there is some really bad stuff that comes across the border in so many different ways. host: in. being on the border, there is a lot of area that the federal government does not own. a lot of ranchers, their property goes right up to the border. will these federal troops be on private land? guest: that has been an ongoing debate. both of the being on the bordere callers brought up

good points. in 2010, when president obama sent troops to the border, it was to address some of that violence. the drug cartels are militarized, they were crossing the border, there were a few events were u.s. citizens were injured or kidnapped or killed. that particular operation was to increase the security along the border to counter the drug cartel violence. thefirst caller brought up question of who to go after. should you go after the people hiring illegal immigrants or should you go after the illegal immigrants themselves? texas agriculture economy -- i grew up in texas, spent some time working in south texas as a reporter. migrant farmers are a critical part of the ability to get texas citrus, cotton to market. without those people, you would see prices go up on goods in the grocery store, you may see farmers go under. for decades this has been a

seasonal way for farmers to plant and harvest and move their culture to market. host: the caller also mentioned migrants coming from central america. the headline in wall street journal. the caravan in central america of centralthe ire america was slowly breaking up thursday and organizers said there were no longer plans to make it to the u.s. border, diffusing a growing crisis between the u.s. and mexico. immigration officials have offered the migrants either a 30-day humanitarian visa to seek asylum in mexico, which it granted would allow them to stay and work in the country, or a 20-day permit to leave the country. in both cases, the immigrants cannot be detained or deported by mexican authorities and can move more freely. tim is in knoxville, tennessee. caller: the question i have is

during the bush administration when he sent troops down, a lot of the troops were engaged -- you can probably confirm this exican military was hoping the drug cartels bring drugs across the border. to back off had because they were outgunned. the rumor is -- i don't know how gunsit is -- but those that fast and furious sent to the cartels, they are fixing to come back up with this group of -- but-- not the people another group that will be coming up around the same time. i was wondering if anybody could confirm that for me. guest: i cannot. i remember reading the stories around 2006, 2008 operations where border patrol agent's were assisted by guard. but, no, i cannot confirm.

host: jack is in scottsdale, arizona. a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. start at the basic time this started, the early 1970's. the woman is right talking about the migrants. pay the people. we don't need migrants. that is the bottom line. it comes down to cheap. number two, let's look at the important things that president trump is saying. if you have thousands of people in america right now dying and and theyg of heroin, know 80% of it is coming from ,exico or wherever, whenever

let's talk to the moms, dads, brothers, sisters of all these people that are dying, that are dead. then after that, like president trump says, these gang members. and then you have the deported people that have been deported five times killing kate steinle. here in arizona there have been three or four. the bottom line is very easy. i don't care, democrat or republican, you need to secure the border, build a wall, i don't care what it is. host: let's get a response. does sending the national guard me that you are going to stop drugs, you are going to stop those that have been deported many times from coming back into this country? is that the role the national guard will serve? guest: let's talk numbers. in 2000 you had 1.3 million illegal crossings. aboutear, the recording

300,000. the number of people coming over has significantly dropped. i think there is a different debate between people coming and obviously drug traffickers, human traffickers, cartels. as far as a security question and law enforcement issue, that .s where you target the illegal immigrants coming over to work are breaking the laws and are being deported in record numbers but it is a question of -- the drug problem is very real and the caller is correct that a vast majority of the opium and cocaine and heroin is coming from the south. you need to focus on this problem. host: but will the national guard have contact with immigrants? guest: they will not be in an immigration enforcement role. they will be the backbench supporting through surveillance, logistics,

intelligence, basically assisting the border patrol with all of the big pieces of machinery, satellites, everything else they can bring to be a force multiplier. host: so that cvb can do the immigration enforcement part of it. colin is inintelligence, basicay assisting the border patrol with connecticut. a democrat. caller: my question really is why are we not looking into this idea of open borders? talking about border security, putting more troops at the border, patrol agents at the border. why can't we consider the idea of opening the border? come back freely, not worrying about these economic repercussions that people are making up and allow for them to come in. all the analysts say that opening the border would be beneficial for both economies, would be safe for our country, crime would not go up, but nobody is talking about it. was: president reagan

looking at the concept of open borders in the 1980's but particularly after 9/11, the concept of open borders scares a lot of people. in the mid to thousands there were reports that terrorist organizations were looking at the southern route as a way to get into the u.s. i don't think that is probably in the security environment, feasible. host: virginia is in pennsylvania. republican. caller: hello. i say build the wall. we have plenty of money. congress just gave themselves another raise for doing nothing. one american life by building the wall, built the dam wall. host: will the national guard help with building the wall? guest: they are actually going to build some part of a wall in nevada.

