committee considers ways to investment. business and trade in the americas. u.s.-north korea summit is set for tuesday and book tv will feature authors with books about the region. 5:00 unday starting atu.s.-nort me park tern with yeon and her book. another book "without you, there us under cover among the north korea's elite." the book "north korea and regional security in the kim era" and thomas henned rickson and his book. watch on c-span 2's book tv sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> coming up in 30 minutes we're live in lansing, michigan for next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. michigan state senator discusses

top issues facing the state egislature and new york democratic congressman adriano espaillat will be on. look at the challenges facing social security and medicare funding. host: good morning, the house and senate are both scheduled to return at 10:00 a.m. today. the house side, republican members are set to hold a meeting for a conference iscussion on the next steps when it comes to immigration legislation. this is where we'll begin and we ant to hear from republican viewers only about what you tell paul ryan and other leaders about how to proceed on immigration if you were in that room this morning. republicans only in the eastern or central time zone can call in at 202-748-8000.

republicans in the mountain and zone 202-748-2001. and catch up with us on social media. you can also catch up with us on social media. a very good thursday morning to you. you can start calling in now. republicans only for this first 30 minutes on the issue of immigration. matt fuller joins us. what is expected to happen at the meeting this morning? >> we have a two or three hour meeting. this has been one of the most anticipated meetings for

republicans. i think a lot of people thought leadership would have a plan to present. obviously this discharge addition has really forced republican leaders' hand here. the idea was that republicans could come up with their own bill that maybe they could pass. we haven't seen that legislation emerge yet. certainly they've been having a but there'sngs, still a lot of outstanding issues they haven't solved. i imagine this meeting will be a lot of discussion about those outstanding issues. maybe if they can come to those conclusions, but at the end of votesy we are only a few short from triggering a discharge petition. they wanted a few more -- they will need a few more. are on thisans who

discharge petition say they are ready for people to sign on after this conference meeting. somehow leadership was able to prevent a lot of these guys from signing. there's a wide expectation among a lot of leadership that we will get the votes today for that discharge petition. host: remind us how that discharge petition process works. are ableican moderates to get the numbers sufficient to bring that discharge petition forth, what actually gets voted on on the house floor? votes -- once you get 218 votes, after a seven day layover you bring up a bill, in this case just a rule, a queen

a pieceill rule where of legislation -- and it is open-ended at this point -- brought up by certain members or a designee, basically the highest vote-getter wins the day and the wide thought is with the democrats signing on, it looks are maybe all of democrats going to sign on, and it would be a plan that democrats and about 25 or 26 republicans would prefer. we would see where the vote stands in the house on any number of immigration proposals. vote-o-ramasort of in the house. the: what stands between immigration hardliners coming to a deal that can be supported by the majority?

guest: there's still a number of issues. certainly one is a special pathway to citizenship or legal residence. for conservatives that is a big problem. their constituents don't believe in a special pathway. their ideas to sort of get in the back of the line, go back to your country and we can talk about citizenship through the normal route. be rewardsshouldn't for coming here. i think a sizable number of republicans in the congress believe that. moderatesative is the who have a number of these undocumented immigrants in their districts. they know that saying you need to leave the country, there can be no special pathway, that really for them is sort of a nonstarter.

they don't see that as a solution, particularly when we are talking about daca, the deferred action on childhood arrivals. that was really the impetus for this plan. solve thet trying to immigration situation for those who came to this country when they were children, brought to this country when they were children. themdon't think treating as any other emigrated going to be palatable. solving that issue seems very tricky, and frankly i don't know if there's the numbers in the republican conference that you could do it just through republicans, pass an immigration bill with just republican votes. host: we will see what happens at that meeting. while we have you, can you just walk us through what is happening today on the house floor and it comes to a today?ion vote happening explain what that means and what is going to have on the floor. guest: we've been talking about

the rescission package for quite a while now3 according -- quite a while now. according to the administration, basically taking back money that hasn't been spent from a number of different programs and has sort of been sitting there. is been some consternation over this package just because conservatives don't think it is ambitious enough. for moderates, there's a couple programs they don't love seeing being cut here. contentious, and democrats aren't expected to support it either because there's a number of funding provisions in their that they don't want to see cut, even if it is money just sitting there. there's $7 billion in the children's health insurance program, but democrats see it as a shot across the bow that

republicans are looking to go after that sort of money. matt fuller, congressional reporter with the have them post, covering it all this morning. thanks so much for your time as you start your day. guest: thank you. host: we are talking to back toans only, coming that meeting happening in the house republican conference this morning, that immigration meeting. want to hear what your message would be to republican leaders. republicans in the eastern and central time zones can call-in. republicans in the mountain and , the numberszones is on the screen so you know it's numbers to call. what to also show you yesterday emma paul ryan spoke to reporters a little bit about the status of daca negotiations within the conference.

here's a bit of what he had to say. feel good about the types of conversations we are having. our members are sincere in trying to understand each other's perspectives. i think the president was extremely productive when he put out his four pillars. they are extraordinarily reasonable. they attempt to actually fix the solution. remember, would we fix daca we want to fix it permanently so we don't have another problem down the road. we are having a conversation tomorrow, and that is what we should be doing, talking amongst ourselves so the majority can function. ryan saying they don't want to do a discharge petition, but as matt fuller of the having to post said -- of the huffington post said earlier , and looks like they are headed that direction if they don't come to some sort of conference wide decision this morning.

we want to hear from republicans. if you are in that meeting, what would you tell paul ryan and other republican leaders? as you are calling income a want to show this story about the status of arrests taking place at the border. u.s. border agents made more for 50,000 arrests in may, the third month in a row, an indication that escalating in force and -- escalating enforcement tactics by the trump administration have not had an immediate effect. 51,000 immigrants into custody in may, nearly three times the number detained in gettingperiod

your thoughts, republicans only in the first half-hour. dennis is a republican in michigan come up first -- michigan, up first. what would your message be to republican leaders on immigration? caller: i'm with donald trump. i believe in it very strongly. i believe in border control. host: does that include a wall, dennis? caller: yes. i would like to talk to the president in person. host: and what would you say to him, dennis?

know thatwant him to and he's doingm good work, and i want him to continue on. host: that is dennis in michigan. should note that coming up in about 15 or 20 minutes this morning, we will be going to lansing for stop number 37 on c-span's 50 capitals tour. there's a shot of the state capital, the c-span bus parked right outside the state capitol, joined by the of thent pro tem michigan state senate. that is coming up at 7:30.

for now, republicans only talking about your message on immigration. kerry in north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning. generally i agree with the president. he is somewhat bombastic about it, but the nuts and bolts he's. correct. this goes -- he's got correct. ,his goes back to ronald reagan the bill that called for securing the border, granting amnesty to those that are already here, so on and so forth. once again, lucy and charlie the illegal aliens that were here at the time, which were estimated at about 3 million, got their amnesty and the border was never really secured. the funding never came, so on and so forth. here we are 33 odd years later and still having the same argument. know, president

trump put a doctor deal on the table that was fairly -- a daca deal on the table that was fairly expensive. i firmly believe the democrats didn't want him to claim any .ort of win over it i firmly believe that anyone that came here illegally, is any kind of citizenship for them, it's got to be way down the road. believerdliner, so i they should be granted any type of citizenship because they entered illegally. but that doesn't mean we can't let them live and work here under some sort of legal status. the program which gets rightly criticized -- gets widely criticized back in the 50's and 60's should be looked at again, allowing people from south of the border -- and that is were most of this problem comes from easily, freely, and

at will across the border to come to the united states to primarily take these agricultural jobs which most americans will not ever do. but many of them don't want to live in the united states permanently. they want to go back to their home villages and families in mexico. but again, where this runs into problems with the democrats is the democrats want new voters. you know, it is apparent about that, so i don't think we should try to hide that fact. but again, if we are talking andt easing border problems illegal aliens and so on and so forth, it is something that should be addressed. host: thanks for the call. rick is in tennessee. we are talking to republicans only. go ahead, rick. caller: good morning. i think what needs to happen is we need to finish the border, allow people to come across who want to work and return home within a 30 day status, and if

the republicans don't want to do their job -- you know, i am a staunch republican come almost 60 years old, and if they don't want to do their job we need to vote them out. paul ryan right out of everything he is doing is pretty much a disgrace and he needs to step down. host: were you listening to the last caller before you call in, his thoughts on some sort of legal status here? he would be very concerned about citizenship being granted any sort of deal. where do you stand? caller: we should never grant them citizenship. i have a lot of hispanic friends that their families and them went through the legal process. it cost them a lot of money and a lot of time. if ever we do grant them any kind of citizenship status, they should be at the back of the line. if it was me, i would tell you i think the need to leave the country and reapply to come back -- comeback in under some

other status and apply for it in the correct way. host: about an hour and 45 minutes before house republicans are expected to meet and have these discussions. we are certainly expecting plenty of coverage of it today and throughout the morning. we want to hear from republicans on what your message would be if you were in that room. richard is in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: yes. all i have to say is why with the republicans pass a bill that they know president trump will not sign? that makes no sense. do the four pillars of president trump on the bill, that's the one they should pass or they should just drop the subject. it is a waste of time for the republican party. i just don't understand where they are coming from. host: when you say they come i do you mean the moderates trying to force this vote to a

discharge petition? or do you think the republican leaders in general? caller: both. they should let it happen. they should stop it. want to go to a discharge petition should be reined in. the other parties used to do that. i am sure democrats used to do that all the time. host: matt fuller of the post and others -- of the huffington post and others have reported that those moderates looking to force a vote for a discharge petition are just a handful of votes away. matt fuller took us through that process. "the new york times" noted that there are up to four plans that could be on the table, and the one that gains the most votes would go through the house.

is a breakdown of the different proposals that might be on the table is a discharge petition goes forth. a proposal put forth by congressman goodlatte, chairman of the house judiciary committee come u -- committee, and the to appeal to conservatives. roybal-allardille of california, she plans to put forward the dream act, a bill that includes a path to citizenship for dreamers and has wide support among house democrats. there's a yet to be revealed proposal from speaker ryan, and a proposal put forth by representative jeff denham of california that would provide a path to citizenship for young, undocumented immigrants. it is a version of the well heard pete aguilar bill. that is a breakdown of the four

that would be expected and that discharge petition progress. again, republican leaders in paul ryan looking to avert that today was a meeting happening starting at 9:00. we want to hear from republicans only about what you would tell paul ryan if you are in that meeting. victor, silver spring, maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would tell paul ryan, look. we've got to support -- we've got to secure the border. build the wall. second, if you are here illegally, you get deported, and so do your kids. i am sick and tired of the "it's for theg children." i am sick and tired of hearing that. if you come here illegally, you get deported. i am afraid that a science fiction story that i read a number of years ago, i think in was --0's, where it

people got so mad at illegal aliens crossing the border they started shooting them as they can across the border. that is what it is going to come down to eventually. if you don't secure the borders, kick out the illegal aliens. also, a caller mentioned americans will not do the jobs. certainly they won't do the jobs because they are collecting welfare and other government benefits. if they were forced to work, then they would do the jobs. thank you. host: we are going to be talking about social safety net programs, the future of social security and medicare in our last hour of the -- in our last hour of "washington journal" today. we will be breaking it down this morning at 9:00. matthew, virginia beach. go ahead. people got so mad --

host: matthew, you got to turn down your television. ok. bob is in indianapolis. go ahead. caller: yes. , i would i concerned vote all those bills out in congress and senate and all that. that way we know who to vote out as republicans that is against trump's plan to build the wall and get rid of this immigration mess. everybody knows it. if you see their names out there, they know not to vote for them. thank you. host: that is bob in indianapolis. this morning we are talking about what you would say to speaker ryan if you are in that room at that 9:00 meeting. ryan, also speaker making news yesterday on another front, the house speaker siding with congressman trey gowdy in disputing president donald trump's claims that a spy

infiltrated his 2016 presidential campaign. "the wall street journal" noting that trey gowdy said may 30 the fbi was following its mission in investigating alleged russian a fear it's -- russian interference. it was not trying to keep mr. trump from winning, as the president claims. here is speaker ryan again at that same press conference yesterday. rep. ryan: normally i don't like to comment on classified briefings. i think chairman gowdy's initial assessment is accurate, but we have some more digging to do. we are waiting for some more document requests. we still have some to answer questions. it would have been helpful if we got this information earlier, as chairman nunez said. we could rep this up faster. but i see no evidence -- chairman nunes said. we could wrap this up faster.

