within people. he doesn't intentionally and sometimes he does not know he is doing it but that it happens. it's influencing every aspect of american life, culture, economics, politics, and in ways you have detected, the way journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. announcer: coming up wednesday on the c-span networks. 11:00 a.m., a forum on u.s.-u.k. relations and a discussion about brexit. 8:30 a.m., the air force association meets for the third day of the annual conference. on c-span 3, a look at iran's nuclear program. >> coming up in about an hour, the wilson center's laura dawson

and duncan wood on the nafta negotiation and u.s.-canada-mexico relations print and then reid wilson talks about ballot measures for 2018. "washington journal" is live now . ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, september 19, 2019. neither the house or senate is in today. the chambers are not scheduled to convene until monday. we are with you until 10:00 a.m. eastern and we pick up where we left off yesterday on the sexual assault accusations. the kavanaugh's accuser is probe.for an fbi as we take you through the latest, we have our phone lines a bit differently. we will hear from women only in

this first segment of the "washington journal." if you are woman who supports brett kavanaugh's nomination, give us a call at 202-748-8000. if you oppose judge kavanaugh's confirmation, 202-748-8001 is the number. if you are a woman and unsure where you stand on brett kavanaugh's confirmation, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good wednesday morning to you. you can start calling now. women only in this first segment of the "washington journal." the washington post was the first news outlet christine blasey ford detailed her allegations on judge brett kavanaugh. the washington post puts it in the lead spot, qs or wants probe of nominee, but says she would testify after. it is unclear if the fbi inquiry

will happen. diss lazy ford -- blasey for indicated earlier her client was willing to testify. is prepared to cooperate with the committee and any law enforcement investigation and that has been her position and continues to be her position. we will cooperate with the committee in whatever form that takes and it remains to be seen. we have to talk with senator grassley's office and other committee members. to engage in conversation to actually figure out what happens between now and then and whether or not this takes place monday? >> that is right. any place of -- talk of a hearing on monday is premature because she just came forward 48 hours ago. since that time, she has been dealing with hate mail, harassment, death threats. spending her time figuring out how to put her life

back together and protect herself and her family and there hasn't been an investigation and these are serious allegations. if senators want to treat this seriously, they will have an investigation of these allegations so we all go into this more informed. host: here is some overnight tweets from members of the judiciary committee. the judiciary committee that is moving this nomination. senator patrick leahy writing dr. blasey ford deserves so much better. she deserves our respect and understanding. how our society response to sexual assault is bigger than this nomination just so republicans can rush to a vote. the call for holding off on a committee vote of kavanaugh in the wake of these allegations. he tweeted, when dr. ford came forward i set her voice should be heard and asked the judiciary committee to delay the vote on

judge kavanaugh. i implore dr. ford to accept the invitation for monday in a public or private setting. more tweet, another republican senator who came forward asking for a delay after the allegations came to light. senator bob corker, after learning of the allegation, chairman grassley took immediate action to ensure dr. ford and judge kavanaugh have the opportunity to be heard in public or private. republicans extended a hand in good faith. if we don't hear from both sides on monday, let's vote. president trump asked about the brett kavanaugh accusations for another day, yesterday. here is what he had to say during a press conference with poland's president about whether the fbi should open a new probe into brett kavanaugh. [video clip] >> it wouldn't bother me other than the fbi said they really don't do that. that is not what they do. they have done supposedly 6

background checks over the years as judge kavanaugh has gone up the ladder. he is an incredible individual, great intellect, great judge. impeccable history in every way. in every way. i feel so badly for him that he is going through this, to be honest with you. i feel so badly for him. this is not a man who deserves this. this should have been brought -- it should have been -- been brought up long ago. that is what hearings are for. when senator feinstein sat with judge kavanaugh for a long period of time, a long, long meeting, she had this letter. why didn't she bring it up? why didn't she bring it up then? why didn't the democrats bring it up then? t andse they obstruc resist. they just resist and obstruct.

frankly, i think they are lousy on policy and in many ways they are lousy politicians. they are very good on obstruc tion and it is a shame because this is a great gentleman. with all of that, i feel the republicans -- and i can speak for myself, we should go through a process because there should not even be a little doubt. .here should not be a doubt they knew what they were doing. they should have done this a long time ago, three months ago, not now. they did it now. i don't want to play into their hands. hopefully, the woman will come forward, state her case. before state his case representatives of the united states senate and then they will vote. they will look at his career, they will look at what she had ago and we 36 years

will see what happens. i just think he is at a level that we rarely see. not only in government, anywhere in life. honestly, i feel terribly for , who is ans wife incredible, lovely woman, and his beautiful, young daughters. i feel terribly for them. host: that was the president yesterday from the white house. the president today is traveling to eastern north carolina to visit that state in the wake of hurricane florence. he is scheduled to arrive at marine corps air station cherry point about midmorning. he will leave the white house about 9:00 a.m. this morning. not too many more details about what he will be doing. expected to be in north carolina until late this afternoon.

on the washington journal in this first segment, getting your calls on phone lines for women only. if you support brett kavanaugh's nomination, 202-748-8000. if you are a woman and you oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination, 202-748-8001. if you are a woman and not sure where you stand on brett kavanaugh's nomination, 202-748-8002. first, silver spring maryland on the line for those who oppose. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i really appreciate this program. i oppose brett kavanaugh and i agree that on the principle, when you are 17, you should not be accountable for the rest of your life. i think this applies for girls. this is a man who is working actively to keep 17-year-old and younger with pregnancy. it boggles my mind. 17 who findsoman yourself pregnant be able to terminate her pregnancy and not

go through a pregnancy and a lifetime -- i agree when you are 17 or younger, you should be able to make mistakes and carry on with your life. this guy in particular is opposed to that. that is my position. host: judy is on the line for those who are not sure where they stand on brett kavanaugh's nomination. minneapolis, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. yes, i am unsure. iwould like to be sure, but would think -- i cannot imagine the committee would go forward with any kind of vote. of course he ought to be investigated. both sides. donald trump has control of, he could order this out frompened, find both sides -- on both sides what happened. i cannot imagine this -- mrs. ford would come forward -- i

have been -- as many women have, a victim of sexual harassment and attempts. i just think no woman would put her out there like this. she is a professional. why would she? she hasn't that much -- family. her children, her husband, her marriage and friends are threatened, too. yes, the fbi should be reopening this. there is new evidence. it should be looked into and i would think, donald trump, if he cares so much about children and girls, would look into that. one more thing. seen men -- take the doctor in michigan, who surround themselves with women and all these people said yes, this is a fine doctor. we know how that turned out. this is a judge who is going to be over, frankly, all decisions

made for this nation for the rest of his lifetime. of course they should investigate. host: judy in minnesota. you mentioned the fbi investigation. here's the latest from the associated press about what the fbi said about the potential for opening another investigation. the justice department said the sexual assault accusations against brett kavanaugh "does not involve any potential a crime to the fbi to investigate." the department said the fbi role during background investigation theo determine whether nominee could provide a national security risk and provide that information for the use of decision-makers. it's not the job of the fbi to judge the significance or credibility of an accusation. in the fbi received a letter september 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980's when kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers. the justice department said the fbi forwarded that level --

letter to the council office. caller on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's nomination. go ahead. caller: when the news first came out, i was skeptical. like anything else, you have to wonder. it takes people long to come to fruition and understand what is going on and maybe she wasn't watching television and listening to the hearings. however, when i heard senator , he was askedning a question and mr. -- senator durbin said the more important question is that we stop the hearing. that is when my opinion changed and i said, this is definitely to stop his confirmation and nothing to do with the truth. that part was disturbing. to find out they had this information from july 6th, that

more did not come out until the 30th, i started to go on the internet and find out information. the only information you seem to find is the stuff about what is going on in the past couple of days. then i went on to a website which ratemyprofessor, talks about professors all over the country and her information was there in the morning and parts of it was taken down and then the rest of it was taken down and a lot of it was not so flattering. that part has me really disturbed. i do not think an investigation should continue. i think the republican party has extended the courtesy to her after she came out to be heard and, for whatever reason, now she is choosing not to. i don't think one person should tie up the entire country because of this. otherwise, it sets precedents.

it sets precedents that at any given time, myself, yourself, anybody listening could say anything they want and if it is true, fine. if it is not, that is ok because , evidently, from what the news is reporting, mr. cavanaugh -- dr. ford doesn't need to defend herself, it is just judge kavanaugh needs to defend himself. host: denise in pennsylvania. we are hearing from women only in this segment of the "washington journal." here are some women following along at c-span.org, some of the tweets. liz writing in democrats tried and failed, time to confirm kavanaugh and democrats can try something else. karen said there are plenty of reasons to oppose kavanaugh. since then he says this whole process has been broken from the

beginning and the gop senators are rushing the investigation without proper document released in addition to ford's allegation, there is clear evidence kavanaugh perjured himself under both. -- oath. elaine in texas on the line for those who oppose. caller: i appreciate you. i have been listening sense 1979 and let me tell you my quick story. when i was 13 years old, my daddy's brother tried to raped me. i was staying at his home with his daughter while my aunt was in the hospital with my mother. she had been stabbed 13 times and i was suffering try to go to sleep so i could get up to school. he did that, i was 82-year-old -- and i will never forget it. every time i go to evergreen, i put flowers on my mother's grade

and i walk across his and think about it. it's all i can tend not to spit on it. children't forget and do not either. i hated him the rest of his life or what he tried to do to me. son what happened to me as a child. dr. ford is not lying and those senators ought to get a grip. what if it was their granddaughter? how would they feel. ? that is my story and i am sticking to it. host: sheila in mississippi on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's nomination. we lost sheila. kathy in michigan on the line for those who oppose. caller: good morning, john. he should not have been considered to begin with. this is a deeply troubled individual. he has lied.

-- multiplicity of things, ruining the country as a whole. there was a very good article probably close to 30 years ago in a magazine that is no longer produced. i try to find it -- about sexual abuse. i think it was like 26 pages long and very damning about the effects of abuse on children. children never lie. it's almost impossible to get them to lie about being abused. mrs. ford is not lying. mr. kavanaugh is. hurto oldest children were . i still have the file and fighting for them. it's a very detailed file. the clinical assessments written -- you do not stop fighting,

mrs. ford. you do what is right. he should not be on the bench and we need to make sure, as a country, that he does not sit on that bench. mr. grassley, i could barely stomach him and my advice to people, get off watching all this news. you are streaming on the web right now. i read the newspapers as i have done in my life -- all my life. i do not have television in this house and i make informed decisions on the truth. get off all the garbage on the internet. it doesn't help you as a human being and it doesn't help society. host: we are talking to women only in this first segment of the "washington journal." asking whether you feel brett kavanaugh should be confirmed the supreme court. if you support his nomination, 202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure, 202-748-8002. this op-edd

yesterday. it came out yesterday and published in today's new york times from anita hill, who accused now supreme court justice clarence thomas of sexual harassment in the workplace back before he was a supreme court justice. get these hearings right is the headline on that piece. one other piece in the washington post is by ronald claimed, he was the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee during the thomas hill hearings, also served as a senior white house aide to president's obama and -- presidents obama and clinton. he writes, take time and get prepared for the hearings start. both sides feel pressure to get the hearings going and republicans are particularly anxious about any delay. in 1981, that same pressure created some of the worst

dimensions of the thomas hill hearings. that was not enough time for the prehearing witnesses and interviews to be completed and for far-reaching -- reaching a clear understanding about what would happen at the hearing, half the staff was taking private statements in a back room while the other half was listening to live testimony on television. the decision to hold these hearings seven days after ford went public with allegations risks repeating those mistakes. yesterday, plenty of members of about whatlking could potentially be happening at the hearing on monday. of of those was mazie hirono hawaii. she talked about the impact of having women on the judiciary committee as opposed to the hillale panel during the hearings. we want to continue to hear from you. if lines, women only. it should brett kavanaugh be confirmed?