there is a military installation in nevada, the very goldwater trading range, 20-plus miles along the border. it already has barriers but they are looking to fortify that. so there is perhaps a military participation in building the wall. as far as the greater wall, the 2000-mile border with mexico, that is something congress would have to fund or shift funds from one bucket to another. host: ed is in washington, d.c. a democrat. caller: good morning. very good job, tara copp. troops put along the border, constitutionally, cannot put their hands on an immigrant coming across the border. they are not allowed to do that. what weps can only do as private citizens can do,

contact immigration. our president needs to understand the constitution. i worked under the state department. i was in the intelligence business. now the president is under investigation. he should not be allowed to do these things. thing.comment on this i hope people understand what is going on with all of this fake news. c-span -- i like the programming on c-span, but the people calling in with this nonsense, talking about garbage and not reading the facts. they need to read and look at programs that are fact checked. take your first comment about sending troops to the border. guest: again, it goes back to who will pay for it and who will

control it. title 32, they would remain under state control. it is whether the governors would want to send, how many they want to send, and what authorities they have under the funding. if president trump really wants to federalize this and he wants to have a more direct command and control of those forces if he is dissatisfied with their performance or he thinks we need to change the mission, he could do that. but that is very rarely used, if ever. in extreme situations. for example, it was used in hurricane katrina because of the vast scope and need that the storm generated. host: rich in illinois. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. when you were mentioning earlier about the troop deployment and the cost in the rules and thelations in regard to

realities of how that stuff works, it is something to say that, but to actually do that and make it work, we have laws that say you cannot do that. that may not be a viable thing. i noticed when you send the numbers from last year to this year that have dropped down, when there were a million-plus crossing over and this year 300,000, there are certain things that are happening that are affecting that. immigration crackdown in the united states. the jobs are draining because of that. that may be why all the people are not coming over. these are the causes and effects that will work. putting the military up there to it comesstop that, with complications and risks that may not address what your issues are.

people from the cartels may not do in that way but they will still do that. that issue will not be addressed. host: we have to leave it there. for a cost estimate, in 2000 6, 2008 under operation just cause when president bush sent 6000 troops, that cost 1.6 billion dollars. if you are looking at 2000 to 4000 troops, depending on what their mission will be, maybe that gives you a rough idea of what this will cost. host: tara copp, you can follow her reporting on military times.com. you can also follow them on twitter. thank you for the conversation. next, we pose this question to all of you. we want to know your thoughts on it. is it possible to make government less partisan and more effective? it is a question we will ask or representative tom davis and jason ohlmeyer.

and then later, robert atkinson will join us to look at his latest piece in the atlantic on big business and why it is good for america. >> sunday on 1968, america in turmoil. liberal politics. as we look back to lbj's great society and liberal activists redefining the role of the federal government and challenging traditional values. our guests are kathleen kennedy townsend, rfk's daughter and former lieutenant governor of maryland. and michael cohen, author of "american milestone."

watch 1968, america in turmoil, live sunday, at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv on c-span3. sunday night on afterwards, south carolina republican senator tim scott and congressman trey gowdy discuss their friendship and time in congress. there interviewed by jim demint. >> one of the things i enjoyed about having dinner with trey, when you have dinner with trey, rarely it is the occasion that someone does not stop who is from here and does not take him for his service. it is just a fun experience but it is also meaningful and significant to take a look into his cranial cavity about the perspective he takes on really

important issues. you will find quickly that while he may be branded a partisan at is, his primary objective is truth. if it works for you, good. it works against you, sorry. he will find the truth. that is hard in a city who wants moren, which is sometimes important in the city than finding the truth. i am grateful to have a great friendship with some of is more interested in the truth than winning. there was something not come from entry written about senator scott in a block and i just reached the end. i said we are not going to put up with this anymore. i march down to his office and went right past the scheduler and said i am going in. we are going to do something about this. you cannot allow people to say this and do nothing about it. he said you are right, close the door.

to pray on are going it. i said, tim, i love you, but i am not praying for it. you sit here with me while i do. for a there and he prayed critic, by name -- there are not many people that do that. launch on sunday, 9:00 eastern on booktv. next week, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before senate and house committees on facebook's handling of user information and data privacy and tuesday at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span3 in a john kerry for the senate judiciary and commerce committee's. eastern ont 10:00 c-span3 before the house energy and commerce committee. live coverage on c-span3 and c-span .org, and listen live

with the free c-span radio app . host: we are back with our next conversation. is it possible to make government more effective and less partisan? , jasonr the conversation altmire, former representative from pennsylvania, served from 2017 of 2013. tom davis of virginia served from 1995 to 2008. you are both also at the center for the study of the presidency and congress commission on civility and governance. what is the group, what is your aim? guest: there are a lot of folks around the country that are working on civility in politics, trying to reduce the amount of polarization. this is part of that effort. what we are trying to do is bring all those good ideas together to talk about what is politically realistic, to bring

more civility to our political discourse. everyone would agree we are heading in the wrong direction we are becoming more polarized by the day. we are bringing people of all partisan affiliations together, talking about what we can do to make it better. host: mr. davis, what is the motivation? your outside of congress now. guest: we want government to work. we spent a good part of our careers in congress, in public service. you want it to be effective. you are invested in that. it is not very effective today, whether it is the appropriation bills, government agencies not able to work, not addressing key problems that the public wants addressed because of little gridlock. at the end of the day, we are founded on compromise. we have devolved into a parliamentary behavior and a balance of power system and does not work. host: when did it begin? you started in 1995.