but i want to make sure we get the final answers to these questions. host: about 10 minutes left in this segment this morning, talking to republicans only, asking for your message on immigration. looking for your tweets as well @c-spanwj. john writes in this morning, " without controlled borders, legalizing docket immigrants will only two more i llegal immigration." "build the wall, no citizenship. no chain migration, anchor babies, visa lottery, e-verify. allowing daca kids to stay is more than generous. have a great day." caller: it would have been much easier for employers to turn these people in and have them

sent back to mexico, who by the , and mexicoree pass is a very wealthy country and i can't see why the american people have to support their citizens who are sending billions of dollars back to mexico. you don't you say understand why it wasn't introduced, what do you mean by that? are you talking about legislation expanding the e-verify system? caller: yes. it is so simple in the beginning if they had done that. the only reason it wasn't done is because the democrats want the votes. democrats need to realize that this is america. it is not their country. it is america's country. is the-verify.gov

website if you want to learn more about it. e-verify employers verify the identity and employment eligibility of newly hired employees by electronically matching information provided by employees on form i-9 against records available to the social security administration and department of homeland security. e-verify is a voluntary program. enrollment is required as a condition of federal statesting, or if their mandate e-verify as a condition mayusiness licensing, and be required to participate as a result of a legal ruling. robert is in miami, florida. go ahead. caller: yes.

i would just like to say that i believe a country has a right to protect who comes and goes in and out of its borders. asould also like to say that far as any of these people coming across the border at the time when they are ready to drop children here and have babies, that they and their babies should go right back across the border because just coming here illegally and dropping a baby doesn't give your children automatic citizenship. that should have been stopped years ago. we had a terrible problem with immigration illegally here in the city of miami. it has been going on for years. social security and medicare are benefits americans pay into all of their working years, and i believe that shouldn't be touched at all. most immigrants that, marketing benefits that they haven't even earned. thank you. host: paul is in west palm beach, florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i think what is the big deal about the democrats? why do they want an open border? that is what they stand for. their want people to come in and support them. [indiscernible] i want to tell paul ryan to get the heck out of this job. thank you. host: joe in woodbridge, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. two fast comments. one, i think it is obvious that the democrats are showing american citizens that they care more for the illegal alien that they do for the american citizen. my second point would be i think all congress and the president needs to do to take care of illegal immigration is institute a national identification card for every citizen. if you cannot produce this card, you cannot get a job.

you cannot receive medical care. you cannot go to our schools. you cannot receive any federal funds. mitt romney would be 100% correct, people would self deport back to their own countries. host: are left republican in this first 30 minutes of "washington journal." stick around. number 37it is stop on our c-span 50 capitals tour. the c-span bus is in lansing, michigan, we are joined by the president pro tem of the michigan senate. then representative adrian adriano espaillat joins us. we will be right back. ♪

announcer: this week marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of robert kennedy. >> these last few weeks, robert francis kennedy was enjoying himself. he really enjoyed getting out among the people. he enjoyed the physical contact. refused police protection because he said all the people wanted to do was touching, not hurt him. announcer: this weekend on "reel cbs news watch the especially report from the night robert kennedy died from gunshot wounds. >> they quickly decided to transfer him to good samaritan hospital, where the facilities were better for delicate brain surgery. mrs. kennedy was with him all the time, writing in the ambulance from one hospital to the other. the suspect coming out -- the suspect was grabbed by the two kennedy men and led back through

the ballroom and hotel. some of the officers had to protect him from the crowd. there were several supporters and bystanders close to hysteria at this point, and there was concern for the suspect's safety. america": watch "reel on american history tv on c-span3. announcer: the u.s.-north korea summit is set for tuesday, and booktv will feature authors was books about the region. this sunday starting at 5:00 --. eastern, young me park park with her book "in suki kim and," "without you, there is not us."

booktv sundayn2's at 5:00 p.m. eastern. 37 onit is stop number c-span's 50 capitals tour. ,e are in lansing, michigan home of the first land-grant 1879.sity in the state in joining us just outside that building is michigan senate president pro tem tonya schuitmaker. what are the unique duties of a senate president pro tempore? caller: they preside -- guest: they preside over the state senate when the lieutenant governor is not there. host: is it a different role from majority leader in the senate? guest: p majority leader sets the agenda.

what the senate president pro -- and i was elected unanimously by republicans and democrats, colleagues of mine in the michigan senate. host: how many members are there in the michigan senate? caller: there's 38 members -- guest: there's 38 members, although we are down one now. host: how would you describe the state of your state? guest: i think the state of my state is doing wonderful. michigan is doing great. i was elected in 2010, when michigan had a high unemployment rate. over the past couple of years, we've got rid of the job killing michigan business tax. we made michigan a right to work state. with cut over 2000 job killing regulations on businesses. as a result, you see more michigan people working today. we've balanced the budget for eight straight years in a row

which come in the previous session, had not been done. you said the state is doing great. speaking earlier this year about michigan's recovery from the great recession, governor snyder declared "we are back." how far was the whole you had to dig out of from the great recession? guest: the great recession .emorrhaged thousands of jobs we were host in with the auto industry, and that was really making us tank. we did have a high unemployment rate of over 14%. now we are at an all-time 15 year low in terms of unemployment. as a result. , now our biggest challenge is finding talent. as all those jobs -- result, now our biggest challenge is finding talent to fill those jobs.

when i came in, we had a rainy day fund that would only run the government for a couple of days, if that. now we are close to $1 billion in our rainy day fund, which -- which will help improve bond ratings. we have done a remarkable feat in terms of balancing the budget , having a great and effective playing field for michigan businesses to thrive. michigan is a great place to work and play. host: we are on the c-span bus is morning at step number 37 on the 50 capitals tour. you can join in the conversation. we especially want to hear from .ichigan residents give us your comments and

questions. you can start calling in now. . michigan number 47 in the country in the category of labor supply. whatin why that is, and you are doing in the state senate to help change that. guest: we were hemorrhaging jobs, so in order for people to find work they had to move out of this wonderful state. now we are welcoming all that talent in the state of michigan. is wee are going to do just passed a marshall plan in the state senate to really focus on those critical skills of stem areas and to make sure we have a workforce of tomorrow. host: how much did that marshall plan cost, and how are you going to pay for it? guest: we budgeted it.

we are just finishing up our budget season, so that was part of the budget season. it is a comprehensive plan that will take years to implement. what it will do is focus on education in terms of critical skill areas and be a first of its kind to really cook off to to makeemployers -- sure we have training for the jobs of tomorrow. host: do you know what the price tag is or can give us an estimate? guest: i can't remember the price tag of it, but we have it budgeted in our budget, and that is on track to really make michigan a great place, to make sure we are training our young have aand that we will

great workforce for tomorrow. to hearpecially want from michigan residents as we take you on the bus for c-span's 50 capitals tour. we are going to start in petoskey, michigan. kathy, good morning. caller: good morning. i think that the picture you are painting is not accurate of the situation overall for the state of michigan. i can give you a prime example with the roads. u.s. 27 going through gaillard heading south, the lines haven't been on that road, a very busy four-lane road that takes you into northern michigan, you can't see. in the wintertime it is very dreadful. some roads are being repaired, but not all. .ertainly in the richer areas the problem in flint is a

horrible, horrible problem, and now the state is blaming one of the hospitals, and i don't think that is true. the struggles of many not able to get into schools is horrible. that is not good. host: you bring up a lot of topics. is let the senator address them. go ahead. guest: very good questions. first of all with our roads, we recognize we have a harsh winter in the state of michigan that are not kind to our roads. for the last 10 or 15 years we've had disinvestment into our roads, so it is taking a wild to catch up. -- taking a wild to catch up. -- taking a while to catch up. that is close to $1 billion you will start to see. probably this summer you will start to complain about the orange barrels you will see.

you will start to see investment in our roads to make sure we have safe drivable roads. we are investing more money in our schools, and as a result we are focusing on education. budget, this year's ranks the number one investment all-time in in this great state. host: kathy also brought up flint, michigan. can you talk about the state of water safety and infrastructure in flint? guest: sure. certainly water safety is very important in terms of protecting all of michigan. we have put in an investment, and the governor wants to ask that management plan so that we can link up because infrastructure is not just roads. it is also our pipes, our sewer, our water. you had a failure on the government in flint at all levels.

the elected body of flint was not being able to address their local needs. as a result, they had to have an emergency manager brought in, and there were mistakes made, no doubt at the local level. unfortunately a simple additive was not added come which the people that were monitoring it, the people on the ground that did the water safety program should have added that simple additive. as a result my you saw the state huge tragedy with regards to lead leaching into our pipes because of the biggest -- because basic corrosion -- becauseere not basic corrosion tactics were not

in place. caller: quick question. the citizens of michigan voted not to be a right to work state. why did the legislators think it was necessary to override that and go against what the people of michigan voted for? guest: actually the citizens never voted on a right to work state at all, but the legislature did pass that. i believe that gives more authority to the union bosses then to the workers that pay into that union. as a result, they have worker freedom. they are not compelled to have to join simply because of their job. host: chesterfield, karen. good morning. caller: a lot of the other colors have brought up some really good points and issues that i feel you may not be addressing. also, michigan has one of the

highest auto insurance rates across the country. are roads are terrible. people are losing their tires in potholes. is always orange barrels and construction. there are many other states that have a harsh winter, and i believe we pay special tax at the gas pump that is supposed to be supporting our infrastructure. when i hear you saying there's going to be money invested, i don't think any of us have seen a result. i've lived here 42 years, so i if you are actually going to address the problem. guest: first, i can tell you that today the state senate coming today or next tuesday, will be passing out a bill to really address the fraud in our claims that is going to create an office and attorney general's office to make sure on the fraud.

you will certainly bring down rates in our great state. it also will address a tenant care and other issues that raise rates, so i am very hopeful that that will address and bring down auto insurance rates. as you point out, they are much too high for michigan citizens, making sure we address our high auto great. we will put the final touches next week on investing close to $1 billion into our roads. you will start as he orange barrels. you can never probably have enough money for our roads. we do have a harsh winter. but i am hopeful you were start to see a lot of orange barrels in those roads this summer and start to see the fruit grow back. host: michigan state was just under 10 million people.

in the state capital of lansing, there's also michigan state university. what you talk about what state lawmakers are doing to protect children and young athletes in the wake of that larry nassar usa gymnastics scandal that got so many headlines across the country. guest: thank you. i know some of the victims personally are constituents of mine and friends of the family, so it was just an awful tragedy where you thought was to 300 girls, if not more come over -- if notguesswork more, were molested. we want to make sure this never happens to another young girl. the we've done is extended criminal statute of limitations. we've addressed the civil statute of limitations. coaches toed paid

the mandatory reporting bill. i had the opportunity to talk to one of nasser's first victims. what you tell me is that her and her 15-year-old friend went to their 15-year-old coach at the and told the coach what they had endured. and bethan believe them a mandatory reporter and report nasser early on, you would have seen 200 other victims out there. had she been a mandatory reporter, you would not have seen the carnage of victims. we've added paid coaches to the list submitted your reporters. oftentimes a young girl feels more comfortable going to her coach then to her parents or a teacher. i think that was probably the best thing we could have done. .