lines for those who support, oppose, and those who are on shore. linda in pennsylvania on the line for those who support. caller: my name is linda. placeort the vote taking as long as -- this part of it should not be considered. i went through abuse as a child. i have many friends who did. we did not understand certain things back in the 1950's. "it was allis right" in our society. we are now starting to get a turnaround. you cannot change it overnight. i am a clearly against the abuse and i feel like the catholic church sets itself up for it,

but that has been the way it is. it is time to change it, but that honestly has nothing to do as far as his being voted on. it is the way life was and how many people were part of it? nothing shouldl be based on that in this case. he is a good person. very many people, very smart people probably have done this. time to change it, but don't people -- put people down for it now. host: that is linda in pennsylvania. here is that clip of mazie hirono yesterday on capitol hill. [video clip] >> of course it helped there were women on the committee. i expect the man in this country and the men in this committee and many of them, we all signed

onto this letter to demand an fbi investigation. this is perpetuating all these kinds of actions. it is the men in this country and i want to say, shut up and step up. do the right thing for a change. host: if you want to watch that entire press conference yesterday after the senate strategy lunches, this was the topic of conversation. you can go back and watch it at c-span.org. denise in illinois on the line who oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination. go ahead. caller: first, i want to thank you for doing this and i hope dr. ford is listening because i emphasize completely -- emphasis -- empathize completely with her having been the first person in the state of illinois to publicly name a senator for this type of abuse. i suffered similar grievances

having been so public. i think that this is an opportunity for americans to be able to shed a light on how unfair this whole process is. we ought to be able to have our complaints against these high-powered individuals to go forward in a serious manner that .s independent and nonpartisan the senator i accused ultimately lost reelection, but i was brought down because he was brought down, which is completely unfair given the abuse i suffered. host: when did this all happened? caller: in my case? host: yes. caller: it was because of the me too movement that my complaint was actually made known. host: this was within the past year or two? caller: last year.

october of 2017 when the me too movement came. my complaint had been covered up for almost a year. they weren't even going to do anything with it. i had to take a lot of criticism by some members of the media and also with those who wanted to protect him. he did lose his reelection. host: who is they win you say they covered it up? the media ignored this or was there an active effort by -- go ahead. caller: there was an opinion writer from the chicago tribune who discounted my evidence. my witness, who is a state attorney that i went to, crying, and had reported in april of 2016 prior to november 2016 when i filed my complaint. that opinion writer excluded my witness from his article to paint a picture as if i wanted

to have these types of abuses against me. it is a horrible situation. people don't understand. i was running for office at the time, so that got criticized and i ended up withdrawing. came out because i went through that abuse for 17 months trying to pass a bill. i work for crime victims pro bono or diamine not a lobbyist. i had a bill to get them lawyered. it is so obscene what we have to go through when politics gets involved. our system is set up and .esigned to protect the accused my complaint is the only one that has been founded. he was founded unfit, in aolation of the ethics law of legislator and no other complaint has had a finding since even though there were over 30 since then. the point is, this is an

opportunity for americans to be able to say, why are our voices being silenced and why is it that we come out publicly, we are being condemned? now this woman is being threatened with her life. this is up seen. host: denise, thank you for sharing your story. you talk about the blowback mrs. ford has faced since coming out. in the a story on this washington post. a twitter account with a white nationalists talking point for its handle posted christine blasey ford's personal address. it called for peaceful protests at her home. hoaxllegation was a orchestrated by the deranged left, the account tweeted. it was at least the third time a twitter user had -- ford's information.

talking to women only this morning. tanya on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's nomination from cleveland. go ahead. touchy i know this is a subject and all of this, but i don't feel that this is right. this is over 30 years old. if this is the case, then any man of, if a woman is scorned by a man, she can turn around with no evidence and this man -- his reputation is tainted now, she cannot even remember when or where it happened and the other person that was supposedly in the room is denying anything ever happened. it is the democrats that cover things up. how come when it is a democratic person, they hide it, they don't say nothing, they don't stand up

for the woman. they are ready to crucify this poor man and ruin his life. host: you started by saying you are concerned about how old these allegations are. how old is it to old in your mind? how far back should we go? what should be the standard here? caller: he has been a judge for 12 years. he came up the ladder. why all of a sudden now it comes out? -- person.onounced she had connections, stuff like that. isn't the lawyer supporting her -- wasn't she the one that stood up or won against one of clinton's women and said the case wasn't good enough and she did not have a leg to stand on? host: to the question about whether an investigation should happen between now and monday or that monday hearing should be delayed, what are your thoughts

on that? how an i don't see investigation can be. she doesn't even know where it happened or when it happened or if anybody was even around. i just don't understand how stuff like this can happen. host: that is tonya in cleveland, ohio. the phone lines split up by whether you support, oppose, or not sure about that kavanaugh's supreme court nominated -- nomination. we are talking to women only. you can keep calling in as we keep you updated on some of the other issues taking place here in washington and around the world. this story yesterday, a lot of work on spending bills in the senate. senators passed legislation yesterday in funding the pentagon and other key budget -- to keep many other agencies running well into december, giving congress a chance to continue its work without facing a government shutdown.

the senate voted to approve $850 billion for defense, labor, health, education, and other departments. if the bill clears the house, it would defuse the bulk of the shutdown threats the president after the about november elections. spiegel -- speaker paul ryan said they will take up the defense spending package and we are ready -- "we are ready to get this bill into law soon." the house and senate our next scheduled to be in on monday. a some news from the korean agreedla, the two koreas to allow independent inspectors to verify and modify -- monitor the dismantlement of a north korean missile site while --affirming the sides' diplomatic impasse over the nuclear program. north korean leader kim jong-un said he would visit south korea in the near future in what would

be the first trip by the north korean leader to the south. the opening offers fresh hope on a breakthrough between mr. kim and president trump. tweeting about the developments from the korean peninsula saying kim jong-un has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors subject to final negotiations and permanently dismantle a test site and launch pad in the presence of international experts. there will be no rocket or nuclear testing. hero remains to continue being returned -- heroes continued being returned to united states. north and south korea will file a joint bid to host the 2032 elections. very exciting is what the president writes about all the news he detailed. back to your phone calls. women only in this first segment of the "washington journal." bobby in columbia, maryland, on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's nomination.

good morning. caller: good morning. i want brett kavanaugh voted and confirmed. hit job. i spent almost 50 years working in washington, d.c. 36 years to decide you were maybe assaulted? that is insane. it should happen within 30 days. the fbi doesn't take these kinds of cases. kavanaugh has had 6 extensive fbi investigations. you have to be investigated to work for the government. this is nothing more than the government -- democrats delaying. this woman, her lawyer is connected to george soros. he basically owns the democratic party. this is nothing but a delay, they have 500,000 pages of documents to review. they are not reviewing them. they are not going to vote for kavanaugh anyway. kavanaugh's mother in 1996 voted

against the case from ford's parents and marilyn. it was a -- maryland. it was a foreclosure case. she voted against the property and potomac. they lost the property. this is nothing more than i am going to get you for what you did to my parents. host: annie in -- on the line for those who oppose the nomination. caller: good morning, john. fromoman who talked pennsylvania about the ratemypr ofessor, that was the wrong christine ford and it has been proven. they spoke of georgetown prep and had a little chuckle like white men in power had, what happened at georgetown prep stays at georgetown prep. dr. ford's family is receiving death threats, they had to move. --hink it is a sounding

astounding president number 45 is going on about kavanaugh's two beautiful daughters. remember when trump -- the junior miss pageant, he is women'sgling pageant. he was in a dressing room and he made some comment -- it is on tape, he made some comment like these girls are 10, 11, 12 "i would be dating them in 10 years." i think mr. kavanaugh should keep his little girls far away from the sexy vendor in the white house. he has openly admitted he sexually assaults -- from the secs offender -- sex offender in the white house. a presidentnk should be investigated for alleged -- illegal acts."

because he is too busy, this president is too busy? he is too busy playing golf every other weekend, just about? he is billing the secret service for the rental of golf carts and the rooms at mar-a-lago? our tax dollars? he is a grifter, con artist. host: the ads have already begun in the wake of these accusations against brett kavanaugh from interest groups supporting and opposing brett kavanaugh's confirmation to the supreme court. one of those groups is the progressive groups demand justice. this is their most recent ad against brett kavanaugh. [video clip] >> i didn't do anything. >> grab them by the -- abuseradmitted sexual sits in the white house. >> get out and vote for roy moore. >> then he nominated this man to the u.s. supreme court, accusing

kavanaugh of sexual assault when she tried to scream, she says he put his hand over her mouth. brett kavanaugh decide our rights for a generation. enough is enough. host: here is the ad from the judicial crisis network, which has been working to advocate for brett kavanaugh. their new ad in support of brett kavanaugh. [video clip] >> i have been friends with brett kavanaugh for 35 years. politics.nvolved in i am a teacher. i am a coach. i believe we need to have bright, curious, open-minded, thoughtful, empathetic people who are judges. i trust that brett is that person. he is dedicated to his work. it dedicated to his family. he has the highest integrity as a person and i believe he would be a great supreme court justice. ,ost: about 20 minutes left

hearing from women only. lines for those who support, oppose, and not sure about's brett kavanaugh's nomination. deborah is on the line for those who are not sure. good morning. wanted tos, i just say that i was not really sure how i felt about this. i read an article this morning . ft stated this woman, mors ford sent the same type of letter about neil gorsuch. that is one reason feinstein was reluctant to let this letter out because she wasn't sure of the validity. host: where did you read that, deborah? caller: i read it online on a website that does conservative news. i also wanted to state i am a little upset democrats voted against releasing the names of the senators that were paid off d.c. abouth fund in

harassing interns and they are actually using my tax money to do that. the whole thing about caring about women's rights is a little confusing to me. host: surely is up next -- shirley is up next on the line for those who oppose. john.: good morning, good morning, america, i love you. i am opposed to brett kavanaugh, not just because of what is ford, butwith mrs. because i have been watching the hearings. answernot get a direct own mind.rom his he is always using someone else to say something concerning an issue being brought to him. stuff covering up

over top of him that the people cannot see, why would you want someone to be in charge of the supreme court for the rest of his life that you cannot get a straight answer from? that is how i feel about it. host: here is how some of the editorial boards of major newspapers feel about it this morning. this from usa today, get to the bottom of the allegations against kavanaugh is the headline on the piece saying senators need to put forward evidence that might determine whether the allegation is relevant or disqualifying and take the time whether to see any similar credible accusations arise that would suggest a pattern of conduct. the hearing isn't scheduled for monday, but it seems rushed to do this. the editorial board of the new york times sexual abuses, the response -- yet the response usually is republican leaders cannot seem to take the problem seriously is what the new york

times editorial board has to say and there is the washington times today, the plot against kavanaugh thickens. his accuser suffers cold feet on the eve of the day to tell her story. women only, sarah is in indiana on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh. go ahead. us?h, are you with caller: i just want to let you know i support brett kavanaugh. i listen to the hearings and stuff what i can get because i don't have the cable to get all of it because you switched it over to c-span 2. i felt sorry for all the men because if they get to digging in everybody's background, i am sure they have got something in their background. i have had a lot of things happen in my life. i have been married since i was 16 years old, married to the same man and i feel like if they

are going after him, it is a witchhunt. democrats, all they are is obstr uctionist. democrat and now i voted republican and i will never vote democrat again. host: you mentioned the term witchhunt. here is the headline of the piece in the washington times, adrift in the age of me too, the stocking of a supreme court nominee based on charges from high school takes us back to salem. betty on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh. caller: hello and good morning to you. i just wanted to make some comments for all these young -- i am 74, by the way, and i have seen everything, almost. i wonder if these younger people --ember to one of brawley brawley, the lacrosse players and lacrosse wasn't too long ago. how many of them are considering

these women lied. women lie just like men. it's not a fact that just because you are a man, you can lie more. i know women who have lied in divorce hearings accusing their husbands of being either child predators or abusive or whatever just so they can get custody. come on. i would like everybody to use common sense. you ruin a man's entire life, his reputation, and the whole part of it -- point of it is they don't want him confirmed. consider you, you are a young man. how would you feel with just one accusation that something happened like 25 years ago and you lose your life --job over that? how fair is that? do any of these people have common sense? husbands,brothers,

sons. how would you like it if that happened to your husband or brother or son and there is no way for him to refute it because the lady cannot remember when it happened, where it happened, who was there. if you are going to ruin somebody's reputation and cause them to lose their job, you better have some facts. ellen isn is next -- next on the line for those who oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination. janet is next in new york, same line. caller: hi. i wanted to relate my story quickly. meas 5 and my uncle abused and at the same time he was abusing my four sisters, which we all kind of did not know it at the time. we never told my mother until my older sister had a daughter and my mother would babysit her occasionally and my uncle would be nearby.