guest: it really started with the breakup of the south, the coalitions in the south, when you had liberal and conservative republicans and democrats. it is a combination of three things. the advent of single party districts, which we could have a lengthy discussion over. it is gerrymandering but it is voting rights, voting patterns, all those things. the new media, where most of people get their information up of the internet, the crack to content ratio is exceptionally high. a lot of stuff has no basis in fact. and the money has moved away from the political parties out to the wings and super pac's because of campaign finance reform. but itded consequences is what has happened. the president's party in congress is an appendage of the executive ranch. the minority party is no longer the minority party but the opposition party. mr. all my what was your

experience when you served, do you think it is worse now after you are no longer there? worse it is getting progressively. i represented a classic swing district, could've gone either way. half republican, half democrat. every vote i took, i knew i was going to make half of my constituents angry and have happy. the time, you find it is closed primary system that is affecting the process. the people who show up in a low turnout primary are the folks on the political extreme. they have disproportionate influence in our electoral process. if you are a candidate running for office in that system, if you want to win and keep your seat you have to appeal to those people on the political fringe. if we could have a more open system of primaries were all the candidates were involved in the same primary, a system were more people were allowed to vote,

independents, third-party affiliates, if you are running for office in that system, you have to appeal to everybody. if you go in and only appeal to your narrow-based extreme voters, you will lose. host: how would you go about opening up the primary system? guest: they have done it california, louisiana has a similar system. if you look at what they did in california, it changed the politics in sacramento and the congressional delegation in washington. they also did it into and in with reform of the gerrymandering system, so they have an independent system that draws the lines. every state is different. california has a referendum process. for the states that don't allow that, it is difficult to get members of a state legislature want to be members of congress monday to vote against their interest, which would be opening up the primaries. host: you were both considered moderate when you served. when you were there, you had the blue dogs and a tuesday group.

larger numbers back then. explain first of all to viewers who don't know who those two groups were, explain their influence on legislation. guest: the blue dogs were a much more moderate conservative democratic group within the party caucus. not part of the progressive movement. they were democrats, identified with working people and the like. on some of the social issues, guns, it was all over. a pretty eclectic group of people that did not identify with the progressive wing. the same with a tuesday group. i was a member of that group. some of us were more moderate on social issues. generally they come from more swing districts. what has happened with these wave elections, they are wiped out. the moderates are the ones that are wiped out because they are the ones from the swing districts. we have a saying in politics that liberals and conservatives have passion. moderates have lives.

the end result is the passion and that winning these primary contests and send their people to washington. the people who tend to be more extreme end up bringing those passionate people into the fold, winning the primaries, and bringing those politics to washington and it is a no holds barred, we win, you lose no compromise attitude. pew research center shows that the political people on the extremes are the ones that work on campaigns, give money, and turnout in primaries, while the rest of america is worrying about their kids activities, living their lives, who is my sports team going to take in the upcoming draft. the people on the political extremes are influencing the process. host: if you open up the primaries, what will motivate those people to turn out and vote? guest: you have to encourage them to vote, of course. but independents in a lot of

states are not allowed to participate in primaries. in florida, where a quarter of the electorate are no party affiliation, they are not allowed to determine who is the candidates in primaries. if everyone was in the same primaries and all the candidates had to appeal across the political spectrum, you would have a more moderate result of people representing you. where thison't know leads us eventually. it could be the demise of parties, and that has its own price. but we know that what has happened to date is not working. look at the dysfunction of congress. the senate is basically the department of personnel. all they are doing is confirming people for judgeships in the executive branch, and there is a huge backlog. 30 hours per nominee. it is not working and there is little time for legislation or compromise. the fiscal year starts october 1. the last time congress passed the appropriation bills on time was 1996.