we also have any boilerplate for the higher education budget put in safeguards to make sure the title run department is doing its job. one of the other problems of michigan state is they have different silos for the different title nine departments rather than. departments. i don't think they were the best at complying with that. one of the challenges in michigan is that our 15 public universities are constitutionally autonomous. they are governed by the state boards rather than the legislature. but we are making sure is that we get the results we want from our state universities. we are asking them to give reports on how the title ix act is doing. we will ask them to have best

practices in place and have suredic reviews to make there are safeguards in place for their taiwan procedures. host: i should note the senate held aittee on tuesday hearing with the former michigan state university president. 's viewers want to go back and watch that hearing, you can do it at www.c-span.org. before we leave that topic, the victims of larry nassar awarded a $500 million settlement. where does that money come from? that: my understanding is michigan state has seven different insurance carriers. the bulk of that will become our the bulk of that we have put into the budget to make sure we have a tuition cap so that those costs will not be passed on to either the taxpayer or the student. that is there any thought

that could bankrupt the state university? guest: you know, i think with seven insurance carriers, that is why you have insurance. i am not hearing anything of that matter. host: donna is in michigan. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to comment on the fact ont this budget was valid the back of retirees. office, governor took tax on thea retirees, one of the ways they balance the budget. than they gain tax benefits because of these. of all, we made modifications to our tax system

we didn't include a new tension 3 you have to ask yourself, is it fair that somebody who retires with thousands of dollars in a pension plan, is it fair that they are not pay ing any tax is as a person that has been paid minimum wage that is paying tax? we decided that in terms of a level of fairness for those that were able to retire at 50 or 55 -- and we make sure we predicted those seniors, so if you were born and not have the ability to , we've to the workforce added a birthdate on there so that you were a fixed income you would work for protected. if you had the luxury of pension, it is not fair that you aren't paying for the roads and schools.

that is what we tried to do, make the playing level fair. with regards to getting rid of the jobs killing business tax come a we transferred it over to a very fair and competitive's nest tax rate, the corporate income that rate. it is a flat corporate income tax based upon your federal tax return. i've talked to a little small businesses, people and citizens that were paying double if not triple taxes because we had a job killing michigan business tax. we all know it is the small and medium-sized employees that are -- medium-sized employers that are the heart and soul of our state. if we don't make them more attractive to our neighbors, we won't have any michigan left. that is why we made the changes, and i think they are fair and reasonable. minutesst about 10 more with the president pro tem of the michigan state senate, only

the second woman in michigan history to hold the position. taking your calls from michigan residents come but also. those around the country -- residents, but also from those around the country. caller: ok. correctionsmake two and a question to you. we said michigan had balanced its budget and california had not. that is simply not factual. california has a neck and believe surplus reported on "the new york times." the second thing is in your comment to the retirees, you said it is not fair for retirees not to pay for services. remember that retirees receive social security, which was the result of a tax on income, and their pension was granted to them with the promise of no taxation on it later. it sort of represent three nagging on a commitment best

represents reneging -- represents reneging on a commitment. it is not accurate to say they have not contributed. you talk a lot about your progress in michigan, but haven't mentioned a lot about the progress for black michigan. i have happiness and the has been done for flints, but with that kind of $1 billion surplus in your government, what is the plan for the rest of flint's poverty and the poverty for blacks in detroit? all, we are of addressing, in terms of our poverty issues. i think the best social program out there is a job. for we are doing is focusing on getting people employed in getting them to be productive members of society. the problems with poverty are enumerated. it is hard to pin down, but the best social program is a job.

host: jack is waiting in michigan. in farmington,- michigan. . good morning. caller: i would like to correct something. the republicans came in and cut the amount of money for schools substantially. what they did with this money was the cut the taxes on business. rated likesystem was 38th in the country. -- our roads, they cut the money for the roads, and they are just terrible.

they cut these for the residents . it is just terrible. guest: first off, this notion that we have cut simply is not true. when you look at our state , weet in terms what we fund are far above where we were in 2010. this notion we have cut schools in 2010 is simply not true. second, when i figure was a cuts cut, what happened was we start -- we stopped receiving federal stimulus money. it is hard to say we are responsible when the federal government took away a few years , which also should not have .een done i forgot with the second question was. host: just a few minutes left.

damon has been waiting in georgia. good morning. caller: i want to correct also. what the german was trying to tell you is you are not telling the truth. what happened -- the gentleman was trying to tell you is that you were not telling the truth. was they cut taxes to all the corporations and make it up in another area. at the time a lot of the corporations was moving out or left detroit. there was no jobs available to make up the money. almost everything just to stay afloat in detroit, and that is what happened.

of course, the woman was very influential about what she said, it was about the black population. a large number of the democratic bloc. what they are doing in detroit is similar to what we did in louisiana after katrina, try to tear off that voter bloc in that black history in detroit. host: we are running out of time. with your question? -- what is your question? caller: the republican group defunded the taxes for the corporations, cut them all across the board. host: all right, got it. allt: well, i care about michigan residents, including the ones living in detroit. i went to law school in detroit. it is a beautiful city, and i will take pride that we have a stronger detroit than we did back in 2010.

you have more people working in the city of detroit. you have beautiful new buildings being built. as a result, you are employing people in detroit. it is this idea that republicans have made the city worth is simply not true. go take a tour of detroit. i just read a couple of movie stars were in detroit and were amazed. it is a great city. in fact, my son lives and works in detroit, and he loves it. to jack in the wolverine state. caller: so glad to talk to you this morning. i've got a quick question on the flint water problem. do you know if anybody tested flint river for lead or the legionnaire bacteria? that is my question. guest: you know, what happened lead was actually leads

from the pipes that had been the , but hadmany years never really been a problem because when they make the havech, they failed to the corrosive policy from the lead pipes. had they added a three dollar a day added it to put a protective barrier around those pipes or inside those pipes, the lead with have never leached. it least for years prior when i had a different water source. host: dave in plymouth, michigan. go ahead. caller: yes. i just wanted to make a comment because i've lived here for 60 years. you made the comment saying we should be excited about all the orange barrels all over the place. that is not exciting for us.

we need these roads to be fixed and fixed right. i drive a lot for my job. whether, they are not nearly as bad. when they do construction on those roads, traffic is not a nightmare. in michigan, it is always a nightmare. not excited about the orange barrels. we need to get this fixed. the other thing, a tour of detroit, take a tour of some of the inner streets of detroit and you will see there is still a lot in detroit and a long way to go. host: senator shoemaker? guest: first of all, you are not going to fix your roads without seeing orange barrels, so there's nothing i can do about that. second of all, we have a long way to go with the city of detroit, but we have funded in terms of light posts, to make

sure we have basic safety, we are addressing the needs. you had decades of mismanagement in terms of the city of detroit with their local government, so it is hard to reverse the ship. we are working hard as a state and a city, and you have great things happening now in detroit. host: tonya shoemaker is the senate pro tem. thank you for joining us aboard the c-span bust in lansing today. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: for fans of the c-span 50 capitals to work -- tour, stay tuned for our next stop in juneau, alaska. now it is open phones for the next 30 minutes. any public policy issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so. the phone line for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

.ndependents, (202) 748-8002 in about an hour, house republicans will gather for a two to three-hour meeting to find a path ahead on immigration legislation. speaker paul ryan looking to avoid the prospects of a discharge petition those moderate republicans are changes tosome immigration, changes to keep the daca program looking to come to an agreement today or force a vote on the house floor through the discharge petition. here is the reporting from "the washington post" about the meetings yesterday. leaders huddled with about a dozen moderate and conservative lawmakers for two hours and emerged without a conclusive resolution a day before they are set to meet. the conference is meant to forestall an effort by a group

of renegade gop moderates to force votes on immigration in defiance with the gop leaders. hattie is waiting in houston, texas, a democrat up first. caller: i want to make a comment on this lady. i wish i could talk to her. she is not up on the date. in the poor neighborhoods, they are still so terrible and they are getting worse. this is just not right here. will you please -- and you know what i mean? i wanted to comment with her. i have relatives in michigan and president obama came out and made it better, and now they are going right back. i do not know what the republican is doing. host: how did president obama make it better? caller: i have relatives there. in property, they come out with schools, theetter

job rate, they did not have no jobs. i have relatives that have jobs. now it is going right back to the same old same old. you are talking about in 2010, that is when president obama started to bring it in, in making the schools better and everything. teachers were getting paid more money. the unemployment rate was higher, went down on that, and now it is going right back. int: kelly is up next millers river, north carolina, republican. caller: yes, sir, i am wondering why nobody is talking about this housing bubble going on right now. they deregulated the credit unions and small banks and we are headed right back to another financial crisis. the home prices are -- host: keep going. caller: very expensive, very

expensive all over the place, and it has been for the last several years. the prices are higher now than they were in 2005 and 2006, and we are heading to some type of crisis because the loans that these banks are making for these overpriced houses are bad loans. nobody is talking about it. host: what are your thoughts on the dodd frank bill in the wake of the last great recession, and the efforts that democratic leaders put in at that time to try to make changes? i know i don't know, but they just do the credit unions and smaller banks to make loans, and that is just what caused problems before. then you have these loans being given to people who should never get them, and they are saying it is never the same because before was the stock market. that is, because everyone of these loans being made on these homes, people are overpaying for two to three times more than they are worth, when this bubble

bursts, what will happen? they all overpaid and every one of their loans were bad loans. what goes up has to come down, and this is been going on for several years. my son has been trying to buy a house in florida and it has been going on since at least 2015. nobody is talking about it. when this bubble bursts, what is going to happen? host: a few folks who have talked about it recently in "the wall street journal," two scholars for the american enterprise institute. the government creates another housing bubble, loose mortgage terms are pushing prices up, underwriters need to tighten standards. if you want to read that piece, it is in "the wall street journal or cup -- "the wall street journal." caller: i recently did a search of your archives to see if you have ever done any programming

and comparing what is happening in the united states now to what happened in europe in the 1930's. it is just astounding, with all the similarities between germany , i thinkamerica now this is a topic that really needs to be discussed. so many people watch your show and so many are supportive of you could dothink a great service to the country by giving this a little sunlight. that is all i have to say. host: always glad to take recommendations for future segments. you can also do it on twitter or facebook. plenty of people do it every day.

david is in gaithersburg, maryland, independent. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say how much i appreciate the segment this morning, that are not just russia investigation and not about what the previous caller just said. i would like to go after the guy that called the lady out on trying to get everybody excited about orange traffic barrels. i thought that was outrageous. nobody is excited about traffic barrels. that is the worst thing in the world. that guy was right on. host: we will be joined by --gressman i jurado us by it adriano espaillat to talk about the immigration issue, along with ongoing recovery efforts in puerto rico as a new hurricane season opens. we will also be talking about the future of medicare and social security in the wake of a

new trustees report this week that looked at the long-term finances of those safety net programs. that is the rest of the program today, but for the next 20 minutes, it is open phones. trying to keep you updated on all the latest happenings around the country. cnbc now with some breaking news this morning, a tweet commerce secretary wilbur ross saying the united states and the chinese tech company zte have reached an agreement. we will look for more news on what that agreement is, as we continue to take your calls. dana in texas, line for democrats. caller: i think what people fail to see is that all of these tax game,s just a shell because when republicans always talk about cutting taxes, cutting taxes, they are doing it for the corporations.