when i stepped up to tell my mother, she did not believe me and she acted out at me and was very upset with me and my sisters and it really ruined things in the family for a long time. that was 20 years later. that speaks to a person's character. maybe these things did or did not happen, but if they happen 30 or 40 years ago, it does not matter. certain people will do things like that and most people will not print also speaking to will it ruin the person's life, what do you think the woman who is accusing him, her life is being ruined and she has nothing to gain by doing this other than her feeling of wanting to get the truth out and protect people. that is a lifelong appointment. longerreme court is no reflecting the american people

as i know the american people and we should not hand him this. let the truth come out. host: barbara is in alabama on the line for those who oppose's brett kavanaugh -- oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination. caller: i think there should be an fbi investigation. i think we are entitled to the truth and trump just said, i am sorry -- kavanaugh and his wife and his children. how sorry did trump feel for his kids? host: did you want to add anything else? caller: that is it. i just -- to him, it is all right to abuse women, all right to have -- this.should not object to host: diane is next in kansas on

the line for those who support's brett kavanaugh -- support brett kavanaugh's domination. caller: i support the judge based on his history and everything that has been said about him by his colleagues and students and associates. i want to point out two things. i think the me too movement is ry important, but last night i was listening to cnn and fox and , there were two female attorneys that said they think this may hit the limits of the me too movement. how far can you go with regard to allegations if you don't have substantialial -- recollection of what even happened? and on the fox channel, sammy bruce was speaking and talking about her support for the me too movement and how this could, in

fact, jeopardize it because it is getting out of the realm of fact and into an area that is impossible to assess. the third thing i would like to -- i recall that she said this occurred in a locked room. she doesn't remember how she got to the house. she doesn't remember what year it was. certainly, she should remember if she was forced into this room, went into a room willingly, none of that information has come out. i would have thought she would have been able to present that as part of her memory. there is no word about that. i think that there is too much stop a here to

confirmation on the basis of the evidence that has been presented. host: if this hearing does go forward on monday, it would take art, inonday at 216 h the same committee room kavanaugh testified in earlier this month during the other confirmation hearings. a lot of discussion about how the hearings should be held and how they should work. senator susan collins, republican from maine, a key swing vote wrote this on twitter , i am writing to the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee recommending that monday's hearing, counsel for professor ford the allocated time to question judge kavanaugh , followed by questions from the senators. timeline ofe a set what exactly will happen at the hearing on monday and we also don't have a set witness list.

there has been discussion about having the third person whom is rd was --ho mrs. fo said was in the room. his name is mike judge, a conservative writer who has written controversial things about women over the years. is apost, judge wrote it good thing feminism is teaching young men that no means no and yes means yes, but there is that ambiguous middle ground where the woman seems interested and indicates whether verbally or not the man needs to prove himself to her and if the man is any kind of man, he will allow himself to feel the awesome power and wonderful beauty of uncontrolled male passion. debauchery,ut drunkenness, and immorality in his youth in his memoirs "wasted" tales of a gen x drunk.

catholic school in bethesda maryland along with brett kavanaugh. judge put out a statement yesterday about the allegations and he said in that statement "i have no memory of this alleged incident." i do not describe -- remember the party described by the letter and i never saw brett act in the manner dr. ford describes. i have no more information to offer the committee and i do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in dr. ford's letter. back to your phone calls. women only in this segment. opposen the line who brett kavanaugh's confirmation. caller: good morning. i would like to say to all the that this are stating event occurred far too long in the past and it should be forgotten or overlooked, especially to people who call

themselves conservative and christian conservatives, i would just wonder what would they think about the recent revelations in the catholic whoch about priests sexually molested children and some adults that occurred more than 30 years ago? should these priests, just because it occurred such a long time ago, be allowed to just forget about it? these twoto compare situations. abouts too old to think judge kavanaugh committing such an act, it is also too old to assert these priests need to be held accountable. i am just saying, especially for christian conservatives, you cannot have it both ways and they should consider what they are saying. host: kelly on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's nomination. go ahead. caller: when you listen to people who are opposed to this,

they are bringing up so many other topics rather than mr. kavanaugh's behavior. there are no supporting facts of patterns he did this in another instance. even if you theoretically believe this story is true, she is saying he lifted up her shirt and jumped onto her. -- host: according to the washington post story, there is the allegation of covering up her mouth and trying to take off her bathing suit as well. , even if you theoretically say, yes, she is correct, it is the act of a 17-year-old boy. it did not progress any further. it did not say he took off her swimsuit if he put his mouth on her, nobody has any context of how this happened. i just don't think somebody does -- something somebody does as a

minor, even if you agree that it is a potential offense, should be considered. minors' records scrubbed? -- anys not evident other evidence anything else came up. it's not a reasonable conclusion host:. on the line for those who oppose the confirmation. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is great because as somebody who was sexually abused as a youth and hearing people come back and saying the ways in which i or other people handle it is not correct is appalling. nervous right now. host: that is ok. did you want to talk about your story or the idea of women coming forward today? caller: i can't. thank you. host: that is june in

washington, d.c.. sylvia in denison, texas, on the line for those who oppose. caller: yes, are you there? host: yes, ma'am. caller: i oppose this. i don't see any reason -- i oppose and have opposed him as a supreme court justice. he is absolutely biased in his opinions and i really believe that there has not been enough time on this. they have pushed it through so rapidly. they talked about the fact that this woman has not come forward quickly enough. we are talking about from the first of august and now it is the middle of september. how quickly do you think a woman should come forward? when ionally, was forced was a girl, 15 years old. 6became pregnant and i spent month of my life, five months of

my life in a home for unwed mothers in los angeles, california. . remember every detail i remember everything about it. i don't remember the car of -- kind of car it happened in and i have been to parties at people's houses that i don't remember many, many times. people i cannot even remember their dresses or the phone numbers of friends i used to have. i am 76 years old and i have seen how callous men can be toward women. they have been callous toward my cousin, who was raped. they have been callous toward my daughter, who was raped. took her in and the pleas investigated it -- police investigated it and just dropped it. men simply do not understand the abuse women have had to put up with for centuries and it is high time this nation of ours

looks at what is going on and weeks,s another 2, 3 another year to get a supreme court justice. we waited all this time, a year chance togive trump a nominate his first supreme court justice. there is no problem. the court do quite nicely. i am tired, tired of this pushing through and pushing through and when a woman does come forward on so many allegations, just like the women who came forward for bill cosby and donald trump and they are put in the gutter, they are shamed and then you say, why doesn't a woman come forward and tell her story? that is sylvia in texas. sylvia inost: that is texas. thank you for sharing your story. we talked about the echoes of

the anita hill testimony. patty murray talking about the lessons that should be learned from those hearings as the senate moves forward with its potential hearings involving brett kavanaugh and his accuser. [video clip] >> thank you. i will take questions, but i want to say one more thing. as someone who is standing in front of you because of the way the anita hill hearings were handled. there are lessons to be learned and one of the consequences is that left a generation of women 27 years ago with the knowledge that if they come forward, they will not be taken seriously, they will be berated and not be able to get through with a fair hearing. let us not have that be this lesson this time. let this senate show how you can handle this fairly and justly with a hearing that is fair to a person who has come forward so that we send a message right

now, the united states senate, that women can come forward with a have been sexually assaulted , butill not be berated will be treated fairly. that is the lesson i want my granddaughters to see out of this hearing today. host: we have been talking with women only in this first segment today. kimberly is in washington, pennsylvania, on the line for those who support brett kavanaugh's confirmation. go ahead. caller: yes, i do support his confirmation and just listening, it is crazy what i hear. i don't understand how these people calling in just listening can compare a priest raping children to what this woman says she went through. as far as i can understand, she was a little partier. she went to a party and she cannot say where the party was and who was there, that is a problem. level, i know

three-year-olds who were taught good touch and bad touch and they come right out and tell. i know 14-year-olds who had the hell beat out of them and they come out and tell. this woman waits all these years to tell? that doesn't make sense to me. there's a time when you come an adult. at that time, she was damnthat . host: that is kimberly, our last caller. up next, we are one year into talks confirming the nafta renegotiation and is still ongoing. why is it so hard to get a deal? -- willasked scholars ask scholars about that, laura dawson and duncan wood. we would take a look at top ballot measures voters are considering this november. we will be back.

announcer: saturday, retiring members of congress, poker of tennessee and congresswoman niki tsongas of massachusetts talk about their experience in congress. >> it is important as the nation to be a begin to the world and conduct ourselves in a manner the best andts when we stoop to uncivil discourse, we stoop to pettiness, we have to remember the entire world looks to us. >> i am concerned by our president on many levels, on policy. been -- not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. think you can only read about

that on a daily basis, long-term allies that question the support of the united states. he suggests we can go it alone. i do not think that is the case. we have extraordinary power in end of ourselves but we need partners around the globe to achieve the goals we seek. announcer: join us for our conversations saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. or listen with the c-span radio app. sunday night on q and a, cbs news chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book, mr. trump's wild ride. >> it is not just about partisanship. it transcends party. i describe donald trump as proto-partisan. he is bigger than partisanship because there is this emotional dynamo that he spends within people.

he does it intentionally. sometimes he does not know but it happens. , economics, politics, and in ways you have detected. journalists have interacted with this ongoing story. announcer: sunday night, at 8:00 eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme policy eventsic in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. what does it mean to be american? competition year's

question and we are asking middle and high school students to answer it are producing a documentary about a constitutional right, national characteristic or historic event and explain how it defines the american experience. we are awarding $100,000 in cash prizes. including a grand prize of $5,000. this year's deadline is january 20, 2019. -- more information got information, go to our website. announcer: "washington journal" continues. we return to the nafta renegotiation and we are joined by experts from the wilson center, duncan wood is the director of the wilson center's mexico institute and laura dawson serves in the same role as the wilson center's canada institute.

we begin with a headline from bloomberg. it is crunch time for nafta with the u.s. and canada at odds. one of the crunch time deadlines we are working under? guest: this is a real crunch time. we have been talking about crunch time and have been nowhere near crunch time till this week. they finally got most of the issues on the table. they got a landing strip for settlement. they know where each side once to go. it is a matter of getting the political masters to sign off on that. mexico was there for several weeks. i would not be surprised if they bring mexico back in because the message from congress is this has got to be a trilateral deal. the canadians are not held to that theinterrogators americans in mexico are held to so they can rack the pot, delay but i do not think they're going to do it. host: who are you watching today

for news? i am watching the administer in charge of trade in town. she has been in town a lot. has beenecause there so much political drama and unusual issues surrounding negotiations we do not usually see. this is the real-time time when ministers have to come into town and signoff off on big decisions their negotiators do not have the authority to make on their own. host: president trump reached a bilateral deal. does mexico want to move forward with that deal without canada? guest: i think the mexican foreign minister said it well at a press conference they had after that deal was signed, which was we would like this to be a trilateral deal. we want canada to come in and use a wonderful mexican phrase: however, if we do not control makings decision

process, if canada cannot come to a bilateral deal. it has been interesting to listen to mexican policymakers say the bilateral deal is something that guarantees them access to the u.s. market. that it guarantees certainties to investors, a message they are desperate to relate. there is something else going on. that is there are deadlines in mexico that come into play. the current president leaves november.the end of the first comes in at the first of december. the mexicans would like to have this deal signed by the mexican president before he leaves office because the new president coming in, although he has expressed support by the nafta, there are political imperatives for him he may want to vacate a show and say i want this to be my ideal -- my deal.

they want to get it done before november. tradeif we are talking dollars, who needs a trilateral deal the most? who would be the biggest winner or loser if this does not happen? guest: i would say the private sector in all three countries. there is no doubt this is an existential question or mexico, but i would argue it is for the event estate in canada. mexico depends on the u.s. market. it was this desperate since 80% of exports appear. figures, iton trade allies the reality of the north american economy. this is a deeply integrated economy. laura and i have spoken about this. that is why a bilateral deal does not make sense. a bilateral deal between mexico and the united states excluding canada means you are a going the

reality of integrated production systems. host: politically, who needs a trade deal more, the united states or canada? guest: interesting. the united states, the president needs to have a modified trade deal he can claim winds on. but he can say see, it was flawed when i went in and now it is excellent. i think canada and mexico are mindful of not only having a good deal but having trophies on the self that the president can claim, i got what i set out to do and it was a tough negotiation. canada is very trade dependent on the united states. 70% of canadian exports go to the nine states.