in that year because we shut the government down twice the year before. both sides came together recently to pass the omnibus. guest: march 23, for a fiscal year that started october 1. these agencies were operating not knowing what their budget was for the year. halfway through the year they finally get their budget. they have suspended by the end of the year, use it or lose it. wasted, innovation stops, planning stops, very inefficient. host: and not very popular with the american people. there are talks on capitol hill that republicans would come back because they are hearing that their voters are not happy with the omnibus bill, the amount of spending in it, and now they are thinking about cutting some of the money they agree to. guest: too bad. they need nine democratic votes in the senate to get it done. a deal is a deal. cast a lot of controversial

votes. that is the only way you get through. i will never forget the tarp vote. everything i stood for, i had to vote against on that bill to try to help to save the economy. i remember one member in the back room saying, we really need this to pass. i said, great, we need you. if you cannot take a tough vote, what are you doing here? means going back and explain this is a complicated patchwork of issues and at the end of the day, you have a duty to get things done, not push him down the road. what has happened for generations? ,his latest appropriations bill send the bill onto to the next generation, call it a win, and you are still six months late. host: i want to have both of you respond to this. it touched on this, about how people get their news. a monmouth university poll recently came out showing 77% of

americans believe major traditional tv and 80 out that perform -- report fake news. does that concern you? guest: it is of great concern and is influencing the polarization we see. we could talk about how people's mother already made up. they decide their opinion on an issue and they seek information. we live in a world where every book ever written is at your fingertips. instead of using that ability to seek knowledge, we only use it to reinforce what we already believe. if you go on social media, you will see people on left and right who put in their twitter profile that they probably block everybody who has a different point of view. that is not healthy for the process. the biggest problem is those are the people that participate in our elections and campaign process. congressman, is irresponsible for the president to be attacking the media and telling the american people that

whatever they report is fake and false? guest: fake news is in the eye of the beholder, frankly. you can watch the different stations, read these different newspapers. people want to get their worldviews validated. fake news tends to be in the eye of the beholder at this point, whichever does not uphold their worldviews. for better or worse, it's part of the political process now. host: you don't hold him someone responsible? isst: i think donald trump not the cause of the problem, he is a manifestation of a larger problem. his election is a manifestation of a larger problem. c-span has a wide variety of views, but if you watch a lot of these cable networks, there is a pervasive worldview that all of their commentators buy into that a lot of americans don't. the end result is we are getting diverse media, people find what

they want to hear. guest: there was a survey done of the media choices based on partisan affiliation. what you found was there were 13 different choices that were named in an open-ended question. the republicans had four, democrats had nine, and there was no overlap. they live in silos and have completely different worldviews as a result. host: let's hear what our viewers have to say. posing the question to all of you as well. is it possible for the government to be more effective and less partisan? george and for belfour, virginia. a democrat. caller: good morning. i think the world of you all. let me say this. i disagree with one of your speakers about donald trump. i think everything starts from the top. this man is truly toxic. his rhetoric, the things that he says.

but in saying that, we need to look at several things. look at the senate majority leader, paul ryan. they are actually saying nothing. the senate majority leader did say that he knows in november it will be a category 3, 4, 5. i disagree with him. it will be a synonymy. i feel the democrats will like them out. that being said, that does not eradicate what president trump has in his arsenal. he still has veto power. do ino has the ability to executive orders, which he has been doing left and right. it may not be a choice for democrats when they take the house and senate, but they will have to impeach him, that is the only way they can get him out of the house. in terms of coming together, paul ryan and the senate should

be a donald trump's office every single day, when he comes up with this stuff that is partisan and not bipartisan. host: a few issues there to unpack. starting withth president trump and he is being toxic and members of congress and republican leadership should be standing up to him. we now would side of the ledge of the caller comes from, so i understand his worldview. that.t discount but let's understand that perspective. you could probably find another viewer that looks at this differently. i have my views, jason has his views. that is not important in understanding what's going on here. i don't know what will happen in november but let me say, starting with bush, then obama took it to more extremes, and trump even more. you lose control over congress. by executive order.

that is what president obama did, the last six years, it was basically executive action and regulation and trump is slowly repealing these things. you can write your own regulations in. obama ended up having a lot of in the senate.s trump is doing the same thing. is point is the congress irrelevant to this, they can be a check. take the senate back, maybe he doesn't get cabinet editions. the way to run the government is you come together. find good people, you can get people sometimes in the middle. judges now have their own litmus test depending on what president is in. it has gotten way out of hand. i don't point a finger except on both sides but it keeps getting worse. there are no guard rails anymore to political behavior. it didn't start with donald trump. he may have escalated it to some

extent. but it keeps getting worse. ,f somebody got up and yelled you lied, during the state of the union, you would take them out back and strip them. now that kind of behavior is rewarded on cable news. a democrat got up and said the republican health care plan is like seniors die. in the past, this would not have been allowed. you take them back and say that is not the did] -- decorum we want. host: are you saying republican leaders took that congressman -- guest: they should have. there are certain things that should not be allowed on congress. taking downwards when people get out of line. state of the union, that is the presence time to address. you can stand or not. sometimes things go over-the-top the top and there are no more guard rails anymore. the former chair