in this large tax bill, they cut corporate tax bills and they failed to close loopholes. when they cut the taxes for all these corporations, they will do budget tricks like the previous guest said. they decided to tax pensions that people are at a pay taxes on. , theyre going to actually are going to have to get that money from somewhere so now they will talk about cutting services like medicare, medicaid. they will start cutting bills, trying to recoup that money where they have actually cuts cool budgets and everything. they are trying to find that money somewhere, and it is always at the expense of the services and everything the public needs. they never actually let it out in the open. you need to actually watch when people say they want to cut taxes, because it is going to be recouped by putting the pain on

the public. host: bay city, michigan, ralph is waiting. caller: i was just watching c-span state to her bang. -- tour. i would like to see our governor. we have a good governor and i wish she had been on. host: i promise you, we tried to get the governor on. plenty more c-span 50 capitals -- two hours- too coming. soviet in ocean shores, washington, independent. caller: good morning. this is my opinion. on immigration, i have been given a lot of thought. when i look at history, and i love history, what we did to the

native americans, the europeans all of them,lled they tried to. now it was part of mexico that we took away. like, what we get free range to go other countries and take over their land? send the europeans back with a came from and keep the natives here. i am white. i look white, but i wish i was not sometimes. i am ashamed of being white. i say give it back to the indians and mexicans who were here before we were, and we can have this beautiful planet again. thank you. host: sylvia in washington. brooke is in riva, maryland. caller: i was wondering if you guys could talk some about how ice just keeps deporting large ,umbers of people from jobsites

yet somehow none of the employers are getting in trouble. in ohio, they arrested 100-some odd people, yet there is no charges for their employers. they did at the meatpacking where theyrlier rested 100-some people for deportation, and those guys have not had any charges brought against them. if they wanted to stop illegal immigration, they can stop allowing people to hire them. host: certainly a topic we can bring up with the congressman joining us in about 15 minutes. here is one of the headlines on the rate you were talking about. 114er chaos, ice arrests workers in immigration raid at ohio gardening company." stick around for that discussion with the congressman from new york in about 15 minutes this morning. taking your calls, it is open phones. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

.ndependents, (202) 748-8002 a few other stories to show you this morning. the style section of "the washington post" noting the first lady is back out in front of the cameras. the first lady appeared before cameras wednesday, a company president trump at a briefing on hurricane season preparedness at the washington headquarters of the federal emergency management agency, a seemingly routine event that would not be newsworthy, but her low-key presence, she sat by her husband's side and nodded as her husband and other official spoke, marked the first time she had been seen by the media in nearly a month, capping the end of an unusual absence from sight, unusual even from the first lady who is known for pricing her privacy. president trump, his big summit coming up next week with north korean leader kim jong-un, one

thing the summit will not be as predictable. today" they "usa write among the unknowns is the definition of denuclearization, north korean demands, and the number of meetings that will take place. the white house confirmed that the opening trump-kim meeting is set for 9:00 a.m. singapore time on tuesday. the session will be at the capello house just off the singapore man lang. -- mainland. day monday for events -- leaving all day monday for events, and the day is blank on tuesday morning, leaving open the possibility of more sessions in the afternoon. more preparations for that meeting, and how both sides and the country of singapore are

preparing, this is in "the wall street journal." showing a picture of the capello house hotel there, where that meeting will take place. it, a singapore restaurant ,romoting a trump-kim menu item noting that more than 2500 journalists have registered to cover that meeting. annette in vincentown, new jersey, a republican. caller: i just have like a complaint. i am listening to an official disrespect our president, and it is very disturbing. he calls him donald trump, ron, and he mo continues to go on and on. he is an elected official and i think they should show more respect for the president of the united states. host: what official are you referring to? what were you watching?

caller: mayor kenny in philadelphia, very disturbing. you are an elected official. show respect for the president of the united states. host: that is a net in new jersey this morning. kate is in michigan, line four democrats. -- line for democrats. caller: i am glad the lonnie is isk, but i am -- melania back, but i am wondering why no one is reporting much about what jeff merkley found in brownsville, texas. he tried to go into an abandoned walmart building and was unable to enter. the police were called on him and they are apparently housing young children there, immigrants. he also found a site where children were being kept in cages. this is common knowledge. i am just not sure why it is not being reported more widely by

c-span another networks. i hope you call your representatives about this. storya "washington post" talking about migrant children in government custody, some numbers, nearly 11,000 migrant or in government custody, an increase of 20% over the last month. with hhs child shelters at 95% capacity, the agency says it is preparing to have thousands of beds to cope with the influx. bradley is in prince george, virginia, the line for independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. to repeat what one of your previous callers said, i have a complaint. in case your viewership does not know, the british parliament has 1449 members. the senate of canada has 105 members. i know that an article in section two of the constitution

says the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, and of course each state shall have one representative. i think the current number 833,000t around 833 -- per representative in the house and i think we should stand on that number. one for every $30,000 -- for every 30,000 is not a normal -- a reasonable number. we should take a look at the enumeration and see if we can get more representatives in congress, and support the views of more and more americans. thinkbradley, what do you is a good number for that? he said obviously not in the thousands. 435 in the house. what would you raise it two? would you double it? caller: at least, definitely. we can definitely match the british, for that little tiny island.

they have 1449 members. absolutely, we can easily double it. host: how would you draw those districts? absolutely.ourse, i know now the gerrymandering system, there is enough conflict there. we definitely have to look into that. very smartt some people, some academics to take a look at that and try to figure that out. it is somewhat of a constitutional crisis, in my opinion, and i think it should be addressed. host: baretta, huntersville, north carolina, democrat. caller: i would like to talk players and mr. trump. 2009, the military on aacted with the nfl government marketing campaign

digest beef up -- -- two, i guess, beef up nationalism. they paid millions of dollars to the nfl for this government marketing campaign. is, they can make -- they are demanding that these ballplayers salute the flag, which is fine. standing and saluting the flag is something that americans do voluntarily, not by enforcement or by law. that is a voluntary thing. playerso make these nfl stand up and salute the flag like the military does, these are private citizens. they do not have to salute the

flag if they do not want to, as far as i know of. it is not something that is done by law. paid,lly, i see this as forced nationalism by a government entity upon the employees of a private industry. it is just so wrong. host: what did you think about the canceled visit the philadelphia eagles this week, and the president holding the celebration of america event in its place? caller: i think he is just a silly child. that is all, just a silly child at the head of our company -- at the head of our country. just a silly, brutish child. thank you for letting me talk. host: one other story to show you this morning, looking at the future of republican leadership in the senate, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will ask

john cornyn of texas, the current senate gop whip, to stay on his leadership team next year. john cornyn is scheduled to step down from his post as the number two senate republican leader at the end of 2018 because of term limits. becausere was uncertain the no obvious open leadership position for him to pursue after the election. mcconnell wants to keep cornyn in the leadership fold. glenn in boonville, north carolina, republican. caller: several things. number one, we have a lot of garbage going on in this internet about so-called personal actions and stuff, which has nothing to do with any performance of the duty of any particular person or official. we have had a history of, recently, of people in official

capacities violating the requirements of the constitution. the constitution was written very precisely and exactly, to preserve what my ancestors fought and died for. from the french and indian war, on. for example, equal protection under the law is for everyone. and whenever people in their official capacity use made-up ofusations to deprive people their protection of the law, this is unconstitutional. host: is there a specific official that comes to mind for you, as you talk about this? caller: for example, everyone talks about executive orders. an executive order from

president obama that prevented the enforcement of the sworn oath that protected the constitution of the united states, and enforced to execute the laws thereof. the executive order said not to do that, is a prima fascia violation of the constitution. other things that have happened in the past were in violation of the constitution too. some resulted in impeachment. impeachments were not done. at the end of the civil war, official acts deprive people of property just because they were in the south. finally, the supreme court says the federal real estate taxes unconstitutional, but the government did not give the land back that was confiscated. host: we are running out of time. caller: the point is we need to have our supreme court in our

justice department ensure that acts and things are in keeping with the constitution. that is what we have totally deviated from. everyone says, we can lie to the citizens and say, you have federal insurance, which was promised when they enacted the social security act. now they call it a entitlement and say we are going to change it. host: that he in fort worth, texas, democrat. -- betty is in fort worth, texas, democrat. caller: i want to talk about the tax break we citizens were supposed to receive. i received $10 a week. at just that time, my cable bill has gone up, right after they gave the big thousand dollars bonus to the people, which is ok, but they changed my contract

and made me take -- pay 10% more on my cable bill. my food bill has gone up. my utilities have gone up. the star-telegram paper has gone up. my house insurance has gone up. week, $520aid $10 a a year. review expecting more than that? caller: to tell you the truth, i did not know what to expect. i just know this -- that i heard warren buffett say on television that his company would save one billion dollars. host: that is betty in texas. roger is in bedford, ohio, like the democrats. for democrats. -- line for democrats.

caller: the constitution says something about free speech and all the rest of that stuff, and it does not seem like that is working right now. can you explain to me one thing, why when my great-great-grandparents came over here, they did not ask to come to this country, but we came over and built this country and now you all have people you are trying to keep out of the country, and dividing them from their families? what is this? that man child in the white house, you better wake up. host: why don't you think free speech is working out? caller: if it was, just like the cats on the football field, they should be able to do whatever they want to. they don't want to stand up. who says they have to? host: that is roger in ohio. our last caller in this open phone segment -- but next we will be joined by the new york

congressman adriano xp not -- adriano espaillat not -- adriano espaillat that. we will be back in a minute. ♪ >> this weekend, book tv will have live coverage of the 34th annual printers road let fast in chicago, starting saturday at 11:00 a.m. with jonah goldberg and book, cary kennedy, daughter of robert f kennedy and her book, ripples of hope, northwestern university , anddent wendy perlman historian roger miles, author of

mayor harold washington, champion of race and reform in chicago. on sunday, our coverage continues at 11:00 a.m. eastern with former president of the , "kate, why weok should resist it with a speech, not censorship." pulitzer prize winning author jack davis with his book "the gulf, the making of an american see." "rocket man, the daring odyssey of apollo eight and the astronauts who made man's first journey to the moon." watch our live we can coverage of the printers row lit fest in chicago starting saturday at 11:00 p.m. eastern on c-span twos tv. sunday, on q and a. new york times columnist talks

about his book "to change the church, pope francis and the future of catholicism." >> he thinks the church needs to change in many ways, particularly around issues related to the sexual revolution , marriage, divorce, and so on, where prior popes basically said, these are changes the church cannot make. they have been these fraught withs where he has clashed cardinals and bishops and theologians over just how far he can push the church to change what the church can change, without undercutting its own traditions or breaking faith with the new testament, the gospel of jesus christ. >> q and a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: know your democratic

congressman adriano espaillat is at our desk. congressman, we are waiting to see this morning if moderate house republicans can force a vote on immigration proposals. if that does not happen, is there a way forward for immigration legislation in this congress? caller: i hope so -- guest: i hope so. there is a good number of republican members that are interested in having a solution to this issue. because dreamers are polling very high, both in democratic and republican districts. we see people from both sides of the aisle wanting to make sure that these young people stay in our nation. they are very popular. they have changed the face of the debate. one of the main reasons why they are meeting today is because this is an election year and

many members have to go back to their districts, and their constituencies want results. i am optimistic and hopeful that something will be done. said heeaker paul ryan wants to come up with a deal that could be supported by gop moderates and immigration hardliners, and that is the point of the meeting today. if that deal comes together, what is a dealbreaker for you? what could you support and what could you not support? guest: i want to make sure we bring some relief for those 800,000 dreamers. but do have a full-blown, comprehensive immigration reform debate right now, i think it could settle the discussion with toxic and poison pills, and derail the hold of the base. it is important that we focus on us exclusively, on the dreamers, and get that resolved. that is a practical approach. do have a full-blown, comprehensive immigration debate right now, we should have that