manufacturers, really slowing down. that kind of instability is problematic. has been for quite a while. prime minister trudeau's political opposition is stepping out -- up and saying hey, you write be mishandling this. this is the first time throughout this process that permit mr. is getting domestic respect. host: if you have questions about the nafta renegotiation, give us a call. democrats: 202-748-8000 republicans: 202-748-8001 independents: 202-748-8002 special line if you are outside the united states, especially if you are from mexico or canada. 202-748-8003 is that number. you will be joining the discussion with laura dawson and duncan wood.

remind us what the wilson center is. guest: it is a nonpartisan think tank. it was created in 1968 to advance understanding of the world and u.s. relations with the world. we tried to bring the world to washington and take washington up to the world. one of the most important things we do is explain the political process in washington to folks in other countries and try to advance mutual understanding so the misunderstandings we have seen the last couple years happen less. host: dvd review think the negotiating nafta was a good idea? people have a -- for opening up a pandora's box. many of us have been saying nafta is an old lady of trade agreements. we need to come up with the nafta 2.0. this was not the way we thought it was going to happen but there

are things that will come out of it. i think a lot of us believe it was time to renegotiate. this was negotiated before anybody had internet. before we did banking online. before a lot of the things we take for granted. it is a pretty good deal for basic commodities but it did need to be updated. as duncan said, canada and mexico had said we ought to update yet -- this in the u.s. said i do not know. it could blow up. theya and mexico got what wanted, just not under conditions they would have chosen. patricia is up in washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? host: great. caller: how was this nafta agreement with mexico effective mexico -- offered to

offer to mexico regarding they areon money offering to mexico for the people to go back to their native countries? guest: that is a good question. the twole answer is things are entirely separate, at least officially. what is interesting about your question is since trump came haveoffice, the mexicans used a comprehensive negotiating strategy in the nine states. they have made a great effort to show mexico is an important part of the united states, not just an economic terms but protecting homeland security and in terms of controlling migration inflows from central america. from the trump administration to pay mexico to deal with some of the united states' immigration problems is not surprising. there is a wrinkle in the deals there and that is although the

current administration in mexico is willing to consider it, the incoming administration has already said that is not something they are interested in talking about. i think that is a deal that may not come to fruition but what i want to emphasize his mexico is a vital partner to the united states in terms of controlling migration flows. for the past six years, mexico has billions of dollars in its own infrastructure particularly with guatemala to control numbers of immigrants coming through the southern border and making their way through mexico to the u.s. border. the way that mexico does that save the united states billions of dollars and one of the things a lot of oak in mexico, particularly the government has been trying to communicate. host: tony is an independent in new york. caller: nafta is a good efforts. however, what i want to know is

and i think the american public , how muchow consideration is given to the value of labor across the three states, that is the displacement ?f labor nafta one created president not trump but not clinton president nafta, laborr displacement would be relocated, reeducated and we would not have the displacement we are faced now. guest: i will speak to that. that is a great question and i think in this nafta 2.0 we have not talked about enough --

talked enough about aber -- labor. what about labor? that was president trump's campaign statement. workers have been displaced. what are we doing? a lot of -- there is a great point to be made that labor has been displaced more by automation, more by changes in technology and by any trade agreement. the factor maine's workers still used to have jobs in the assembly line and do not. the new nafta does include labor provisions. we are waiting this week what is going to come out. we need to focus on all three countries' workforce development. we need to make sure people who are in a sector no longer viable get training they need. they need benefits so they can move from one part of the country to the other. they need education. they need daycare. we need to have those supports.

the original nafta was supposed .o have those kinds of supports you had to prove you lost your job because of a treat agreement. it is not just one cause. if somebody has lost their job, we need a program that is more comprehensive that will help put skills where they are needed. give people the new skills they need. we could all be more competitive. with if we move forward the u.s. mexico trade agreement are labor issues addressed in the bilateral deal? guest: superficially. what we have seen is there is text about guaranteeing a certain level of salary for a percentage of the content of automobiles. there are new provisions in terms of labor standards that are consistent with what was agreed to by mexico in the tpp.

but this is not a solution for the economic transformation we are experiencing. i would like to emphasize what laura said. this is a very real problem that is not going to go away. there is no point in blaming nafta but you cannot ignore the problem. something needs to be done in all countries. we focus on the united states but mexico is about to be hit hard by automation in the fourth industrial revolution, because of the kind of economy it has. the kind of manufacturing, relatively low skills. we need to focus on retraining. terms nafta 2.0, new nafta. if some trilateral deal does get done, do you think there is any way president trump cause it nafta 2.0? agreed nafta is the victim of a bad brand.

was usmc.s suggestion i think the united states marine corps would object to that. if they want to work on a better brand, go for it. i do not think anyone inside the tent is wedded to it. host: springfield, virginia, republican. to -- ii just wanted know in the u.s. we get tied up asinternal politics and someone who looks a canada from the outside, there seems to be -- there is not as much of good pleasure -- displeasure. i am wondering if you think as he continues to delay an outcome dostretch this negotiation, think canada will find themselves in a better position or a worse position to negotiate a trade deal? guest: it is a fine line.

negotiators have been clear since the beginning that this has body -- got to be a better deal when they leave them when they started. they cannot take shortcuts. been the school vice president obama -- vice principal in the room. they have a good negotiating team. there are political pressures in canada. there are economic pressures. canada does need to come to a deal shortly and if they do not do it well, it is going to be politically problematic for trudeau. host: companies pressuring to in a newda agreement, the heads of u.s. chamber of congress. the u.s. lounge table and national federation sending

letters. guest: that is the way we build things together. that is where the north american manufacturing sector works. there was a great thing in the washington post and it showed the path of alexis engine went through different plans in united states, when up to cambridge for other tooling and back to the united states to be put into the lexus. if you get rid of that one note, whether in canada or mexico, you simply disrupt the american supply chain. you make it difficult for andicans to keep their jobs for manufacturing to be as competitive as it could be. that thesurprise to me business associations are weighing in. the canadians are going to wait in harder. host: what would that look like? guest: i would like to see more americans aware of where the products come from and how much

of their jobs and livelihoods are dependent on that nafta trade. what is the number, duncan? how much u.s. content is in a mexican exports? average, 40% of the value that originated in the united states. so, frommilarly canada. when you are importing something from canada, cut off those canadian cars. not no such thing as a canadian car. not no such thing as a canadian car. that is a ford vehicle and you cannot get minivans from ford in the united states because canada makes the vans. the u.s. makes different models and mexico makes different models. happens when those manufacturers are no longer able to lose competitively in north america? they go someplace else. guest: i think there is an important point. we can forget about the

consumer. consumers save the use of dollars because of integrated money factoring systems. the conversation is developing over china and tariffs with china. we are looking at prices. we have done studies the wilson center, which looks happy between the united states, mexico and canada that has lowered rises dramatically. that allows them to have more money in their pockets, which they spent in the local economy. this is one of those things people forget about that if you dollarssave the hundred on a washing machine produced more cheaply in north america, you have $100 you can take your family out to the dinner. that is money that goes into your local economy. we have a special line for those outside the united states, 202-748-8003. for democrats,s republicans, and independence as

usual. bob come independent line. whyer: i would like to know cannotunited states, i put on the mexico book. touch with myin representative and senator in missouri. it all comes to a standstill. i have concurred. excellent shoot down there. he used the opportunity to go down there. -- cannot go down there. guest: it is a terrific question. it is a question which a lot of people who are watching will not realize are part of the reality. the movement of livestock across the border is an issue of critical economic importance to folks live down there. there are cattle that moved from

mexico into the united states to graze who suddenly moved back down to mexico. , and it's and back down to mexico. the -- the specific issue you're talking about is why can you not go down and buy livestock in mexico and bring them back united states? that is the question of agricultural regulations standards of the border. those are standards which are deeply complex and unfortunately you have seen certain interest groups that have lobbied to keep them in place to protect their markets in the united states. host: the u.s. has the top are standards at the border -- tougher standards at the border? guest: it is about regulatory complexity. spend so much time focusing on relatively small economic issues which have high media or political value.

they get headlines and not the things that make life better for the producers. i read it takes 20 pieces of paper to export account between united states and canada. there are all sorts of cattle and pigs moving back and forth. if we can reduce these regulatory costs, if we can cut the red tape for guys like, we would be better off. i did a lot of speaking in the u.s. midwest and the greenbelt this year and it breaks my heart that american farmers are bearing the brunt of these punitive tariffs. the total value of the tariffs we put on canada at this point? guest: it is changing by the day. we expect to see an auto parts tariff go on shortly. when the u.s. put the steel aluminum turks on canada, canada said that is not fair. we are not a national security threat.

of course, they pick the ones that are most politically visible. the tariffs go back to the united states from canada on agricultural products. canada has collected $400 million in tariff money they did not want to collect. they do not want this trade war and they have got this money because when the u.s. puts a tariff on another country, they retaliate and it blocks everything. the farmers are on the front lines of this. --ld people say let's what pick the washington apples? soybeans, etc.. similar to what has been happening with canada, we have seen with mexico and this goes back way before the trump administration. whenever there has been a trade dispute, mexicans are clever. they pick out the products of the most politically sensitive. it does not mean it is a voting

group united states that is powerful that they will pick folks on capitol hill and choose a -- within their congressional district and punish that because that is believed get pressure from capitol hill down to the white house. mexico has been very smart about this over the years. host: canada? i think this is a tried and tested model both countries are using. this brings back once again, was she said do not started tariff war. everybody loses from it. host: republican, good morning. caller: good morning. this is about the dumbest thing i have ever seen. obviously nafta needed to be tweaked after many years but -- theforget in 19 1970's, it detroit was building engines at a place called

windsor canada which is across the border from detroit. and that was the start of the whole thing. nuclear doro's shaped small businesses when nafta came in. now what are they doing? tariffs. tariffs are about the worst thing possibly could happen. this could not go at a worse time. we are going through a technological revolution and the industry is changing to electric cars. they are -- you know what? if i was canada, i would say forget you. i am not going to supply any parts of you. i will send them across the world. i do not have to send this to you. this is a very dumb concept of trying to fix nafta. nafta needs to be fixed by -- an not by a me back approach.

guest: our communities are integrated production, whether it is san diego, detroit, windsor. i am from ontario. people are really upset by these tariffs. canadian steelmakers supplied still for the twin towers and are told they are a national security threats. there are gas stations in michigan law longer serving canadian companies. we have been friends and brothers for so long. these tariffs and out about economics there about breaking up a relationship. it is important for all these countries and i know mexico, the mexico u.s. ties have been battered as well so i wondered if we can recover from these fractures. host: michael is in new york city. republican. caller: good morning. i have two questions i would

like to ask. the first is, when you are talking about the wilson's commission and trade understanding, what are some elements of trade understanding that has been brought back to the united states and incorporated into our system. my second question is, how are things changing now in the global trade environment? that, there were trade policies favorable to the united states and now the global trade is changing into this interconnected system. we feel a lot of the politics we had in place for a long time are antiquated as nafta showing us what is being done on a larger scale address the change in trade as a whole? let me take the second part of that question. i think they are both good

questions but the second part i find intriguing. which is, the global economy has changed so much and we still rely on the in international trade regime that was created in the aftermath of the second world war, when the united states was the dominant economic power in the world, and with the united states was trying to construct an international order that was trying to spread these and prosperity at a time when the united states when the united states was willing to make sacrifices that his partners were willing to make. i think one of the most important messages we have heard coming out of the trump administration is it is time for other countries to pay their way. to pay their fair share. this idea of reciprocity in trade agreements, in the past has been if you cut your tariffs percent come i look up my by 10%. you began at a 40% tariff level.

you are going to reduce from 40% down to 36%. 10% toarted with a reflect, i go down to 9%. that is a huge gap in the overall tariff level you are facing. now it is time for an honest and frank conversation between the greater economic powers to say should we bring our tariff levels down to the same level exactly? that kind of reciprocity. think that is a conversation we have been avoiding for a long time. that would be a positive step in the right direction. it would be something that would open up opportunities. guest: i like michael's question because that wants -- makes me want to put on my old professor had on. they were led by the united states is one of the surviving economic scholars. canada and mexico looked at the u.s. rules and said maybe we are not the rules we would have chosen but we are going to put our lot in with the winter.