of the republican campaign committee. you say you don't know how it will turn out in november. what does it look like to you for the midterm elections, what is your prediction? guest: democrats pick up seats. as the caller said, it could be category 3, 4, 5. we know they are facing stiff resistance. that is traditional. last 38ut of the midterms the president's party has lost seats. i know something about midterm elections. democrats have three things going for them. you have a lot of trouble voters that are trump centric, not republican centric. they are not motivated to come up for republicans but donald trump. a lot of obama voters were obama centric. they did not come out in the midterms and democrats suffered losses. that is not just akin to donald trump. that is voter behavior. second, the out party is generally more intense. we see this intensity across the

board in special elections. we saw this in the virginia elections. democrats are intense and republicans not so much. the third factor is you have a lot of independent voters who vote in general elections, not primaries. they tend to use midterm election to put a check on the president. those are powerful forces when you put them together in a midterm. how far-reaching it is remains to be seen. host: so pick up seats but not take back the house? guest: it remains to be seen but the republicans will have a tough midyear. that is written in, no matter who is president. guest: i was a part of two different waves. democrats retook the congress after being out of power for 12 years. i survived the 2010 wave as a .emocrat in pennsylvania, five democratic congressman lost their seats. across the country, 63 lost their seats.

i understand how this works. there is clearly that type of wave building in the country. as tom says come you have this historic off year election for a new president, often losing up to three dozen seats just because of that. then you have the intensity gap, the fact that democrats are much more enthusiastic about the upcoming election, and you have the people who were excited about president trump, his name is not on the ballot, so they are not as motivated to show up. if you look at what's happening in the country, it is clear a wave is building. we had a state like pennsylvania, which has redrawn their seats since the last election, florida has also redrawn seats so they have more competitive races. if you look at the way gerrymandering has held the republican majority in, that is starting to crumble because of the combination of these things. i expect the democrats to have a big year. host: jerry is in tampa. independent.

welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. idea, whyprimary would republicans what democrats and independents to pick who their nominee is? i would like to see that extended to sports. i would love to see the buccaneers be able to pick the quarterback of the opposition. i'm not sure about the very thing -- open primary thing. guest: each state gets to design their own election laws. you run on the ballot as a republican or democrat but the people that get the most votes and that going. you end up in some districts with two republicans, two democrats, but if you end up in a runoff with two democrats in a democratic district, which happens, republicans matter, independents matter, and they get a say in the electric. november, in about three fourths of the congressional districts,

is just a formality. because of the way the lines are drawn, voters are taken out of the equation in november. i don't think that's appropriate. that deprives a lot of americans from having their voices heard. we are still experimenting, there are upsides and downsides to this. maybe hard-core republicans or democrats may not like the system because they want to pick their own candidates, and i understand that. but because politics has gotten so out of whack, washington state is also included, they are looking at ways to make democracy work. how would you get your former colleagues to go along with this when they have safe seats? guest: that is the problem. the folks benefiting from the current system will not be interested in changing it to make their elections more vulnerable. areuld say tom and i, we talking about the effectiveness and civility in government, so we have our own opinion on these

things. i'm not suggesting that what we are talking about will be the view of the commission itself. but with regard to open primaries, we are talking about a system where all the candidates are in the same primary, not a democrat crossing over to vote in the republican primary to pick the weaker nominee so their party benefits. if you are running for office, all the candidates, greens, libertarians, reform party, all in the same primary. registeredgible voters show up to vote, regardless of party affiliation. host: we are talking with you done your former members of congress. jason altmire served pennsylvania from 2007 22013. tom davis, republican from virginia, served from 1995 to 2008. now both are cochairing this center on effective governance. can you make capitol hill, that

building behind us, more effective and less partisan? we will keep taking your phone calls this morning. let's hear from connecticut, a democrat, bob. caller: good morning. i would like to hear opinion expressed on the value of term limits. it seems to me the most reasonable legislators we are hearing from these days are those that opted not to run for reelection. they are much more lot to much more sensitive to the other side. limitesident has a term for a very good reason. i wonder what would happen if we had extended term limits for legislators? guest: this is interesting. tom and i have not talked about that. we have both written separate books on polarization. when you do the research, sometimes it changes your opinion on some issues.

for term limits, that is one of the things that happens. when you look at the impact of term limits in states. there are constitutional limits to term limits at the federal level. it does not work. at the next job they will have as a lobbyist. it empowers career lobbyists. people go for short-term success. that means leave the future planning out. make me look good right now. let the fallout be someone else's problem. term limits accident work the way they are intended. when you replace a member of congress or state legislature by somebody who is more politically extreme than who they were, it leads to greater polarization. term limits are ineffective. undefeated, not indicted. that was my own term limit.