but first we should tackle this issue. host: if the dreamer issue gets solved in a compromise that comes together but also includes funding for a border wall, changes to the legal immigration process, but that be something you could not support? guest: a border wall funding could be different things to different people. if you are talking about ports of entry, which really are drugsated and most of the , illegal arms, all kinds of illegal activities go right through these ports of entry. if you are talking about funding to modernize these ports of entry, i don't have an issue with that. i think we need to do that. if you are talking about the infrastructure, let a remind you we already have walls in many places across the border. if you are talking about strengthening that we have an modernizing or strengthening our ports of entry so we do not have

human trafficking, i am with that. i am not necessarily against that. the family reunification issue is one that is very important and very dear to me, because that is how i got to this nation. host: you were born in the dominican republic. what was your pathway to citizenship? guest: my grandparents petition for us. we came on a visitor's visa and expired. we went back and got our green card and eventually became u.s. citizens. host: did you go back immediately? guest: now, it took a while, and we were here with no documentation once the visitor's visa expired. one of the issues around the dreamers is whether or not they have a path to citizenship. many people do not that the dream -- to not know that the dream act members have a temporary green card for eight years and after that they have a permanent green card for five years. after that, they can actually

apply for citizenship. citizenship can take anywhere from 13 to 18 or 20 years before they become a citizen. they have to have a clean record. the have to go through a medical test. this is a very lengthy and cumbersome process for them to become u.s. citizens, and i think it is a good one. we are supportive of that. many people seem to feel they should not have that option. host: how old were you when you were undocumented? guest: nine years old. host: was their fear you could be separated from your parents? guest: there is always fear. when you are a nine-year-old, things do not go through your mind that perhaps are going to your parents' mind. host: did you talk to them about it? guest: we spoke about it, of course. everyone in a difficult situation will at some point address that to their children. host: how did they address it to you?

guest: be careful, do not approach strangers. that kind of conversation, it was a different time in america than it is now. the kind of then, hostile and toxic and intolerant rhetoric that seems to prevail many times across the nation. host: we are talking with congressman adriano espaillat -- adrianop at , taking your calls. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. jeff sessions defending the said onhis week and that program, we believe every person that enters the country illegally should be prosecuted. you cannot be giving immunity to people who bring children with them recklessly and him properly and illegally. they should never do that.

and so those children are being well taken care of. they aretwo hours, taken to make sure they are properly cared for. the adults will be prosecuted. what is wrong with that? .uest: it is un-american people who brag all the time about family values, a certain part of the political rhetoric across the nation, particularly in very conservative sectors, wants to encourage and highlight family values, the fact that a family should be united. that a mom and dad should be united with their children, that altogether when they are together they are stronger. i believe in that. i believe we were stronger when we were able to stay together as a family. no,e same folks are saying let's split a family up. let's take a seven-year-old away from his or her mom. how does that make america stronger?

how does it make us stronger? i have no idea, particularly coming from that sector of our country that continuously brags about, and pushes the idea of family values. i think it is unconscionable, and the rest of the world is looking at us, as we continue to split children from their families. there is over 1000 of them. we cannot even account for them. we in government cannot count to where they are. they have been placed with sponsors and we do not know where they are. there are thousands of them. that's over a thousand of them. -- over a thousand of them. these children could be in danger of being harmed, and we want to keep them with their mom and dad. they are incarcerated. i have seen reports of the conditions of the facilities where they are in, and that should not be america. the rest of the world is looking

at us and saying, what is going on? of latee numbers as may, nearly 11,000 migrant children were in government custody, an increase of 20% over the previous month. hhs shelters are at 99% capacity and are planning to add dozens of beds. taking your calls this morning, a democrat, robert is up in mcallister, oklahoma. caller: good morning. thank you for your service, sir. guest: thank you. caller: one quick thing -- they are here illegally, period. i am a democrat, then when all my life, but i cannot for the life of me understand how you can stand up and be so narrowminded and single-sided about this. i vote for the candidate. i vote for democrat than i do anything else.

i do not like the republican policies at all. -- are ripping families from apart. they are coming here in illegal. we have got people on social security living on $700 a month. you will need to wake up. guest: i think we should take care of those people living on social security, and we should provide greater services for them. the current tax scam that was approved by republicans did not contribute to that, the we are going to see as we move forward how there is going to be a reduction of revenue for government and how these programs are going to be cut dramatically. let me say this to you -- i don't know if we as a nation want to get into the business of ,ndicting a nine-year-old accusing and shackling a 10-year-old. and of these people come in

they pick our food in the fields across america. they take care of the elderly and frail. ,hey wash dishes and they take they make deliveries, bring food to our doorsteps as delivery persons in restaurants. they do many of the jobs that we as americans may not and will not be likely to do. we will bring in the men. the country is providing the opportunity for them. in many cases, they are doing jobs and working in areas that many of us may not want to work in. that is a global dynamic. the immigration debate is not a u.s. only debate. it is happening in europe and it is even happening in latin america. guatemalans go to mexico. mexicans go to the united states. haitians go to the dominican republic. the dominicans go to cuba.

you see people from the middle east go to italy. this is a global debate and dynamic about the have and have-nots. this is about income inequality region -- regionally across the world. often we feel we have a monopoly on the immigration debate. this is a global dynamic that is coming forward because of income inequality among countries. any parent has the right to try to do better for his or her children. i think any parent has that right. to say, they are illegal, i do not know if an eight-year-old could be considered someone that has broken the law. host: just outside of youngstown, ohio, the line for republicans. caller: good morning. we are talking about the parents breaking the law, which is their fault. it is not donald trump tearing the people appalled -- the kids away from their family members. it is donald trump -- it is the

parent. let a give you a quick analogy. if a wife and a husband have two kids, they rob a bank, they go to jail. who takes care of the kids? the same people who were taking care of these foreigner kids, hhs services. it is the people that bring the kids here, it is their fault. we are not here just to tell all book for people -- all the poor people around the country about equality. guest: i think that the holder parent responsible -- that to hold a parent responsible for making a christian decision to maybe do better for their children, some of those parents are fleeing countries with high levels of violence. some of those countries may have also gone through a natural disaster. they are just looking to do better for their children.

that is what anybody would do across the world, maybe even the caller would do that if they were under adverse and difficult conditions, to try to do better for their children. this is what they are doing. but yet, if they are arrested and they will be processed, we are saying that is happening right now, but to split them from their children is un-american and inhumane. host: some reporting about a new proposed department of homeland security rule set to go into effect discusses who would take care of these children after these separations. the proposed rule -- according to nbc news -- what allow immigration officials to examine the criminal background and legal status of anyone who steps forward to sponsor unaccompanied, minor children, usually parents are close relatives are ready in the u.s. as well as adults living in that home. it would allow immigration and customs enforcement to collect biodata such as fingerprints of

the sponsors and the other adults in the home. guest: we need to protect the well-being and secure the safety of those children. that should be a no-brainer. in any effort, once they are in the united states. we are discussing immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform. that should be part of that discussion. we are discussing the dreamers and daca recipients. that should be the first step of a broader discussion. i am hopeful that republicans today will agree to this queen of the hill debate, where all ideas and all bills that propose some level of immigration reform are discussed and debated on the floor of the house. host: that would happen if a discharge petition was used to make it happen. we will see what happens at that republican meeting that starts in about 15 minutes, talking about the path forward on immigration.

rhonda is in freehold, new jersey, a democrat. caller: good morning, america, the land of the free. you know, i am so heartbroken over this immigration issue, which has divided us in this country. here, we have immigrants, blacks, whites, indians, and we all love each other and we are neighbors. these people are the hardest working people i have ever seen in my life, and you know, if it was not for the immigrants, i would not be able to afford to do the repairs on my private property. i think we need to secure our policies,d pass especially the daca program, and pass policies where these people can start investing in america

and pay taxes. is soy feel that this racist, to take a child from his mother that is fleeing for her life. dear god, what is wrong with us? let's stop this. these women are desperate. these women are coming here with the clothing on their back and a backpack. they cannot even afford to buy formula. they are all breast-feeding their children. sessions says, let's take their kids and throw them in the foster care system, which by the way costs all of us money because you have to pay the foster care mom to care for the children. guest: i share those views as well. let me tell you, this is very personal to me, and i sense in your voice the great degree of concern that you have for where

america will be in the next 10 to 20 years. amigration has always been painful debate for america, but as you said very clearly, many of these moms are fleeing dangerous conditions. some of them are coming from countries where you have a strong presence of them is 13. -- ms 13. some of their lives could be in danger and that is why they are fleeing those regions with children, the clothing on their backs. we must answer that call. immigration has been joined at the hip, historically, there were economy. immigration has been a shot in the arm of oxygen, anytime our economy has stumbled. it has helped our economy. i think it is helping our economy today. these folks are hard-working people, they pay taxes.

dreamers are teachers, nurses, members of our armed forces. they take care of our very frail parents and grandparents. some of them take care of our children. so these are young people, 800,000 of them, who have not committed a crime, who shared their personal information, where they live, and they live with their parents. we, government, have that information. they shared involuntarily with us. that is who they are. have anld they not opportunity to get a temporary green card for eight years, a regular green card for five years -- going on 13 -- and then the ability to apply for citizenship? that is a very stringent and lengthy process. that is not amnesty, as the republicans like to portray. that is a very lengthy and strenuous process. host: about 10 minutes left with the congressman of new york, a

democrat, taking your calls and comments. as we mentioned earlier, a new hurricane season is upon us. you are part of a group of house democrats looking for an independent commission to look into hurricane maria deaths. talk about that commission and what you expect it to find. guest: we want that commission to go very deep into what happened in puerto rico. we have relied right now on the new england journal of medicine and a report that assumed to come out by george washington university, to give us an accurate account of how many people died because of hurricane maria. that is irresponsible. we in government should be able to have the tools to come up with that number. peopleght that it was 64 because that is what the government in puerto rico told us. we find out now that it is closer to 5000 people, and that is a calamity. that is really a tragedy, far worse than katrina.

it is probably the worst failure of this administration so far, how we have been unable to answer the call and the needs of u.s. citizens, because for to reagan's -- puerto ricans are first and foremost u.s. citizens. we have treated them as second-class. host: president trump talking about hurricane preparedness for this season. do you think puerto rico is prepared this year? guest: absolutely not. i have been there twice since the hurricane and still there are people without any energy. the infrastructure is very frail. you don't need a hurricane to have another crisis there. a tropical storm would create a major human crisis in puerto rico. you still have many families with blue tarps. out of the folks who have applied for fema help, more than 50% of the applications have

been denied. the average grant has been $3000. you go with $3000 to home depot, i don't know if you will be able to buy enough supplies to fix your home. i am introducing legislation to speed that process, and to let them determine ownership or residencies to they can get access to those dollars. host: albany, louisiana, eddie, a republican -- betty, a republican. caller: i am really upset. i am 73 years old and i'm upset with the congressman's rhetoric about kids being put in shackles . that does not happen and you know it. we don't like that type -- and to say that americans are un-american because they don't ,ant to accept illegalities they do not want the borders open, that is ridiculous. us older people, we are tired of this rhetoric.