we are going to align our roles with them. sayinggood example of's look at the dashboard in a european car, and then look at the dashboard in the north american car until people head to the site to see which system. most of the rules in the wto come out of u.s. commercial policy. they request laws for settling disputes for investors for movement of products, for tracking matters of dumping. what happens if you make the rules, the system works to your advantage. they have to switch when they are dealing with the u.s.. now, we have the united states absent itself, removing itself from global rulemaking. who fills that void? where do we go next? we are also looking at broader issues of security. onneed new rules on digital,

financial. i am not sure who else i trust to be that kind of global rulers later. sometimes the americans step out of bounds but at least always with a relatively -- with relatively good intentions. that is what canadians want. we are really at a loss. host: less than 25 minutes left. ? --ou want to join in, democrats: 202-748-8000 republicans: 202-748-8001 independents: 202-748-8002 202-748-8003. outside the u.s.. democrat. caller: good morning. comment thatake a when civilized countries get together to make treaties or lookinghey are usually

for a win-win situation for both parties. trump, thaty, mr. is a foreign concept to him. you have got to have a win lose and you have got to lose big. the otherely countries -- unfortunately the other countries know that. i do not know how you're going to get anytime -- any kind of viable deal. it is the same mindset as any two bit dictator. to her question, is that what happened in the u.s. mexico trade deal? host: mexico -- makes certain confessed to the united states but things are not what appear to be. and the beginning, folks particularly the mexican government have recognized this

to trump's to come away with negotiations. you need to construct a win for him and that probably means making some public statements and public commitments he can show to his voting base and the u.s. congress and say i got something out of the mexicans. one of the most important things the trump administration got from mexico was a side agreement theutomobiles, which limits total number of cars mexico consulting and estates on a yearly basis. that is put it to .4 million vehicles. that sounds as though mexico has -- now,o limit its own what, in fact is the case, mexico exports $1.8 million. a long timeto be before mexico bumps up against the barrier. they have said, well we are weiting our own exports and

have given this to trump administration. by the time we hit that barrier, probably trump is no longer going to be president. second concession they made was to this sunset clause the trump having.ration was the mexicans negotiated a great deal with the americans. you get your sunset course. is a 16 years. we get to review it. if we decide things are going great, we extend it. you go beyond anyone administration. you come up against four administrations before you rent and after. guest: negotiation's have been a three ring circus. we have had politicized issues that have taken up energy, the rules of origin and it has been a challenge to manage that. we see and the last negotiating text or fact sheet, it seems the u.s. has moved on those issues

so canada and mexico can make a deal. the other are things that will monetize the economy. things are focused on digital and making things better at the border. that is where the bread and butter is for most business people. the third ring is the greatest hits. .anada has got dairy u.s. has got the jones act, which makes it hard to ship off on the high seas. we have got things we're moving progressively moving down. --have got the highly put politicized thing. the messaging, the things that are coming out of the united states trade representative in congress seem to be a moderate track that is closer to the win-win the color is looking for. chris is an independent.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to see if your chris i. guests could touch on what is really the most important thing each of the three parties, mexico, canada and the united states, because when you listen to people talk, for instance, somebody says there is a 200% on milk. is that what is important or is it the integrated supply-chain for the u.s.? when you look at it from a dollar value perspective, what will change with this new nafta for each person and what is important? that is a challenging question because we know issues that each country has laid out to be parties in the negotiating process. chapter 11 it was cause of the original nafta. it was questions of maintaining

free movement of auto parts, the sunset clause we just talked about. you ended your question by saying, what is going to be the benefit to each of the countries? from the point of view of mexico, what they have managed to achieve by getting this --ancial deal, is they have in short insurance and the mexican economy for years to come. that was the most important thing they could get out of these negotiations. they did not want to see nafta and. they did not want to see nafta modified, damaging mexico. they have got that. they managed to get an agreement from the united states. that money will continue to flow into mexican manufacturing. investors see mexico as a viable destination for investment and it keeps mexico as part of the

integrated manufacturing system of north america. guest: we hear a lot about dairy. is dollar value of derry what 1% but it is a visible issue. it is one of those domestic support systems. that is a protectionless program. it does not distort trade too much and the u.s. has a ton of its own domestic support measures. canada is probably going to have to scale back its very protections and a lot of people would like that because it is going to reduce consumer prices for jerry. it is dollar for dollar, the most important thing for canada. it is probably accelerated process at the border, which has not been a controversial issue at all. they are really hoping to unleash that. between of that balance

highly visible issues and important issues, i would say the distance has been settlement. it is interesting. the u.s. has never lost. that investor state case there were canada and mexico trying to defend it. similarly, there are other disputes in chapter 19 and 20. one is about having a way to challenge when you think the other side is not following their own rules correctly. the other appeals mexican for dumping ninjas, voodoo, trade policy that i will not get into now. host: for viewers who want to get into it more, can you talk about the wilson center and the work you have done that is available for the public if they want to dive into these deeper. -- deeper? we produce regular

updates. we have a combined website somewhere. weekly updatesp of where the issues are, and it wilsoncenww. ter.org. host: join in the discussion for the next 15 minutes. i want to get somebody from outside the u.s. to get that discussion: 202-748-8003. catherine in st. joseph, michigan. republican. i am sitting here and listening to this this morning is thedering, what wilson's son of? one is the topic of nafta and the u.s. canada relations, where is the tie representative.

whitey had canada and mexico isn't that the u.s.? i am confused. lady froming the canada and the gentleman from mexico. where is the u.s. and all of this? catherine, we will let the viewers talk about their perspective. if you could review and will talk more about it. guest: thanks for the interest about the wilson center. not just because i work there but i believe the center is a national treasure. it was founded by congress in 1968 and dedicated to trying to explain the world to washington and washington to the world. even though you live away from washington, the great thing is we webcast most of our events you can choose him over the internet and watch what is going on. of our publications produced

are available online for free. we have a number of events so what washington journal where you can call in and ask questions. our mission is to try to help the american public understand what is happening in the world, understand u.s. relations with the world because we believe that greater understanding we have a better chance of getting positive win-win relationships in the world. on the issue of why canadians and mexicans, i have been doing trade for 25 years. i used to work at the u.s. government to the arlington diocese. had we get good agreements and had we work together? sometimes the americans are at fault but we need to focus in on this issue so that is why i have .ecome very captivated by it there are a lot of americans, it is important to them as well and

i was he just the u.s. timber of commerce, -- chamber of commerce, there are a large number of advocates that are going to tug openly about trade importance for the 90 states. host: we have had several on this program before, certainly not the first time we have talked about nafta. check out c-span.org and look at our web archive for discussions. we figured with everything happening, it would be good to bring in the director and candidates at the wilson center. john is in florida, independent. caller: good morning. we have artie had terrorists. it is called the exchange rate. canadian dollars like less than american dollars, so the tariffs are putting on the milk because it is cheaper for companies than the nine states to buy canadian milk because they are getting

23% discount. i will just make it the canadian dollar pie with the american dollar and you would not have to add because everybody would be on an equal playing field. that is the great equalizer in everything. it is not a fixed -- consistently that the canadians are $.75 to the u.s. dollar. it rises and falls and that drives manufacturers crazy. if it moves slowly, they have the opportunity to plan so sometimes when you're dollar is low, you want to sell and when you're dollar is high you want to buy more input to the equipment and they try to use that. when the u.s. does well, everybody does well. the canadian dollar comes up as well. it is when we have this kind of instability that we are in now the canadian dollar drops. you want to reduce that differential. if you want to make canadians

less attractive, finished the trade deal and stop driving them crazy. host: arlington, virginia. my for democrats. caller: i have one question based on what we have been talking about and hearing. haveexicans and u.s. concessions and revisions they have been looking for. at what point does trump have enough of his trophies and is willing to sign a deal rather than continuing with packing two valuable -- on the economic front. guest: i think president trump has the concessions he is going to be satisfied with indicates mexico. he hasn't sent a notification to the u.s. congress, citing he would like them to consider the service bilateral deal with mexico and hopefully canada will join onto the deal and the final text will have to come out at the end of this month for congress to consider.

he is already at a point where he believes his negotiators have got enough out of their counterparts to make this a deal with finding. the question is, of the canadians going to be able to give him enough? he says, all right canada can come into the deal and we can move forward and think about another part of the world and time. on behalf of everybody come the canadians want to make sure the deal is settled and 32 chapters. there are 32 chapters for this deal. make sure all of this stuff gets done. i am waiting to hear from major protagonists we always hear from in trade agreements and we cannot finish this deal until those folks are satisfied. that is intellectual property. we are starting to hear from the pharmaceutical industry on issues. we have not heard enough from labor. i think we need to -- could get more in -- labor input but we

have to hit one of these magical deadlines. we ranmportant to know out the clock on getting this still implemented last may. this is about getting a signed deal within the current congress that then gets through the markup and review with the next congress. what matter -- matter what happens, it is going to be the next congress. host: remind me what trade authority promotion is and what if congress was to see a trilateral deal instead of a bilateral deal. guest: i am going to mess this up. please do not phone. negotiation of congress delegated to the president on a time-limited basis. said theyears ago, it waffen do as many trade agreements as you can. the current nafta is covered under the former trade promotion

and the ustr is required to meet certain requirements that congress set down like it should be trilateral. host: that was -- guest: that was one of the requirements. you should talk about this from time to time. you should not just do the deal yourself. we are coming up to another deadline. under. get it covered usage be at a kick the deadline down the field if congress agrees things are going well. could be hepa deadline. could be other congressional mandates. could be the president's not want to do anything before the midterms or maybe once do something. it is anybody's guess. we seem to be in a pretty good period of productive negotiations. i would tell negotiators finish

it up because you never know. there are a number of fascinating scenarios that if the canadians do not get a trilateral deal and president trump says that is it. nafta is over. then you bring in an entirely new timeline of a six-month withdrawal process. it has to be considered by congress and everybody begins to lawyer up on this. guest:2 and do not forge\ court challenges. -- forget court challenges. host: what court does this go to? guest: this is going to take place in congress. going tocongress is debate whether the trump administration has the authority to and nafta. even if it does, they have to be the legislative process of unraveling who the latest registration around nafta, which is going to take years. similar to the travel

bans, that those bands have been connected to various courts' challenges and decisions. i think you would see something -- equally good for now. host: just a few minutes left. taking your questions, we will get to as many questions -- calls as we can. justin, independent. caller: thank you. i wonder if your guests could suggest -- discuss the sugar industry. the united states has barriers to competition with importing sugar or the alcohol we make from sugar. the administration talks about if the sugar industry was coming out with the nafta. happens to be one of the issues that has been controversial and nafta and that is because last year, mexico and the united states came to sugar exports.

the sugar industry is messed up. are efficient and effective producers. beenndustry structure has highly regulated over the years. there is a strong role played by the unions therethere is a stroy the unions there and it is not nearly as efficient of a role as it should be. there are very strong -- in the united states. one of the things we have seen is controversial between the two countries. you also need to think about sugar alternatives. , forfructose corn syrup example which is going into mexico. that is displacing sugar there. issueis a very important on a bilateral basis. it is one of the issues that the sums were able to agree upon a dust before the national negotiations picked up.