it was my time to do something else. i enjoyed my time in congress. certainly productive. i agree with jason. you lose a lot of historical knowledge when you start rotating people through. that means empowering staff and lobbyists. it is going to take a constitutional amendment. the courts have spoken on that. i don't believe the states are getting better outcomes. in some cases, you're getting more gridlock. host: what are both of you doing now that you have left congress? guest: health care is my profession. when i wrote my book six months ago, i left my job. i have spent six months traveling the country talking about these issues. beforei was an executive heading to congress. i am now an executive again with delight.

keith in's hear from ohio. independent. caller: good morning. i just have one question. i would like to know the downside and possibly the upsides of what our government would look like and our society as a whole if there was no republican or democratic party, everybody just got elected according to the issues. voted --ve, you get lie, you get voted right back up. guest: there are challenges to that. the problem is a lot of people are low information voters. if you show up to the polls, having an r or d next to the name gives you some sense of where they might be on some issues. if everyone has the same message come than that is one thing, but

everyone has different points of view. i think your party affiliation gives the voter a little idea of where you're coming from. guest: the parties were not really envisioned in the constitution. it was later during washington's farewell address that they about parties. tools. are organizing they are a very important part of being able to get things organized, but too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing. that is what we have found with hyper partisanship. there is a balance that has just gotten out of kilt. host: we talked about open primaries and the media. what are some recommendations from other recommendations you have? guest: one of the things we have

talked about is nonpartisan gerrymandering so politicians are not choosing their voters. that doesn't solve the single party district issue because residential sorting patterns, voting rights tend to group people together in safe districts. i think the fastest thing backess can do is to bring project destinations or earmarks. then everybody has skin in the game. it doesn't cost a penny. it is how money is allocated. it is not somebody in the bureaucracy allocating it. voters have some outlet to show their disapproval. now, you don't have that outlet. frankly, it is a constitutional responsibility of the congress and the house where money bills originate. you had a republican congress

giving over to the obama administration the power to designate projects. host: congressman, you referenced your book. divide,he partisan which i wrote with a democratic campaign chairman. we talked about how things got so out of kilter. host: what are your recommendations from mr. ohlmeyer -- altmire? host: there are -- guest: there are a series of recommendations, campaign finance reform can the money in our politics. if you study the voting patterns of members of congress, you find they aligned much more closely to the people they get money from then their constituents. that influence his and the way you think about your job.

the supreme court has equated money with free speech. it is difficult to reform that process. you have long-term issues like civics education. the american people are woefully undereducated on the way government operates. that is something that would benefit from changing. you have institutional reforms in congress like the filibuster rule in the senate and the way the house leadership is selected. , theentions gerrymandering systemic causes. is there a way we can temper the partisanship and encourage people to an alternative point of view when people are thinking about entertainment? book dead center is the one you wrote on partisan issues. caller: thank you for letting citizens speak on national

television and letting idealistic people like your guests on. are gentlemenif -- aware of the new starters ofose herders in honor teddy roosevelt. think the congressional bipartisan working group could be a new power center and guide congress through 2018. governor hickenlooper of colorado and -- are working together. tellingletters to them the to provide power to bipartisan working group for the government when it goes into chaos this year.

organize the bipartisan working group to be a power center. what is your reaction? host: my reaction is very good. charlie daniels is leaving congress, but he is one of the more able members we had in the house. he was the subcommittee chairman on appropriations. we recognize this is a very diverse country. when you start legislating cutting one group out altogether, you get the kind of anger we saw this last election. i don't think that is healthy for democracy. i don't think it gives lasting power to the kind of loss that are passed -- laws that are passed. i don't think it is healthy. we need to restore civility and the ability to reach across the aisle. host: i get asked all the time when i speak about these issues, why is there so much

partisanship in washington? the answer is simple. we elect partisans. we elect people who are accountable to the political extremes. there are people in congress who still want to work together and would love to cross the aisle and do compromise legislation. the problem is compromise has become a dirty word in washington. you are punished for working with the other side. they will run a primary against you. your incentive is to stay with your own team and criticize the other side. that is not a formula for success. host: delray beach, florida, you are next. caller: this has been a great conversation. you got a great answer about term limits. i would answer to your last statement, i don't think it is just voting partisans. i have seen memor many representatives and members on both sides, they like to call it

evolving, but they do a 360 when it is expedient for an upcoming election. davis, i think you never come mr. trump is simply an expression of what is going on. i am going to take issue because as an independent i lean conservative, believe in less government, but the idea that there is equal partisanship in the media, that somehow fox news is equal to the rest of the media information, and i was no fan of barack obama, but if he bent over and picked up a piece of paper, it was heckling news. conversely, donald trump cannot breathe and without doing something wrong. when you have hyper partisanship, the regular media, even c-span, i get it all the time, i can tell what