you are going to find that most people are tired of this rhetoric. least when we discuss the situation, let's discuss it as adults and not use all of this rhetoric, because they are illegal. they are breaking our laws. you don't want to recognize that. guest: well, let me just say , we aret i said was going to shackle those young people. they are in fact in a jail typesetting. reportsseen that, the of these children in a jail-type setting. to have a six or seven-year-old in a jail-type setting, that is not descriptive of who america is or what our founding fathers wanted america to be. i believe that we should have stronger border control. i believe that we should have a stronger series of ports of

entry in the border so we can stop human trafficking, so we can stop drugs, illegal arms coming through. i believe in all of that. but i also believe in the sanctity of the family and i don't think that children should be ripped away from their mother or father. that is what we are discussing right here. the deep soul of america, are we going to become a country of deportation or will we continue to be a country of aspirations? host: harold is in palmdale, california, an independent. caller: good morning. i would like to see politicians stop using farmworkers as nobody else wants the jobs. i am 75 and i grew up in san diego. at 17, i drove up to walnut creek to work and got into construction later on. farmworkers came over here and

had friends that got into construction. they were pulling people a lot of the farmworkers and stuff, and then it just kept expanding and expanding. being in the union and federal laws say you cannot ask a person if they are a citizen or not. unions, them in our they are hard workers, good workers. anybody would be hard workers and cut the work prices just to get a job and keep their families fed. as a kid, they used to come across the border in san diego. old, wed eight years used to take them gallon jugs of water. i watched the whole thing grow and materialize, and they need to take a look at how this thing if all and got started, and where they have to stop it. guest: i am hopeful that in this debate, on the queen of the hill debate, first of all, i hope it is an open amendment process

where we will be able to bring our own views on immigration and place them out in the open forum for debate, to be voted up or down. i am sure that the e-verify provision of immigration reform, which will ask all employers to it here to a set of rules in the e-verify system that will confirm whether or not a worker has their papers are not. that will be debated on the floor, and it will be there for an up and down vote. i hope this process will allow us to have this discussion. host: if whatever passes out of that, passes with most all democrat votes and a couple dozen republican votes, what expectation is there that that will be passed in the senate or signed by the president? guest: i think we have enough votes to pass a good compromise now. the senate, on the other hand, had a framework of immigration reform that was put together by

three democrats and three republicans, which also provided some relief. i kind of like the senate framework that was sent over for us to look at several weeks back. we will cross that bridge when we get there, but i think when the conditions are right, first and foremost, because dreamers are pulling over 80% of approval in red and blue states, republicans and democrats in independent -- and independents support these young people. they have put forward one of the most impressive civil rights movement in america in the last 20 years, and i think they are reaping now what they sowed, which is a positive thing. they see america support them, give them a chance, let dreamers dream. host: john is in beaverton, oregon, democrat. caller: hello, congressman. what you are saying is spot on,

because for me, people who migrated -- people have migrated throughout history. yes, we can control our borders as a nation, but with justice and mercy. ie one thing is monday night, went to a gathering for immigrant justice. said, ifame to me and you want to attack a hispanic family, you hurt the children. and for me, that is unconscionable. guest: thank you for sharing that view. i concur with you. i think this is a crossroad in our country. immigration has been the great equalizer in many cases, for many families throughout the history of our nation. immigration continues to be probably one of the best economic development programs in the history of the united states. we are not a nation that is accustomed to ripping families apart. in fact, many of the people that

are sponsoring or promoting that are people that actually promote family values. i am looking forward to the debate on dreamers. i am looking forward to a lengthier debate on comprehensive immigration reform. host:host: come back and talk ts again about it. congressman adriano espaillat, democrat from new york. thank you. up next on washington journal, george mason university's charles blahous and robert reischauer will join us to talk ofut the fiscal health social security and the metal care -- medicare trust funds. first, hospital neck and the chief actuary of the centers for --icare and medicaid outlined the social security and medicare trust reports. they talked about why medicare is projected to be depleted by 2026 at that event. here's a bit of that. be the tends to

information that gets the most attention from these reports. you can see that this is the ratio of the balance of the funds. it looks at the balance in the trust fund at the beginning of to ther as a ratio amount of expenditures for that year. the this range test is ratio should be over 100%. as you can see we have been under that level for a number of years now. that this ratio goes down to zero. that currently projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2026 this year. and that is three years earlier than last year. this is predominantly a revenue story.

fact that payroll taxes, the amount of revenue coming into the trust fund were lower in 2017 also feeds into some future projections in that there are lower ratios of payroll to gdp in the near future and as a result there is less income coming in to the trust funds and therefore the completion date is shortened by about two years. theddition there is taxation on social security benefits. that is another part of the income stream into the trust fund. the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 decreased individual tax rates and as a result there is somewhat less income coming in to the trust funds over the next roughly seven or so years. that has an effect on the revenue stream and decreasing

the period of the trust fund. making the trust fund depletion a year earlier. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of , the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. -- c-span is brought to you by your cable or settlor provider. washington journal continues. host: for a discussion this morning on the future of medicare trust funds we are joined by robert reischauer of the urban institute and charles of george mason

university. having this discussion this morning after the publication of the annual trustees report that offered some warnings about the long-term health of those trust funds. who are these people who publish this report, the trustees? right now the trustees are only four people. secretary of the treasury, secretary of hhs, secretary of labor and the acting social security commissioner. by law there are supposed to be six. there are supposed to be two members of the public from each party. their job is to report annually on the financial status of the social security and medicare trust funds. -- bothu post previously served as trustees. what is the role of those people you -- people? >> and they were added very specifically to substantiate public confidence in the objectivity and accuracy and

high quality of the trustees projections. apart from the public trustees all of the people working as trustees are members of the current administration. in order to make sure there is independent bipartisan oversight of the projection process the trustee positions were established. host: why hasn't there been any since 2015? has had aministration difficult time filling the many many appointments. trustees are fairly far down in the priority list of any compared toon deputy assistant secretary's, assistant secretaries and all of the other positions that have to be filled. this vacancy situation will end soon. with those vacancies and the absence of public trustees -- you both have worked with the bipartisan policy center to go through these reports. talk about your findings and

comparison to what this week's report found. >> we haven't made independent estimates of the appropriate numbers in the projections but rather looked broadly across the process and the result and i think speaking for myself and probably for chuck as well, we are fairly pleased that the traditions that the trustees have had over several decades have persisted in in other words the trustees have made ,easonable sets of assumptions used consensus methodologies to whichgether these reports provide an objective outlook on the problems social security and medicare face. host: the medicare hospital insurance trust fund expect it

to be depleted by 2026. social security trust fund depleted by 2034. start with that term depleted. >> that is the point at which the trust fund is entirely devoid of reserves. basically both social security and medicare maintain contingency reserves. behold them in their trust funds. so to the extent that expenditures in those programs exceed incoming tax revenues in a particular year they have those revenues to draw upon. once those reserves are depleted than the amount of benefits that you can pay for insurance payments you can make from medicare is going to be limited. in our current situation those payroll tax collections are going to be far below what is needed to pay benefits. so unless there are reforms to extend the solvency of the programs trust funds beneficiaries are at risk of

sudden reduction in benefits. host: what reforms are you proposing that are instituted in both these programs? >> we try to be very circumspect about this. analyzing the underlying fiscal problem. we both served on a bipartisan policy center that did make recommendations for sustaining the solvency of social security. and measures on slowing expenditures. we try to keep policy views out of our analysis. we are trying to make sure that lawmakers and the public and certainly the press are hearing the alarm bell the trustees are winning. action needs to be taken soon or else this programs are in substantial trouble. host: do you think this administration is taking seriously those alarm bells?

>> i'm not sure they have been heard at all either on capitol hill or on pennsylvania avenue at the white house. -- delay painful decisions as long as they can. when somebody says a crisis is 2034 to occur in 2026 or say, iected officials will deal with the crisis another day. this is another difficult set of issues. we'll have to tighten our belts. we will have to do some combination of tax increases and slowing down spending growth. programs for huge numbers of elderly and disabled people in america.

host: we will be spending the rest of the hour in our program talking about those potential options in the future of social security and medicare. we want to hear from you this morning. a special line set aside for social security and medicare recipients. (202) 748-8000 is that number. all others (202) 748-8001. our guests, robert reischauer of the urban institute and charles blahous with the bipartisan policy center at george mason university. first on the line for those who receive medicare or social security benefits. go ahead. caller: i've got a question. for several years now the have tried toty get the congress and all to approve taking the cap off of

social security pay them. there's so many people in this country that make way more than $120,000. it's common sense. i'm originally from a town in north carolina where they had a ervin.named sam he was a backwoods country lawyer. the man had common sense. common sense in this country seems to be gone. we send our jobs overseas which actually takes our tax base away. those jobs that are out there now are service industry jobs. i drove a tractor-trailer for 35 years. it's a service industry job. if you don't have the plants and , when i wasg driving a truck, the loads

weren't there to pick up and i didn't have the money to go out and eat at the restaurants or spend back into the economy. host: thanks for sharing your story. >> it's always nice to hear someone talking about answers rather than denying the problem. i would complement the caller for proposing a solution. that isn't always the case. are people denying that this is an urgent problem and one of the points that we try to make repeatedly when we theed as trustees is that excessive public focus on the so-called insolvency date in social security and medicare was really very much misplaced because the problem doesn't begin only when the trust funds run out. problem by then it is far too large to solve in a practical way. the message that we have tried to carry forward is that already the shortfalls are so large in programs that

continued further delay in solving them makes it almost impossible to do so. there was a further warning bell that went off this year that showed both of the programs trust funds are actually be getting their depletion period that is a very startling and almost stunning development because that wasn't supposed to happen until the early 20 20's in both programs but it is starting right away. much more immediate problems than we knew a year ago. to the extent that there is going to be a bipartisan discussion which we hope there will some day and people are coming to the table with proposals on the revenue side as well as the expenditure side. inis likely that an increase the wages subject to social security taxation is going to be part of that discussion because the effects of that tend to be concentrated on higher income people. certainly the case with the retirement security commission that we served on. doesn't accomplish that much in terms of improving the overall solvency of the program

because benefits are links to contributions. the more you collect from people the more you pay out in benefits. people on the high income and get a low return. you would improve the solvency of the system by increasing the cap. you will still have the vast majority of the problem to deal with. , the those topline numbers hospital fund depleted by 2026. the social security trust fund depleted by 2034. we were talking about the difference from last year's report. how did the insolvency dates change from last year's report? >> with respect to social security they didn't change at all which is a bit of good bad news. bad but that it didn't deteriorate we should be placed about. with respect to medicare it

moved forward by four years sooner than it was so it was 2029 and last year's report is 2026 now. and you think about that even the slow pace at which important legislation gets done here that's the moral. host: what was the cause of the three-year jump? >> interestingly enough it was largely because the base off of which the projections were being made this year is lower than was anticipated last year. last year the trustees thought that twice 17 would have more wages, more payroll tax payment into the system then turned out to be the case. so they had to lower down the base off of which the projections were made. way it wasn't that they

looked out and things were remarkably worse going forward as opposed to the point at which they started was lower. they might behink different if there were two public trustees involved this year? >> hard to say. my initial reading of the assumptions and there are lots of other ones -- mortality, immigration, fertility. that the trustees did a very good job of making some small changes here and there. but not making any radical changes and quite sensible ones given what we have learned over the past year. host: back to your calls again. for social security and medicare recipients, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8001. scott is on the line for those who receive social security and medicare. go ahead. to myra in newport

news, virginia. go ahead. caller: i wanted to comment on not only the situation with medicare and social security but the general economic outlook doesn't bode well for the economy. the savings rate among individuals down. the debt load that people are carrying is up. increases are not consistently improving. all of that along with social security and medicare all kind of boats for a not too good economic outlook. on any of this. and i was just wondering if they could comment on that. >> in short, i agree with the

colors concerns. we have a very difficult situation that we're fixing with two very large programs where very substantial changes are going to have to be made. they have been delayed far too long edit this point there is simply no way to avoid their being adverse effects on people who participate in those programs and certainly with respect to the overall budget of the federal government because the changes have been postponed for so long. in a better policy world we would have gotten the rest of our fiscal house in order so it be better positioned to take on those challenges but we haven't. we actually have the economy at least in the near toward -- near-term performing relatively well. is doing well.t unemployment is down. this ought to be a moment for fiscal consolidation and improving the long-term outlook. this is not really a moment to be floating huge amount of federal debt and undermining our ability to deal with these challenges in these programs.