going back a year or so, when the mexican negotiators came to that deal with the united states counterpart, there was a sense of relief but perhaps we might be able to avoid the nastiness we ended up seeing over the past 12 months because we have been able to handle this issue and unfortunately it was not enough to calm things. guest: i am sure it is one of those great issues, the greatest hits it were. put it in perspective. of our trade tariff free and moves easily. we have dairy, sugar. inse are things we are put place to protect some sort of domestic interest. they are protected with a lot of lobbyist money, certain .egislator you do not see cane fields when you're driving through ohio but

go further north and you will see sugar beets. this is to protect sugarbeet industry and folks are not willing to give away the --efit, not to those exit pixie canadians. -- pesky canadians. they become more obvious when somebody says enough is enough. edward, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. if we must have our jobs sent overseas, shouldn't the people of this country vote on whether or not that happens? if we must follow the laws of our land and enforce our laws, shouldn't we be following on what those laws are? , shouldn'tgo to wars they be in self-defense, shouldn't the people who were

just have to fight these wars vote on what wars we go to to prevent invading nations and killing our fellow human beings? host: thank you. that is an issue a lot of people have sympathy with. just in terms of having a discussion. do we want to encourage jobs to come to the united states or go overseas. i think the answer is we do not want to encourage jobs to leave the united states but we do want to make sure our economy works in the best way to possibly can so it creates as much prosperity to as many people as possible. in certain cases, it make sense to produce he things united states. in other cases it does not. the recent conversation over stilling aluminum tariffs is a great example of that. by opposing aluminum tariffs and trying to bring jobs back to the

united states, which everybody was taking would be a wonderful thing. you have raised the price of steel and aluminum products, which has impacted upon factoring which is going to cost jobs in the long-term. try to take a bigger, more posted approach to this end we needed an integrated world. we want to keep jobs in the united states. maybe that is done in a more effective way by allowing the free flow of goods and services in and out of the nine states, particularly as we see the economic transformation. guest: it is a fine balance. governments do not create jobs. governments create a more educated workforce and resilient workforce but it is the private sector that creates jobs. at the same time, as we have communities struggling with preserving the documents we have, we have the same community . do we let investment promotion trips to canada, mexico, we want

more investment? that is what creates jobs. for working people, at the same time, as we are not making cost so high and conditions are difficult. manufacturers do not want to stay in the united states. host: mark, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i want to give a shout out to canada, which has the same natural resources, even more so than the u.s., if you count diamonds and things of that nature. likes a population florida, so they are the wealthiest people who have ever lived on the face of this earth. they live next door to the largest customer in the world, the u.s., and they are constantly crying poor us. donald trump offered, let's have more tariffs, let's have free

trade, and we cannot do that, we cannot do that. they are stupid not to take that deal because they will benefit more than anybody from it. mike, we will take your call. guest: i do not think it was a serious offer. i think it will be something but is a zero tariff offer, another element of trade is trade in services and communities love florida, you are living in a place where everybody wants to live in february. you look at canadian businesses, the investments from canadian snowbirds, canadians love to spend their money in florida and is a huge boost for the florida economy and tax base. and what the level animosity between the two countries right now, i go to canada and to see boycott the usa, do not buy

american products, enough is enough. i am afraid with this kind of animosity is doing to our long-term relationship, it will take a lot to pry canadians out of florida. they are looking for alternatives, perhaps mexico. host: we will have more on this down the road. thank you to laura dawson, duncan wood. come back again. up next, we will take a closer look at some of the top ballot measures voters will consider this november. we will be joined by reid wilson . we we will be right back. ♪ night, cbs news chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book, . >> it is not just about partisanship. it transcends parties. i described donald trump as

proto-partisan, bigger than partisanship, because there is this emotional dynamo that he spins within people. he does it intentionally, sometimes he does not know he is doing it, but it happens. he is info in every -- influencing every aspect of american life, culture, politics, in ways you have detected. the way that journalists interact with this ongoing story. >> sunday night at 8:00 on a."an's "q & on saturday, republican senator bob corker and niki tsongas of massachusetts talk about their experience in congress. >> it is so important for us as a nation continued -- to continue to be a beacon to the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best. when we stoop to uncivil

discourse, to pettiness, we have to remember that the entire world looks to us. they do. >> i am deeply concerned by our president on many levels. on policy. i think on -- i think he has been a very -- he has not been helpful to long-term retail and -- to long-term relationships across the globe. you read about it on a daily basis, the long-term allies that question the support of the united states. he said yes that we can -- suggests that we can go it alone. we have extraordinary power within ourselves, but we need partners around the globe in order to achieve the goals we think. announcer: join us for our conversations with senator corker and niki tsongas on saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org, or listen with the free radio app.

"washington journal" continues. host: we are always glad to have reid wilson from the "the hill" who will be talking about the 50 or more ballot measures that voters across 38 states will decide on this november. explain what ballot measures are and what is the difference between a proposition, ballot question, are these all the same? guest: there are minor differences. most states have direct democracy where voters can put a petition on the ballot and we vote and decide for ourselves, rather than leaving it up to the state legislatures. listed allow the state legislatures also to put a ballot -- an issue on the ballot, so you will see sometimes an amendment, something like raising a bond aney for local hospitals or lot of times a legislature will put a controversial issue they do not want to decide, like

marijuana legalization, they do not want to be the ones that legalize marijuana so the citizens vote on it. so there are minor differences question,ings like a a proposition and initiative, different names for pretty much the same thing. and occasionally a legislature group can put a measure on the ballot and a change the state constitution. we are seeing several constitutional amendments in north carolina this year that ld changeerely -- wou the balance of power between the legislature and governor. so every state does it a little differently. host: so to the citizen involvement issue, we have a special part of this segment for those viewers, if you are involved in a particular state ballot measure and you want to talk about it we have a special, line for you. 202-748-8003.

but other lines as usual. , 202-748-8001, 202-748-8002. they range from the mundane to hot button ballot measures, so what is the most hot button this year? guest: it depends on how you define hot button. let's talk about the ones that will cause the most division. there are abortion measures that would restrict abortion rights in three states, alabama, oregon and west virginia. and that things like the alabama voters will vote to decide whether or not to allow displays of the 10 commandments to be put in schools in public places. that is one kind of hot button. those kinds of initiatives do not attract a lot of money. they are fought over by sort of the political elites who have decided whether or not they are pro-choice or pro-life long ago. and therefore they will make the same arguments again and again.

the things that bring of the most money are the fights between megacorporations. i will give you examples. a ballot measure in nevada right now that would allow for the deregulation of the energy industry. industry --lled nv energy that controls about 90% of the electric grid in the state and there big spenders on both sides that want to either change the status quo or keep it. on the change side are some casinos and some -- a company that runs data farms. they want to be able to essentially go off the grid, create their own solar power and run their businesses that way you to save a bunch of money because they think they are being charged too much by nv energy. and on the other side you have nv energy, spending more than $10 million so far trying to protect their monopoly. it is a big corporation and they

make a lot of money and they want to protect what they have. that is one of the marks as a ballot measures. and the funny thing about it is we have on the casino side, show the nielsen, the billionaire who spend the money on politics, and on the energy side, nv energy is owned by berkshire hathaway, which is owned by warren buffett. one of the list conservative billionaires in the country versus one of the most liberal billionaires in the country. host: and we are talking about candidate donations. how does the candidate spending compared to the ballot measure spending in 2018? guest: california is frick only one of the highest priced states for ballot measures. thetop three most -- sorry, overall spending on ballot measures so far this year is about $129 million, the last time i looked a a few weeks ago, so it will be higher now. but $129 million is more than the two parties and outside groups have spent on the three most expensive senate races this year. the ballot measures in the

campaign world, you can, we have made a decision as a society to restrict conservations to candidates because you might be able to influence a candidate, but we can influence a ballot measure, it is yes or no. so there are unlimited giving in most states, you can give as much as you want to an initiative or a campaign to defeat it. so there is massive money into. host: and there is not a federal election commission that deals with that, it is the states. guest: right. switzerland has one on the federal level, the u.s. doesn't. host: some questions on the ballot every year, at least specific issues. marijuana is one of them. which states will have marijuana focused ballot measures? guest: we have seen one medical marijuana pass this year in oklahoma, in the primary ballot. in november we will see legalization initiatives in michigan and north dakota. then we have medical marijuana in missouri, utah, and-oklahoma

already passed. the interesting thing about the marijuana stuff is we have seen legalization path in some pretty blue states like washington, california, maine, and alaska. we have not seen it in the battleground states, the purple states, but now with michigan they are starting to move into those states. host: and a place where there has been spending on ads for and against, same thing with these estates? aest: marijuana has attracted little bit of money here and there, and the cal point initiative was an expensive one when that passed a few years ago. but the interesting part of the evolution of marijuana legalization initiatives is that industry is figuring out that this is a big moneymaker. and when marijuana goes legal, many businesses can make a lot of money. so they start spending on that. and the fascinating part is, in some cases the people spending

against marijuana legalization are people who run medical marijuana facilities, because they have a monopoly and they want to protect that. why open it up to the legalization side? so they'll spend money against that. host: now is the time to talk ballot measures. "deadly force: the true story of how a badge can become a license to kill" -- reid wilson is with david cicilline -- "the hill." we also have a special line if you're advocating for a specific measure, we want to hear about it, 202-748-8003. in lakeland, florida. an independent. caller: i kind of have a two-part question. on the ballot measures, you are talking about money but mine is -- money. if you owe somebody money for the most part, they can do different things to you, but if you owe child support they suspended your license. there has been a thing -- i researched this and i am not

sure it is even legal -- the fact that nobody ever talks about this, banks, they do not suspend your license if you of the money, but why -- guest: before you get to the other part -- host: do you know of a ballot issue that deals with this topic? caller: there is none. i have been looking into as far as the state constitution. and is this actually a legal being. it is not. there is a lot of gray area. you can never get into but he did talk about this issue. yet, child support, they were not give you any kind of information. the first thing we was -- they will say is we cannot give legal advice. host: let's take that up. the financial issues, the individual state financial issues, are these the things that make it the ballot measures? guest: occasionally. one of the new forays that

proponents are advocating, criminal justice reform. we have seen some measures in the last few years, but again this is not -- when you are talking about reforming government or making a change to sort of the way society works, those ballot measures tend not to get a lot of attention, tend not to attract a lot of spending, unless there is a big financial just behind it. if something of like that would go on the ballot, i can imagine -- for is a become a california passed a measure that would eliminate cash mail. this was a big deal. -- bail. this was a big deal. it will take effect in about a year from now. immediately after it passed, a group called the professional bill bondsman association of america, something like that, an acronym like that, it mounted a referendum campaign. that would be another form of ballot measure that would allow voters, if they get enough signatures, to decide whether or not to reveal the measure that

the state legislature passed. this is something that a lot of states offer, california facing another referendum this year on the gas tax. and in writing up the story i came across dog the bounty hunter in his wife, who actually run via social -- the association and she called me and she was on her way to the airport to start the campaign to roll back the cashless bail program. host: in california and other states that have this, iare they betting that the state legislature does, or every referendum that get enough signatures have to go on the ballot? guest: it does. has to follow specific guidelines about the language in the ballot, the attorney general in most states, some states the secretary-general, they will approve the ballot language and those questions can get bogged down in court, as we see with the north carolina case where

there are several amendments that have spent a couple weeks being fought over in the court. but most times when citizens collect enough signatures they can force any law that the state legislature has passed, in the states, to go on the ballot so voters can reveal them. host: herbert, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i take medical marijuana for parkinson's. since i was taking it, my hands do not shake as much. i he is to have a lot of seizures, but i do not have them anymore. i do not know why they do not want to legalize it. as a because it brings so much money that they do not want to legalize it. but it is good for you, medical marijuana. guest: we have seen a lot of medical marijuana measures pass state legislatures, the legislatures are not shy about passing the medical marijuana stuff. even in pretty conservative states. we have only seen one state so far path any kind of

legalization, nonmedical marijuana, that was in vermont. the government of new jersey says -- governor of new jersey says he wants to see that happen as well. but again, the legislatures are a little bit shy about being the ones to deregulate drugs. host: what about minimum wage? we have seen some measures on the minimum wage issues. guest: one in arkansas and one in missouri this ballot cycle. minimum wage is fascinating because it is -- its win loss record is unbelievable . the last one that lost was back in 1992. it has been a couple decades since any minimum wage increase has lost. one reason that parties, like the democratic party especially, loves to put minimum wage on the ballot is because the tests so well and in general democrats support it, republicans oppose it, so they think it will drive turnout from those who would

benefit from the wage hike, and they are more likely to vote democratic. not a lot of academic research that says that putting ballot measures on the ballot actually increases turnout, the famous example was 2004 when the republicans led by the bush campaign put something like 11 states, a measure to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot, hoping it would drive evangelical turnout to vote for john bush over john kerry. there have been studies of that particular strategy suggesting it did not actually work. host: a story from the kansas city star. dark money groups dropped $3 million into the minimum wage campaign in missouri, also a battleground for the senate the cycle. guest: that is why we have a minimum wage fight in a state like missouri, democrats in arkansas do the same thing and i think they have had an increase on the ballot recently as well. when you think dark money, that is what funds these campaigns.