left-leaning voters are on c-span. the vitriol against donald trump is something i have never witnessed in my life. i think it is interesting to see members that i have watched, how human nature has taken over in congress. i will hang up and see if you would like to respond. thank you. guest: thank you. i think those are appropriate comments. i understand her view on that. i think a lot of people would agree. in my neighborhood, we put a -- trump sign in our yard, it would have been akin to a hate crime. 4% of a city where he got the vote. people were making up their own trumps science. it is easy to say i am right,

and the other side is wrong. i can defend my views and feel comfortable with it. as analysts, we are trying to look at both sides, not necessarily equally, but both sides have different points of view. we have not learned how to homogenize those and bring a country together. instead we keep getting ready and blue. we talked about reasons for that, the diverse media models, -- thet time way campaigns are financed. until you tackle these issues, you will not get through to the major problems. guest: i would criticize people for talking about president trump as their model for polarization. president trump is unique. we have never had a president like this who behaves the way he behaves. you cannot make reform options based on what president trump is

doing. a candidate cannot run on his message expecting the same result. he is different. he is a reality television star. he behaves in the way we have never seen politicians act. we are talking about the greater issues of the congressional polarization, the partisan divide and what we can do to bring people back together. president trump is a different circumstance. host: can the two sides be forced to come together on legislation when the pressure is not a from the outside and it is grassroots? i think about the march for our lives rally, the kids in parkland organizing that march in washington. if there is enough groundswell, when you take an issue like gun legislation where the two sides can't seem to agree on something to be done, can that pressure make a difference?

experts cameonomic washen the economy winding down, they said it would bring the entire economy down. we finally got it together, and it was unpopular to this day. host: what happened after the first vote? guest: the market plunged like 700 points in half an hour. we got the idea that things would unravel quickly if we did not do it right. the gun issue is far more complex week is there are two different americas who see the gun issue differently. this is an issue where it is not who is most popular, it is an intensity issue. intensity has particularly been with gun owners. i say that as someone who has been supported a background checks. intensity has been with gun

owners. they feel this is the first step going after it. it doesn't help when you have retired supreme court justices saying you need to get rid of the second amendment. guest: the way this applies to congress is we have 435 seats in the house. no one represents the same constituency. it would frustrate me when we would have these wave issues in a swing district. we would have issues like guns or immigrations, and people that at national polls and try to extrapolate that to my district. you should be on this side of the issue because i see what is happening in the country. it doesn't always work that way in individual districts. members of congress represent their own constituencies. the point of view of that constituency might be different from the nation as a whole. host: let's hear from allen, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: right now, the democrats

cannot protect their insurance. trump and the republicans are just steamrolling along. had lewandowski cursed out a senator, jackie spears. that doesn't sound like someone who wants to play nice in the sandbox. the other thing is the parkland shooting, if we had 17 people killed in afghanistan, general bone spurs would have been telling us how we could do it better. we had 17 kids killed on american soil. nobody should have that kind of gun. guest: i would say with regard to parkland, we had 17 students in that tragic incident, but it is a problem that has been building in the country. the anger and the motivation of

the people who marched a couple weeks ago is because of the continuing series of these incidents around the country and our continuing inability to do anything about it. it has been building over time. this is probably the tipping point the country has been waiting for. guest: i don't know if it is a tipping point or not. if the election was tomorrow, it would be an issue in the campaign. in november whether it is an issue depends on if there is still more incidents. i will give you an example of issues, when i would cast a vote that the handgun control might like, i did not pick up anything on the left, i lost support on the right. the behavior of getting out of your partisan box and jumping over is generally not rewarded by the electorate. host: we go to a caller,

republican. schumer, they are not doing a good job in washington. i would like you to internet question. over the weekend, nancy pelosi was in israel. that 17 men, women, and children in pakistan were killed by israeli soldiers. code like for you to -- i would for that.o answer every politician in america is silent. here is your chance. host: are you referring to a recent incident? caller: the slaughter and killing of palestinians over the holiday weekend. host: ok. mr. altmire. guest: i am familiar with the incident.

this is something we have seen time and again in the middle east. that is why israel is seen as an important issue for the country. i don't agree with the caller that it was not handled appropriately in the media. i can understand the frustration that exists with the continuing inability to get peace. host: he brought up leadership. let's start with your party, the democratic party. does the party need new leadership on capitol hill? nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, should they be replaced by younger members? guest: i have been clear about this. i did not support speaker pelosi when she was campaigning for her seat again. i am a fan of speaker pelosi. she works harder than anybody in the country to support candidates and issues she believes in. i believe it is time for a change.