because of that i share the colors concern. i think we are not in as good a fiscal position as we should he given what the programs need. from treasury secretary mnuchin on the future of social security and medicare. new york times story saying the instructions economic agenda will generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs. the you agree? >> no i don't. i am with the consensus of my profession in saying that the boost we are going to get is relatively short term. and that's because in large measure we are a cumulative debt at a very high rate. that debt will reduce investment . it will raise interest rates and it will depress economic growth. so over the longer run it is unlikely that the administration's hopes with respect to the tax cut and the

deregulation are going to have the dynamic effects that they would like to see. if for some reason they came to pass the situation in medicare and social security would be markedly improved. but i think very few people want to make that bet. this is way too important set of problems to roll the dice on. point 5 million people receive retirement or disability benefits through social security. 58.4 million receive medicare. aboutrograms account for 40% of all federal spending. we are talking about the future of those programs this morning for our last 40 minutes this morning on the washington journal. you can join in. those who receive social security and medicare benefits, (202) 748-8000. .ll others, (202) 748-8001

oscar is on the line for all others. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask a question about the limit. i know the trust funds depletion is an issue. but there is a maximum benefit right nowent of $2687 for a full retirement age person. given that there are 140 million people living under poverty i don't think 140 million people that retire today will be receiving $2600. be thatstion how can it you cannot raise the tax limit. you commented earlier that it to raiseake a ripple the tax from 127,000 or i think it's going to go up to 130,000. i think it should be raised to a quarter million. the rest of the population

outside of the 140 million do make over $300,000. and that will allow us to make this solvent. in the next 1020 years, that will be over 100 million people receiving social security. host: thanks for the call. ? lets just an elaborate on chuck's response to what happens on earningsthe cap subject to the payroll tax. 7% fact is that only about of earners are in the above the cap range. if we eliminated the cap completely which is the case with medicare payroll tax, it would solve about 55% of the problem.

if we didn't change the benefits that those people receive. the whole basis of the social security system is you get a return on what contributed over time although the return for high income contributors is much lower than it is for low income contributors. if you have said let's keep that situation the same, let's allow these people who are going to pay more, the probe after ballplayers, the hedge fund guys , we will let their benefits rise. then insults about 36% of the total problem. so no matter what we do in that sense we still have a big chunk to deal with. host: where do you think the sweet spot is? >> i think the sweet spot personally is whatever you can agree.

get agreement between republicans and democrats four. gradually raising it 3000 dollars a year over a long period time makes a lot of sense. host: is there any members on both sides coming together looking for that sweet spot right now? there are a number of proposals in congress that have come out over the last few years. people tend imagine to put out proposals reflecting their own negotiating starting points. you will see proposals on the one side to do it all by constraining the ghost of benefits. on the other side by restraining taxes. ultimately we are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle. host: bobbitt is in salem, oregon. go ahead. caller: i am a retired teamster

for a major freight company going on 14 years this november. thank you. off the subject real quick i would like to thank my government for passing deregulation and having three companies swept out from under my feet. then my issue is i get social security and medicare. thank you. but why don't we stop sending billions of dollars to other countries and spend it on america? that's all i have to say, gentlemen. good day. >> we live in an integrated world. we have dangers facing us and allies around the world. we have a big chunk of the world's population living in abject poverty. helping our, allies, protecting ourselves i think it's very important. host: if we cut all foreign aid today would it next the problem that we are about? >> not at all.

the misperception that you often see in many public discussions importantmehow programs like social security and medicare are being shortchanged because resources are being delivered it elsewhere. look at the growth of the federal budget over the last several decades. it's exactly the opposite. what's happening is mandatory eating uprograms are a larger and larger share of the budget and we are actually cutting back the share of the budget devoted to defense and other domestic appropriations. if you like the idea of cutting other spending to make more room for social security and medicare that is already happening in spades. the pointting to where even those programs by themselves are overwhelming or liability -- ability to finance. host: john is waiting in alabama on the line for those who receive benefits. go ahead. caller: good morning gentlemen. i would like to say thank you for the employees of social

security. they seem to be awfully effective. the second comment i would like to make is each time i go into a social security office there is a waiting room of about 100 people. or 12 areike about 10 retirement age. portionthe disability of social security grown as opposed to retirement? >> that is a great question because many people don't realize that social security is not just a retirement program. paysalso a program that benefits to surviving widows and dependent children and it provides for disability benefits. the disability insurance trust fund as of a few years ago was facing much more imminent depletion than the old-age and survivors trust fund. that is actually no longer the case. look at the financial pressures and the size of the shortfalls they are much larger

on the retirement side now both in absolute and relative terms than they are on the disability side. there was a very substantial burst in disability applications and awards during the recession. that's pretty typical whenever the labor market goes south. disability applications increase and awards increase. the have dropped a lot over last few years as the labor market has recovered. near term reasons the bad news about payroll taxes has been offset a little bit by some improvements in the projections going forward it reflects that lower rate of disability application and approval in the last couple of years relative to what was happening before. host: with got denise in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call and thank you for being on the show discussing this topic. my issue is this. i want to know why it is that

you never see white-collar crime for medicare fraud. two, why is it that $21 trillion is currently missing from two department. and this is a fact. from the army and the dod and hud. why is that money missing? where is it and why is nobody addressing this issue? we should be cutting no programs to it if we got the $21 trillion back that was stolen we would not be in this mess. that's the issue really. is it not? >> i don't know anything about -- it couldn't between $2 trillion. thatllion in dod and hud has gone missing, i haven't seen that figure anywhere. i'm not knowledgeable on those sorts of things. with respect to medicare fraud i would point out that over the

last decade or so the justice , the office of medicare and medicaid services has improved greatly in going after medicare fraud and medicaid fraud as well. there have been quite substantial recoveries. big, they are are complicated. e tried intrusion, so doctor sends in a bill, the payment is made almost automatically, but with a computer it's only later that they go back and check these things, and, you know, so there's an advantage to the way we administer these programs, which allows for some fraud, but i think the government is

doing, you know, an ok job going after this. host: staying on medicare for a second. what impact did the passage of the affordable care act have on these trustee report projections about the depletion date, and has it changed at all from the efforts to roll back parts of the a.c.a.? guest: well, the second part of the question, the answer is certainly, yes, one part of the affordable care act was the creation of a commission, the independent payment, the commission that sort of served as a safety valve. it was never appointed, but if edicare spending went up at an excessive rate, this commission was charged with coming up with ideas that would automatically be put into action if congress allowed that and didn't provide a substitute to moderate the growth.

and that commission was abolished by the efforts of the administration and those in ongress, among other things. there also was a tax, a new tax that was going to be imposed on very high benefit subsidized employer plans, and that tax was supposed to go into effect next couple of years, and it was pushed off. so revenue that was assumed to come into the system through that tax is no longer there. so, you know, this is -- these are ways in which the affordable care act acted to moderate the growth of overall healthcare costs, which have an impact on the growth of medicare costs. guest: you have franklin, west virginia, on the line for those who receive benefits.

caller: yes, good morning. thank you, c-span. host: goes. caller: i have a question. i'm on social security now. i was disabled in california 20 years ago, so i've been kind of stumbling along. i went on social security in 2016, and i was subjected to the windfall elimination provision. i'm wondering if you could maybe that a little bit better to me, and i understand those legislation that's been attempting to go through over the years, because a lot of people apparently have been affected by this, and i'm wondering if you know the status of the legislation on that and if we can hope at all that they're going to rekneel so that we aren't punished the way we're being punished by that. guest: could i ask the caller if they -- host: oh, rose just hung up. guest: they might have been an employee of a state or local government is the question that i was going ask, bought some of to, in ovisions attempt

a yude way, compensate for the fact that some people spend part of their lives work nag system, but they're also collecting from social security . it's difficult to reconcile the benefits of the two programs. >> let me just add, these are people who, when they were working for the state and local government, or for the federal government under its old system, they didn't have to pay money into social security. so they have, in a sense, two pensions. the state and local one or a federal one. and social security, how do you match that? guest: right, and so because of the social security system is looking at the person's wage history and not seeing a good portion of it, they might think that the person's -- it might be a much lower income worker than they were, because they're only the seeing part of their earnings history. but the bottom line is these provisions were established in

a crude way to try to equalize and adjust for this. they don't could it perfectly. and there actually have been proposals in congress in recent years to try to do it right now that we have better cat to be able to do it with. for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, there was a proposal to do exactly that a few years ago. so that people would get an individually appropriate adjustment to their benefits, not this sort of crude w.e.p. adjustment. but it died despite lawmakers' attempts to push it forward in the house. guest: if we ever sat down worked out a compromise for a long-term solution to this, larger problem, this would be a component of it. host: why can't we sit down and work out a compromise? guest: because compromise is going require sacrifice, and nobody wants to have that sacrifice, because nobody realizes what's going to happen

if we don't make a few notches further into our belt to tighten now, and we're faced with more cast strosk response later on. host: when do you think it's going to happen? in 2026 when the date hits for medicare? guest: you know, in a sense, e medicare depletion is an easier political problem, not economic problem, because lawmakers can shift the burden off on to providers. because what med scare doing is paying bills to providers or they can do what they've done in the past, which is shift some of these expenses that are paid for out of the hospital insurance fund to the part b and part d program, the insurance program, and that's funded largely by federal taxes

and by premiums that people pay . so it's a little bit different political situation than it is for social security. host: care to offer a date when you think this will finally get addressed? guest: well, i wanted to elaborate on a few of the things that bob addressed about why we have this problem. i think it's important for us to understand them. another reason we have this problem is that older generations in these programs got a lot more out of them than they individually contributed. that means the system's finances can only be balanced if other generations are having to put a lot more in than they put out, and people don't want to do that. people get very upset when they discover that riding the system's finances requires them to contribute more to the system than they personally receive. and so they resist attempts to balance the system as a whole, and we keep shifting greater and greater income losses to younger generations. the other reason, and this is unfortunate, and bob can disassociate himself from these remarks if he cares to, but i

think there's too much of a political temptation to have an opportunistic approach to these programs. it's very easy to tell people you don't need to make any sacrifices. you deserve everything that's coming to you. the only problem is evil politicians stole all the money in these trust funds and what have you. and these statements are untrue, and they're urban legends. the problem with these programs very simply is that people have been promised much more in benefits than their own contributions can finance. it's nothing else. but it's hard for politicians to tell people that. host: joanne is waiting in san antonio, texas, on the line for those who receive benefits. good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you for receiving my call. i'd like to ask mr. blahous a couple of questions. i'd like to know what happens to the social security that people do not get a chance to raw because they either pass away, even some of the young and old. my husband passed away, he did

not draw his. so where does that money go? and another thing, these insurance that you all have with the medicare advantage, them the one that's breaking medicare. they take your case, and you have to pay $500 before they ever start paying anything on your doctor bills or medication or anything. then because you're paying -- at least i am paying $135 a month that comes out of my social security check for medicare. and i'm retired from the state. and i'd just like to know what happens to that money. my husband didn't draw his, and when i asked the lady when i retired what happened to his, and she told me nothing. and so she let me know that i couldn't draw any of his, because i had my own. host: thanks for the question. guest: well, i think this is a very important set of questions the caller has asked, because i