it is not terribly dark, we know who is spending the money on the campaigns, but they can pass it through knowing if your corporation x and you give $1 million to the ballot measure, then you know, nobody -- the average voter will not look at the advertisement on television and go back and find out has been paid for by corporation x. let me give you an example of corporate spending. there is a ballot measure in florida that would limit the number of casinos that can be built in the state. and this ballot measure is being funded in part by the seminal indian tribe, which has a number of casinos around the state, and by the disney corporation, which does not want anymore casinos taking away their entertainment dollars. host: scarlet, good morning. a democrat. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. please give me information on amendment one in missouri. guest: which one is that?

the gerrymandering. guest: ah, yes. caller: election support. guest: good question. this is an issue seen trend we are seeing across the country. voters who are angry about gerrymandering have had limited success in trying to get those laws overturned in state legislatures, aside from a handful of states, so they are turning to ballot measures to change the way that districts are drawn, whether it is at the legislative level or the congressional level. and we have redistricting measures in four states on the ballot, michigan, colorado, utah, as was missouri. and a lot are hoping to create some kind of commission, something like what exists in california, washington and arizona. and in some other states as well. the commission would be independent of the legislature. and it would be, in some cases

appointed by the legislature, the governor, or from a pool of applicants. the details vary by state, but the commission would then come up with some kind of new district boundaries that would have to be approved by a bipartisan group, which means the macabre and republicans, usually in independent component as well, would have seats at the table so that they are incentivized to create fair lines, taking the power away from the state legislatures and giving it to a commission. this is a growing trend we are seeing across the country in terms of people trying to put redistricting measures on the ballot and take a little power away from the state legislatures. host: missouri is ground zero for that, also amendment two, three and four, and a, b, c and d on the ballot for missouri this year. minimum-wage increase, marijuana tax -- guest: three different marijuana issues in missouri. host: the national conference of

state legislatures has a statewide ballot measure database that you can sort through to look at the ballot measures that are on the ballot in your state, also read reid wilson's stories at thehill.com. guest: one more resource, ballotpedia.org is a nonpartisan institute that takes a look at elections and campaigns across the country and they have an excellent database as well, led by a guy named josh who does really good work on this. the first i call when i need to learn about these ballot measures. host: we have a democrat from nebraska, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i -- as a democrat i am pleased nebraska has medicaid expansion, the initiative on the ballot. and i find it interesting that in western nebraska our state lawmakers are using it as an excuse to not go after tax reform. and i am running for county

commission and i am running on a stance that we can work across the aisle to have a constitutional convention to change in the tax code of nebraska. so it makes sense. for everybody. guest: yes, the medicaid expansion is interesting, nancy, because it has come up in a couple states. it practicable years ago in maine and the governor has tried to block the implementation, despite the fact that the voters passed it. it is tied up in the courts, as you can imagine. and there is a measure in idaho this year that would expand medicaid. so another way that this -- this is one of the two main drivers of ballot measures. if citizens get fed up with something, they can put it on the ballot. the other one is if corporations get fed up with something they can put that on the ballot. host: the phone lines again. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

independents, 202-748-8002. if you are working for a state ballot measure, give us a call at 202-748-8003 and we will discuss that ballot measure. reid wilson is with us for a few more minutes. to get through the lesser-known ballot measures that caught your eye as you are going through the over 151 that will be on the ballots. guest: i am glad you asked. when we talk about big spending it is mind-boggling how much money is being put into these. there is a measure in alaska having to do with protecting salmon habitats, especially from runoff around oil export torry areas -- explores areas and gold mines. so the companies have gotten together and they are spending $9 million to come up with, or defeat this ballot measure. $9 million, that is about 18 times the number of people who live in alaska, so corporations come together to spend a lot of money. and a similar environmental measure in montana that is a

drawing a lot of spinning from the industry groups there. and california is always grounded zero for these big ballot measures. there is a fascinating fight going on between the state nurses union, a powerful, liberal organization and one that has pushed or endorsed bernie sanders in the primaries, and has endorsed the more liberal side of the california dems. they tried to play chicken a little bit with the state legislature, trying to get a requirement for more nurses in hospitals, so they put this on the ballot that would cap the thats of, cap the prices the kidney dialysis companies are able to charge. those companies are not happy about it, so they sent about $27 million to squash this. it is -- there is another new trend that is starting to happen where an interest group like the nurses union will put something

like this on the ballot, and the state legislature will say, do you really want to do that, can we negotiate? so they will come to a middle ground and remove that ballot measure from the ballot. so that can be a good way to use the leverage of government. it has also become a mini cottage industry within itself, because getting something on the ballot requires a lot of signatures. in california, north of 350,000. how do you get them? you pay somebody to do it. it costs millions of dollars to get on the ballot. and in some cases you are paying five dollars or six dollars per valid signature. and so you are spending millions of dollars to just get on the ballot before you talk to a better about whether or not they should pass it. host: you mentioned in your store the 10 commandments, they will be on the ballot in alabama. guest: the roy moore special. remember the former chief justice, he first got kicked off

the state court when he refused to remove a massive statue, a plaque, commemorating the 10 commandments on the grounds of the alabama supreme court. now that measure is on the ballot. and the voters will get to decide. host: that would be amendment one in alabama. brian in massachusetts, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask a question. i mam an out-of-state or in florida and amendment 13 is on its way there. i think 2020. i think it will cost the voters a a lot of money if it passes. some estimates around $500 million for the race tracks. so i wonder if you have knowledge or understanding about what is going on, and if you thanks ford answering my question. guest: i do not know

specifically if it will pass, however, florida does have an unusual law that requires a ballot measure that passes to pass with 60% of the vote. not 50% plus one. some states have higher standards for constitutional amendments. but in florida it is a 60% threshold. so things like greyhound racing, sports betting, any fashion -- like horseracing, things like that, they tend to get on the ballot in a lot of states. and we have seen them generate a lot of spending, because there are business interests involved. host: come back to the 60%, is that become the state legislatures do not trust the voters? guest: i do none know the history of the florida law, but there are different thresholds in certain states, in terms of constitutional amendments. and in some states they could change the cost-efficient with a supermajority vote. in other states it requires 60%

or 67%, a higher threshold because putting something in the state constitution is kind of a big deal. so there are different thresholds, but the vast majority of states for a citizen initiative that would only change statute, the vast majority only require 50% of the vote. host: dustin, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if we removed the electoral college, with that effectively remove gerrymandering? guest: they are not directly eelated, but there is a, ther are a couple of groups that want to remove the electoral college as a way to protest. they one to change the way that presidential elections are conducted. in some cases they want to move toward a more proportional system, like nebraska and maine have, in which a candidate can win a congressional district and take one electoral vote without taking all of them.

and another group would change the way that, the actual electors who get together informally choose the president, how they vote. it is called the national popular vote. they would not technically change the electoral college, because that requires a change in the constitution and that is very hard to do, but what they would do is if a certain candidate won the popular vote, the states would instruct the electors to vote for that candidate, regardless of who won the state. so effectively they would circumvent the electoral college. i am not sure it would change gerrymandering, i think you have to make changes to the way that states operate their own sort of draw their own mind and the u.s. constitution gives the states the authority to change those lines. and to draw those lines. and in some states, we have seen the legislatures give up that power. in iowa, in the late 70's and early 1980's, they got sued so

many times that they said to heck with this, we will let they legislative staff draw the districts that are fair and competitive, and effectively i would visit by the computer. and now iowa has four pretty decent looking districts. other states are involved it would more in negotiations. the washington system, my home state, has a commission that draws it that has five members, two democrats, two republicans and one independent chosen by the other four. and they usually come out with a unanimous decision that gives democrats x number of seats and republicans x number of seats, and they get to fight over one or two of them. so you have to change the way that the state legislature does things, rather than changing the electoral college. host: and i would point you to reid wilson's story. you can read through that as we

hear from carol in st. louis. good morning. caller: what i was calling about is in the summer, i think it was the beginning of it, we voted on the right to work. whether people wanted right to work in the state and we voted it out, we said no. now, the way that i understand, there was a public news announcement that that is ok, we would just vote on it again in the legislature and we will do -- we was is overturn it. that is not right. guest: yes, that is something that legislatures do. and here in washington dc, just -- when was the primary, june? we had a ballot measure that would've raised the minimum wage , i forget workers to the details, $12 or $15 an hour. it passed overwhelmingly.

and then the city council pretty much instantly made it clear that they are going to overturn that too. so state legislatures have the ability to go back, in our case the city council, have the ability to go back and do something different and a change the law. and by that point, if voters feel strongly enough about expressed, will they then they can take it up with this is legislature. host: abortion on the state ballot, state ballots this year, three states with abortion related legislation. what are they other ones? guest: what? host: the states that have those initiatives? guest: those with abortion measures are alabama, oregon and west virginia. in all cases they are researching measures, so on the antiabortion side of the argument. and that is something we are seeing -- we have seen a lot of abortion fights play out in the

last few years. and they are taking on new saliency now that we have a debate over judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. and there are several state legislatures run by republicans that have passed very restrictive measures on abortion, whether it is researching abortions after 15 ce a fetal heartbeat is detected. some of the most restrictive measures have come from states like iowa, mississippi, and those measures have been passed knowing full well that they will be challenged in the courts, because first it has to be challenged in the district court, than the circuit court, then in the court of appeals, then finally it goes to the supreme court. that takes a couple of years and the antiabortion folks on the republican side have passed measures to basically start the runway to a challenge to roe v. wade, betting on the fact that there will be a majority in

favor of overturning roe v. wade. host: time for some more calls. democrat, good morning. caller: how are you doing, this is john. host: doing well, go ahead. caller: on measure one in alabama -- host: the property tax exemption? caller: about the 10 commandments. host: ok. caller: i hope it does not pass, because of the way it is being done. and also, i will leave because -- i am not very good at talking on the phone. 29.9here is a proverb, that says if a white man -- with a polish man -- foolish man --[indiscernible] thank you.

guest: it is fascinating how much we can change our own democracy through ballot initiatives. and that is a cool system. i do not know. ballot initiatives in the early part of the 20th century were used to break the power of big gging orions like lo railroad interests, to break their control over legislatures. johnson was the big progressive advocate of ballot measures back then. and states like montana, idaho, washington, oregon and california, there were all these ballot measures that changed in the way that the states were run. i think it is cool. host: last call from minneapolis. fernando, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a common, not so much a question, related to ballot measures.

not much ballot measures, the ballots in general. one of the ways i think that we as a people can start to make real changes to the system as a whole, and to democracy as we know it, is to remind folks we do not only have the right to vote, but we also have the right to run. we see the same names on the same ticket the year after year after year, and we have been griping for decades about how nothing is changing. it is time for folks to start organizing themselves and get their own little campaign going, get more names on the ballot, offers some more choices so we can introduce more competition into the democratic system and push out some of this money with some of our voices. tha is all i have to sayt -- that is all i have to say. host: thank you. guest: i will take that example. somebody who wants to change the way the system is run -- there

is a guy in california who has spent tens of millions of dollars on a series of bills called marcy's law. it is a victim's rights measure that has passed in five states so far. on the ballot this year in six other states. it would allow victims families to be at court hearings and give input on sentencing and things like that. named after his sister, who something horrible happened to. it is an example of somebody who wanted to change the way the system was, he did not want to run for office he just wanted to push through ballot measures and that is what he is doing. some people across the country are not spending tens of millions of dollars, but they are getting measures on the ballot. the redistricting measure in winchendon -- in michigan without paying signature gatherers. they already have far more than they needed to get on the ballot. host: reid wilson, a national correspondent for the hill.