there are a lot of young and upcoming people within the democratic caucus, and i think the country has used speaker policies politics -- pelosi's undermineto democrats running across the country. guest: if you're are talking about electoral outcomes, not good, but legislative outcomes, nancy pelosi has been one of the more successful leaderships we had. health care, i would not devoted four, but you have cap and trade,. frank, infrastructure rally alongmocrats the way. speaker pelosi was one of the speakers we had. host: how does speaker ryan

compare? guest: he has had a more raucous caucus. it is a great leader, but you need followers. because of the media and everything else, any of these members who are responsive to what they are hearing on media are more responsive to that than what they are hearing from their speaker. as for chuck schumer, we don't agree on a lot of things, but he is one of the stable leaders we have had. he is in the minority. he knows how to block and tackle well. host: senator schumer and congresswoman pelosi deal with the same issues that republican leaders do with, but they are able to keep their members in line. tough andonnell's experience.

with very few exceptions, it takes 60 votes. chuck schumer has nine votes that republicans have to get. it is going to be a high ante. the difficulty that schumer has is even if you agree with president trump, you have to go back to a democratic base and justify why you are working with donald trump. republicans have to give up to get democrats to come over. host: ron, independent. caller: good morning. thank you. the 19th amendment addresses all of these issues you are discussing. the 19th amendment is the crowd sourced constitutional amendment written by the people online. we have come up with solutions for all these things. it implements term limits, requires voter participation, exit term limits work if you implement them along with -- actually term limits work if you

withment them along anticorruption measures. it limits the income of congressman to the average income of their constituents while they are in office and for some time after. host: let's take that. guest: i think it is clear you have a pretty hard time getting people to run for office, while the people. not that people necessarily do it for the money, certainly there are well accomplished people financially, but saying you are going to limit their income in that way after office, you will get a hard time having quality people run. host: when you are talking about a congressman representing hawaii or california, they are living in different places. guest: we had to recruit

members, and we had solid people, attorney generals, people who did not want to disrupt their family, their careers to put it on hold by coming here. the idea was people would spend a few terms and go out and do something else. that is what the founders and -- en some have made itvisioned. a career -- the founders envisioned. some have made it a career. thisreciate attempts like as people try to come up with other ideas. i don't think all of them work. may make it of them worse. it is a dialogue we need to have. there has to be recognition of the fact that things are not working the way the founders had envisioned. i think we are getting about 40%

efficiency out of our system of government. countriespeting with across the world that make instantaneous decisions, make them quickly, stand behind them. it is tough to compete with that. host: let's get one last phone call. peggy a new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. i was wondering if your guests favor the abolition of the electoral college? it is a must like the fix is in, negating one man, one vote. ,hen the u.s. signs treaties every four years we get a new person in, and we break them as if the treaty never mattered got it is the person power that matters. guest: the problem is treaties are very hard to break. most of these are not treaties anymore. most of these are executive agreements. a treaty will require a tougher

vote in congress. treaty, it would be much harder to break. the way they work through it is it is an executive agreement. we are seeing less and less going back to the traditional role of doing absolute treaties take two thirds of the senate. you cannot get two thirds. things are way too controversial. guest: take two thirds of the senate. i would understand why a democrat from new york would be frustrated by the electoral college given what we had in 2016 and 2000. we have had examples where the popular vote did not equate with the person winning presidency. i would oppose getting rid of the electoral college. the founding fathers created a balance in the way it operates with the house and senate. rhode island has the same number of senators as texas.

the electoral college is the same issue. you want to give voice to the smaller states, the agrarian states. if you do away with the electoral college, you change that balance. host: for our viewers that want to do more on how to make this country less partisan, go to thepresidency.org. thank you for the conversation this morning. we want to share with our viewers a couple of updates. the job numbers are out for march. unemployment remained the same, 4.1%. six is a 17 year low, straight months. 103,000 jobs added. the trump administration today sanctioned seven oligarchs with

close ties to president vladimir and a business connection to donald trump's former campaign manager. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will take a look at robert atkinson's pie atlantic on the role of big business. ♪ >> this weekend, c-span cities tour takes you to norman, oklahoma. we will explore normans literary scene and culture.

oklahoma complex history and divisions in our nation with her book most american. oklahoma gave the country woody guthrie, one of its most celebrated black novelists, ralph ellison, and the tulsa race riot. on sunday, we visit the national weather center located on the campus of the university of oklahoma. >> the stuff we do here impacts everybody. this is a one-of-a-kind facility. this does not exist anywhere else in our galaxy. this is the only national weather center. we really are a destination for the entire state of oklahoma and the world because of her but he is interested in weather.

albert about the carl study center at the numbers the of oklahoma, which houses the papers of 58 former members of congress. >> this document is a memo labeled personal and confidential, and it lays out what albert should do if he becomes president. it says, step one, take the oath of office, step two, physically take over the office. step three, resigned from the house. this is something out would have had to do if he moved to the presidency. it would only be temporarily. this is an interesting piece of history many people do not know about. we think about nixon and impeachment, but not the other things that could have happened during that time. >>