think oftentimes people are under the misimpression that their own personal contributions to social security are being saved in an account somewhere under their name, and that somehow there's money of theirs that is not being -- that they're just drawing back their own money after they contribute. that's not really how it works. it's much more closely analogous to something like an insurance fund, where basically you are being insured against the prospect of living a long life. and so what happens is a lot of people who do live a long time draw a lot more benefits out of the system than they ever put in, but people who die earlier put a lot more into the system than they ever get out. and so that basically is what happens, if someone gets less out of the system because they pass away earlier, you know, they basically did not reap the piston of that insurance value, but someone else in the system did. on the second question,

certainly there are issues with medicare advantage as there are in all portions of medicare, and in fact, one of the reasons the medicare rejections took a slight turn for the worse in the near term is that medicare advantage payments were a little higher than previous projections in the latest report. but the problems in medicare by no means limited to medicare advantage. the imbalance is spread throughout the system. they're present not only in the insurance -- it's not a shortfall, but there's very rapid cost growth in that trust fund that causes increasing pressures on the federal budget. so it's not any one portion of medicare that is experiencing the financial strength. guest: can i just add another wrinkle to all of this? and that is, if you have a married couple and they receive different benefits from their work histories, if the husband, et's say, who has a higher

social security benefit passes away, the spouse will receive the larger of the two benefits. in other words, the spouse will receive more than the system alone would have provided that individual. so, in a sense, some of, in that situation, which i'm not sure at all is joanne's situation, but in that situation, some of the husband's contribution ends up, even though he's deceased, boosting the payment that the spouse receives. host: to go over the top-line number from the trustee's report that came out for this week, here's a chart showing the social security trust fund assets. it's projected the beginning of decline, expected to be depleted by 2034. that was the projection in the latest report, and then here it is for medicare, another chart on that, and the medicare h.i. trust fund assets, the

historical assets going to 2016, and then the depletion starting, expected to be depleted by 2026. we're talking about the future of those two social safety net programs for about the next 15 minutes. we'll take you live to the floor of the house of representatives when they gavel in this morning. but until then, taking your calls. charlotte, albany, georgia, the line for those who receive social security. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. yes, have been seeing it since retiring about eight years now. along with a pension, and so the combination of those two, of course, creates great stability. as it relates to the bipartisan policy group that i read quite a bit with the white papers, d it's a very good dissemination of good methodology, one of the things about this shifting of the

responsibility of who pays and who contributes, currently, as older generation people, we are, those of us who are 60 plus, are a part of the generation that, in fact, from the beginning of let's say the setup of social security, we are, in fact, having -- it's an arrears program, is that how i understand it? if it actually is an arrears program, where you're paying -- you're paying in, but then there's a future payment that has to come for you. to get to the cap, i think the cap issue is where this debate comes. the medicare advantage with the lady from texas also spoke to the very point that medicare advantage does, in fact, impact that bottom line, because that is a program that does, in fact, pay out quite a bit, and i think it's actually high-income seniors, as i'm one of those six-figure seniors who had careers and we received

high maximum social security benefit in addition to pension and investment. and so the older generation right now are, in fact, the recipients and the beneficiaries of i think this stability that we have in the society, and we've shifted this stability off of the young to get in college, to not being able to have housing that has assets that we have had, that we are now benefiting from. but to get to the cap, it is, in fact, a flat-out fact that we need to, and we can, those of us who are high earners and those of us who are high earners currently, can afford to have that cap shifted. guest: well, i would just reiterate, i think what we're hearing on the call is very consistent with what public surveys usually indicate, which is when you survey people as to what should be done about social security, the idea of raising the cap to which -- on which social security taxes are

assessed, is probably more favorably cited than anything else. having said that, amphetamine it's going to be part of the discussion, we need to be very clear-sighted about what it's likely to accomplish and what it's not likely to accomplish. if we do, in a hypothetical circumstance, as bob indicated, lift the cap entirely so that we're taxing all the income of the bill gates of the world and the jeff bezos of the world, you know, we're going to be winding up paying a ton of additional benefits to people who don't need them because of this link between contributions and benefits. so in order to prevent a very inefficient and really wasteful collection of resources that we probably need for the stability of the program and other needs of the federal government, we would so chang how the benefit formula works so as to want have that effect.

so you really can't avoid the question of having to do a substantial portion tv through reforms on the benefit side, because just lifting the cap, and by the way, i would accentuate some of the figures that bob indicated and say that even those numbers to an extent rate, i would say, the good of lifting the cap, because you're basically buying time, and so, yes, over the 75-year window, you saw a certain percentage of the problem, but it's less and less as the 75-year window goes on and less and less after that. so we can buy time by lifting the cap. we still have most of the problem to solve. and we have to be just clear-sighted about that. guest: let me just add that one of the reasons why lifting the cap is popular is, as i said before, it would affect only 7% of the workers in america. the other 93% would be off scot-free. raising the payroll tax or the p puts all of that burden on

working generations, and just to make a confession here, i'm a social security and medicare recipient and have been for a number of years, notwithstanding my boyish looks. and, you know, am very much in favor of these programs. but i'm also in favor of asking those of us who have lived comfortably and have as the woman who called, as was said, a pension from some other organization, some assets to spend down, for them to contribute a little in the sense of moderating the growth of our benefits or making some other kinds of adjustments. i think this is a societal problem that all of society should be part of the solution. host: the caller mentioned she was a fan of the bipartisan policy center. we partnered with them to

discuss this trustees report. bipartisanpolicy.org is the website if viewers want to check out about 10 minutes left in our discussion. linda, ohio, go ahead. caller: hey, good morning. i wanted to mention first that i completely agree with the windfall elimination program, which does directly affect me, but i feel like it's fair. my question to the gentleman this morning is what effect do you see happening with this latest gig economy? see it -- it's very popular, people selling things out of their home, perhaps lyft or uber drivers, but i'm assume ago lot of them don't pay into social security, and is it a definite revenue problem for future recipients.

host: thanks for the question. guest: that's actually a very fascinating question, because we just had some surprising revisions to the ratio of taxable labor compensation to overall g.d.p. host: explain that a little bit. guest: what it means is that relative to the size of our economy, there was a smaller tax base for social security and medicare than the trustees previously thought lfs going to be. now, we don't know why that is, but, you know, certainly it suggests that less of our national economic output is emerging on our balance sheets in the form of payroll tax revenue paid to social security and medicare than we previously thought. and we don't know why that is the case, and certainly we should be trying to find out why that is. and if for whatever reason -- host: do you think the gig economy is part of that? guest: i have no reason to believe it is, but it's certainly the case that we're collecting less payroll tax revenue than we anticipated.

guest: i think linda really put an interesting issue here on the table, but i guess i don't spend sleepless nights worrying about this, because if you think the big players in the g economy, lyft, uber, airbnb, the way they collect, they collect the revenues and then they give them out to the drivers or the folks that are renting out their apartments. and these are big companies, and they're reporting these payments to treasury and the i.r.s. host: social security is coming out of that? guest: and social security -- well, the government knows how much they're receiving. and so if they file their income taxes, that's a lot different from a gipp a cab or a guy who's selling hotdogs out of a stand on 34th street,

operating with cash, not receiving money through the internet from a big cap. host: middletown, ohio, gary receives both medicare and social security. go ahead. guest: yeah, i want to thank the panelists for being there today. hey, look, when the president adds $2.7 trillion on top of our already national debt, that's not paying our way forward. look, if you don't have the top fortune 500 paying in and paper back tax where they get a refund, and when you give the top five wealthiest 5% people tax breaks where they don't have to pay it in, yeah, i can see that they cover it through their company, and they show where they pay it out.

but look, i paid into the system for 45 years. and i had to beg, borrow and steal, and the only ones that made out on my case, unfortunately, was the attorneys and how they put me in this so-called bracket to where i get minimum payment. i'm not 67 yet, but they put me in this little category, and i would like to ask either gentlemen on the panel, could they live off of $816 a month, and then i got to pay $350 upfront to get my medications, then i got to do to my disability, you have to pay out -- due to my disability, i have to pay out almost $400 a month in mel care, and i can't even get help to pay my hospital bill on an upcoming surgery where they have to do l-4, l-5, s-1 reconstructive back surgery, and i've paid into --

i'm at my social security benefits at the age of 44. i paid in. my maximum benefits. now, these other people that are not paying it in, and yes, you do these under the table companies that don't report, and they do not report, i know it firsthand, because i've heard it from thousands of people. host: thanks for sharing your story. guest: well, i think, first of all, there are a number of port elements to the caller's questions and comments. the first one is it obviously does sound like a very difficult situation, and i think anyone would be challenged to try to make ends meet in the circumstances that the caller is in. d certainly i agree with the preface to the caller's comment, which is that, you know, given the vulnerabilities of people in these programs, and given the necessity of action to strengthen their finances, we ought to be doing a better job of balancing the finances of the federal government and putting ourselves in a fiscal position

where we can address them. having said all that, you know, i would issue a caveat on the ther side, which is that flyers source of the problem in these programs essentially other than the fact that we are promising far more benefits from them than we are -- than we can pay with the contributions that people have made. so even though people will very routinely say i paid into the system my whole lifetime, i should be entitled to my benefits, in a conceptual sense, that is true. but it doesn't answer the question of how high the benefits should be and the factory mains that the benefits of the system is promising are much higher than the contributions that workers have put in. and so there has to be adjustments made to balance them, because in an aggregate sense, workers have not paid for the entirety of the benefits from these programs that are being paid. host: the caller brings up -- guest: but most of the problem is really our grandparents'

parents, when they provided adequate benefits for our grandparents and parents, and they paid in very, very little amounts of money, and it was pay as you go system. so large baby boom population is contributing, and now they're coming into the eception of benefit stage of life, and much of the money they put in saved them from having to take care of their grandparents and parents financially. guest: i'm sorry to interrupt, but there's a point that bob made before and made again, and i want to accentuate t. we talk about raising the cap on taxable wages. that is a way of having people working now in the system basically, come up with the money to bail it out. but it's also the case that the biggest income transfers in the system are along generational lines. the people who are already being treated the worst in the

system are not the older generation, but are the younger generations. but yes, you can rails the cap on taxable wages, but you're basically causing the people to take even bigger losses. host: the house coming in in just a couple of minutes. we'll try to take one or two more calls. we'll take you live to the house when they do come in. vera, former medicare worker, go ahead. caller: actually, that would be medicare. host: medicare worker. caller: yeah, that's ok. so the one thing that i just would like to say is, yeah, medicare is running out of money, and we have a lot of 20-year-olds on medicare that have never paid into the system. this plents a huge issue. guest: you're talking about disabled individuals? caller: yes, whenever you're talking about children whose parents applied for s.s.i., we're talking children that have just different issues. whenever they turn 18, they stay on s.s.i. if they're

continued disabled for two years. then the states pass them off to the federal government. how many people like that do you think we have on medicare and are getting social security that have not paid in? host: want to give our guests a chance to respond. guest: i don't have the fainltest idea. she stumped me. host: some of the issues she brings up. guest: but i think that's right. these programs, they pay benefits not only to people who are of retirement age, but to their depends ends, both social security and medicare, avenues of eligibility for people who are 18, dependent children, and so certainly in those instances, in both programs, you don't have a record of wage contributions by people you can say are technically beneficiaries, but in order to earn the benefits for those individuals, there have been contributions made by other workers in the household.

host: talk about your work with the policy center and about the minute we have left and what you're going to be doing with the trustees report that came out this week, what more they can find from it. guest: well, again, for me, this was a very striking report. and we're going to be doing another joint publication summarizing the findings later on this year. but i have been struck by how little public and press attention there's been to a report that i think was very sobering. and i think part of that is because there is a natural tendency to overemphasize the projected depression dates. we've had a very sudden and immediate turn for the worse in the short-term finances of these programs, and there needs -- e greater awareness that we should have repaired the hulls of these ships a while ago, but they're starting to take on water. host: want to thank both our guests.