your book came out recently about that a bullet epidemic. -- ebola epidemic. we talked about a previously. we thank you for your time. next up, the last 20 minutes in open phones. any public policy issue you want to talk about. democrats, republicans, independents, the phone numbers are on the screen. you can start calling in now. we will be right back. ♪ [classical music playing] announcer: sunday night, cbs news chief white house correspondent major garrett talks about his book, "mr. trump's wild ride." >> i think it transcends party. i described donald shabazz iroto-partisan donna -- described donald trump as proto-partisan, there is a

dynamo that he spins within people. he doesn't intentionally, sometimes he does not know he is doing it. but he is influencing every aspect of american life, culture, economics, politics and in ways you have detected. the way that journalists interact with this ongoing story. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. saturday, two retiring members of congress, republican senator bob corker of tennessee and democratic congresswoman niki tsongas of massachusetts, talk about their experience in congress. >> it is so important for us as a nation to continue to be a beacon to the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best. and when we stoop to uncivil discourse, we stoop to pettiness, we have to remember that the entire world looks to us. >> i am deeply concerned, deeply

concerned by our president on many levels. on policy. i think on, i think that he has been very -- not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. you can only read about that on a daily basis, the long-term allies that question the support of the united states. suggests we we -- can go it alone. that is not the case. we have extraordinary power, but we need partners in order to achieve the goals that we seek. announcer: join us for our conversations with senator corker in congresswoman niki tsongas saturday at 8:00 eastern, or listen with a free c-span radio app. "washington journal" continues. host: open phones for the last 20 minutes today come in a public policy issue you want to

talk about, we will let you leave the discussion. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. and we will show you as you are calling a live shot from the white house -- from the air force base, the president landing. he president on his way to north carolina today to survey damage in the wake of hurricane florence. the death toll at this point, 37. the president expected to meet with first responders today. and we should note that governor roy cooper is also expected to hold a news conference nearby where the president will be in newport, north carolina. the president will be at marine corps air station cherry point this morning. there he is getting ready to head down to north carolina, expected to be in the state until later this afternoon.

not expected back in washington dc until the dinner hour. here are some of the front pages from a north carolina newspapers that those residents are waking up to. historic flooding is the headline for this observer. one day at a time from the front page of the times news out of north carolina, calling it the nightmare that will not end. the rescue teams heading e to help -- east to help victims. the independent tribune talking about the death toll and rivers still rising in eastern, north and south carolina. there is the president boarding. and the front page of the independent tribune. taking your calls and getting your thoughts on public policy issues. and kansas, a democrat. dan, good morning -- caller: think is so much. i am not a democrat.

thank you for your coverage of everything. host: would you consider yourself, anne? caller: i registered as a republican, but i vote independent. host: what is on your mind? caller: the confirmation of a wonderful man who cannot seem to get this done -- the congress not been able to work together. i heard the other day -- what i want to say is, can we just forgive? can we just forgive and forget? i believe that jesus came to save us from our sins. he died on the cross, and yet we cannot seem to forgive. if you give it to him, i know he can take it away from you. host: if we are talking about forgiveness, do you think the --ident, the acquisition accusation about brett kavanaugh, do you think it is true and that is what should be forgiven? caller: i am talking generally,

but also a talk -- also about this incident. this happened in high school. kids were growing up, learning how to interact with each other. to populate the world is to explore each other. i am not saying you should do it, you should not do those things in high school, but i am saying it is high school. it is so many years ago. to bring up his sense, to expose it to the world, do we have the right to do that? host: mike in kansas. go ahead. an independent. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: two subjects. one, the flood situation. and gerrymandering. there are people who know where the waters will go. and should people be allowed to fill -- build their houses on

floodplains? the second question, shouldn't there be a constitutional amendment that requires the states to follow predefined boundaries for confining their districts, lake county lines? -- like county lines? that would take care of this angst. goodbye. host: mica, on the flooding issues and the impact of hurricane florence. as we said, the death toll so far stands at 37. here is another story at the -- on the aftermath. devastation, the effects on the economy should be modest. it should shave economic growth in the current quarter by 1/10 of a percentage point, according to moody analytics, as presidents forgo trips to the mall and manufacturers temporarily shut down production. the economy projected to grow 3%

in the next quarter, could still expand by 3.7%. the damage to infrastructure expected to total $16 billion-$20 billion, according to moody's estimates. bill, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. nafta.lling about when president reagan -- not him, jesus christ, come on. when the president -- when he started all this. host: clinton, bush? caller: right before him. host: president clinton. caller: his wife just ran for the presidency. host: president bill clinton. caller: when he started nafta he told everybody in his cabinet that if they mentioned anything about -- comming over after --

coming over after nafta, the free trucks and all of this. this is where all the drugs are coming from, from nafta. they put five truckloads of heroin and if one is caught, most of the people have terminal cancer anyway who are driving these trucks into the country, so they do not care. you get one caught you do still have one million pounds of heroin coming into the country. host: that was built. this is joe from maryland. an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted this become behalf of the new tax plan and the benefits it has for the small and large businesses these days. a small company, roughly $1 million a year, they are benefiting in ways that has never been seen before. so i would hope that everybody

can see the writing on the wall. and god bless this country and god bless everybody. host: we have open phones. we just had reid wilson here. a story in "the hill" getting attention involving president trump and jeff sessions as the president continues his attacks on the attorney general and in an interview claiming that his rocky confirmation hearing scared him into needlessly recusing himself from the russian investigation. "i do not have an attorney general. it is very sad. a lot of people have asked me to fire jeff sessions. say i just want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair what he did." the fact that those comments come against, president trump criticizing the justice department for indicting two republican congressmen so close to the midterms, prompting jeff sessions to fire back, the actions of the department of

justice will not be improperly influenced. catherine in ohio, democrat. good morning. caller: i live in hamilton county. i him about 15 miles west of cincinnati. in cincinnati, we have a prosecutor named joe deiters. if he picked up somebody who allegedly raped somebody, he would not go to trial within a week. he would have an investigation into what truly happened. so the benefit mr. cavanaugh and mrs. ford, have an investigation. then it is not he said, she said. there were people there. they want to jump the gun and blame this one or that one. i have rape victims in my family. my daughter was raped. it took her 30 years before she could talk about it. it takes an incredibly long time. host: catherine, go ahead.

caller: for people to be so insensitive to a victim is -- i do not understand, where is the empathy? that woman was crying god forgives. i am a christian. god forgives, but the state may not. the state may require you stay in a facility if you commit a crime. but god will forgive you. host: on the investigation, who should lead that investigation? should the fbi reopen an investigation and run on the justice department? do you trust the senate committee staff to run an investigation? caller: the senate committee will not do it. it has to be done by the fbi. the president, i do not call him that, i call him the reprobate. he must require the fbi to do their job. that is the way the law was written. and in order to have a

legitimate investigation and find out what truly happened, you must ask questions of all the people of that were there. we have a man who says he was there, but he was in a drunken stupor. if a woman gets drunk, they say you should not have been drunk. you should not have been drinking. if a man gets drunk and tries to sexually assault somebody, that is boys being boys. if he was, before you hang up on me, if this man was a black man, brown man, biracial, a man of western or eastern descent, or god forgive a muslim, he would've already been hung from the highest tree, but because he is a white man we have to tread lightly. i am tired of it, women are tired of it. host: you bring up mark judge , the third person that ms.

ford says was in the room during that attempted sexual assault that she brought up. mark judge put out a statement yesterday, to be clear about what he said, that he remembered from that, he said "i have no memory of the incident. we were friends, but i do not recall the party described in dr. ford's letter. i never saw brett act in that matter. i have no other information to offer the committee and i do not wish to speak publicly on the incidents." that was the official committee kitchen for mark judge's attorney with his a statement to the committee. a republican in kentucky, go ahead. caller: i am talking about the voter id laws in kentucky. there was a judicial -- and donald trump has taken the lead in defending the voter id laws. there was a law, a suit filed against grimes, a democrat, the

secretary of state. and we find out that we had more voters on the law, on the registration, than we actually had citizens among voting age. so they paired with the department of justice. and they said kentucky. and grimes, a democrat, is under court order to purge the kentucky voter laws. and they have successfully required kentucky to claim their rolls.- their voter shame on you. what were you duty --what were you doing not comply with federal laws? host: we have a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. the first thing i want to say is, i do not understand why

people are being so insensitive. first of all, both parties deserve sensitivity, understanding and a fair chance to prove their point. now, i will piggyback on what the young lady from ohio said. yes, victims take a long time to bring things out to light because they buried them. i should know. it has been over 40 years after what happened to me. i want to say i am also tired of people saying, whether he is innocent or guilty. stop talking about, i have known him forever, he never acted this way. there have always been things that a drunken man -- with a silver mine. people are encouraged to do things when they are intoxicated that they normally would not do. we do not know if he had a crush on this young girl. and they came out for him to force himself on her because she

did not like him that way. we do not know. we do not know if she had a crush on him and it she want to depend something on him -- wanted to pin something on him. we need the fbi investigation. the president is saying, this is not what the fbi does. people need to speak out. if he wants transparency, there should be transparency in everything, including his tax returns. host: angel in new york. joe in middletown, new jersey. a republican. go ahead. caller: the state legislature is considering a law to legalize medical marijuana. this is actual law, not a ballot measure. for every study that says recreational marijuana is not a health issue, there is another study that says it is. yale university medical school did a study that says recreational marijuana may be a

health danger for people. this bill of money will raise is about $300 million. budget is $34.7 billion. that is less than 1%. and for less than 1%, the new jersey state legislature, under the democrats, are willing to jeopardize the health of people from new jersey. there are some democrats like --e, and those in new work newark who are fighting against this. host: that was joe. several bringing of the allegations against brett kavanaugh. new comments from the president as he was leaving the white house on his way to north carolina. here is the president from this morning. president trump: it seems the fbi does not do that. they have investigated about six times before and it seems they

do not do that. [indiscernible] it if you asko them to. president trump: let the senators do it. they are doing a good job. they have given tremendous amount of time. they have already postponed a hearing. they are hurting somebody's life very badly. it is very unfair to, as you know, stresses kavanaugh has been treated very tough. and his family, i think it is an unfair thing going on. we will see. i do think they have given it a lot of time, they will continue to give it a lot of time, and really it is up to the senate. and i really rely on them. i think they will do a great job. [indiscernible] trump: i really want to see her, what she has to say. but i want to give it all the

time they need. they have already given it time. they have delayed a major hearing. look, when i first decided to run, everybody said the single most important thing you do is the supreme court justice, ok? >> i think he is an extraordinary man, a man of great intellect, as i've been telling you, he has an unblemished record. this is a very tough thing for him and his family. we want to get it over with, at the same time, we want to give tremendous amount of time, it if she shows up, that would be wonderful. if she does not show up, that would be unfortunate. host: that was the president from this morning, just a minute or two left in our program today. making waiting -- independent go-ahead. caller: are singing about the

way to tax the profits on using, twitter, facebook, that for national healthcare in national education. i don't have to do it but, on the border walls, instead of building border walls, let's just build border cities. put a city across the border down there and let all the people come there and live. this is a were we have created, the people need our help -- war we have created and the people need our help. lastly, this thing on the president, i think we need a black woman in the office of supreme court judge to balance out our nation. our nation needs to help its heel -- heal. host: our last color today, we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. in the meantime, have a great wednesday.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ here is a look at some of our live programming today and for the next few days, join us in about an hour for discussion parliamenth conservative member owen paterson on brexit negotiations in u.s. you care relations. they heritage foundation as the host and live coverage starts at 11 a.m. eastern. -- on thel bring you political situation and the recent protests from the hudson institute in washington.

1230ive coverage starts at eastern on c-span. tomorrow, tim kaine phases republican challenger cory stewart in the first of two townhall events posted by liberty university and hampton university. -- andic of this will be the economy. live coverage starts at 8 p.m. eastern tomorrow. the senate judiciary committee has postponed its scheduled vote on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the u.s. supreme court. the committee chair has called a hearing for monday to give judge kavanaugh along with christine ford, who has accused the judge of section if has, the chance to testify. it is unclear at this point of dr. ford will attend, her attorney not for a investigation before she appears. live coverage on c-span starting at 10 a.m. eastern. also a bill -- available online at c-span.org two retired members of

talk about their experience in congress. >> as a nation, continued to be a beacon to the world and conduct ourselves in a manner that represents the best and when we stoop to unsettled discourse, we stoop to pettiness. we had to merit of the entire world looks to us. >> i am to be concerned i our president. many levels on policy, i think, , i think he has not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. the on a dailyut basis, long-term allies who question the support of the united states. he suggests that we in the united states can go it alone

but i do think that is the case by any means. you have the extraordinary power of that of ourselves. we partners around the globe. >> join us for conversations saturday at eight eastern on c-span and c-span.org. relisten with the free radio app -- or listen with the free radio app. and laser list president stephanie -- talk about the role of women in politics. she focuses on the upcoming midterm elections in what democrats can do to help their electoral chances and to further their agenda, she also touched on the rise of donald trump and the republican party during this one hour event. >> hello everyone. welcome to the national press club or it the place where news happens. i am editor at bloomberg news and i am the 111 event of the national press club read -- press club.