bipartisanship. the focus ships to the war in yemen and u.s. saudi relations. former u.s. ambassador to saudi arabia joins us. [video clip] want we don't get what we one way or the other whether through you, the military, anything you want to call, i will shut down the government. i am proud to shut down the government for border security. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for december 12 and that was part of an almost 20 minutes exchange as the president sat down with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer looking for more funding for a border wall. for our first half hour this to hear whatant you think about the president's threat to shutdown the

government over border funding. if you support such a shutdown, call us at 202-748-8000. if you oppose such a shutdown, it is 202-748-8001. if you want to post your thoughts on twitter, you can do [applause] -- you can do so @cspanwj. you can also go to facebook.com/cspan. here is more of the exchange with president trump with the house minority leader nancy pelosi and senate minority leader chuck schumer over border funding. [video clip] >> week should not shutdown the government over a dispute. time, you shut it down. i don't want to do what you did. have called for

a shutdown. >> if we don't get what we want whether you or the military, i will shut down the government. i am proud to shut down the government for border security because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. i will take the mantle. i will be the one to shut it down. the last time you shut it down, it did not work. i will shut it down for border security. thank you very much, everybody. host: that was part of the 17-minute exchange that took place at the white house. your thoughts on the president's threat. if you would-8000 support a shutdown over border security. if you oppose that, 202-748-8001 .

liz smith on twitter says we need that wall and we are going to get that wall. schumer and nancy aren't in charge. nick off of facebook says it is not a trump shutdown, it is a democrat temper tantrum and craig carlisle says what happened to mexico paying for it? john starts us off this morning from penn valley california on our support line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i enjoy this every morning. in my family, i have seven green cards. one green card is against the wall and 6 are for the wall. wallr myself, i am for the . it is a matter of control and dignity. my goodness. if schumer did not look like a ferret. host: if the wall comes at the expense of a shutdown, would you support that?

caller: yes, i would. host: why is that? caller: because that is the only thing schumer threatened any did not even have the balls to --tinue the last time december or january of last year when it comes to presently, do it. you say what you say and i will pay the consequences. host: that is john in california. ,his is caroline, hampton virginia, who opposes a shutdown over border wall funding. go ahead. [video clip] wrong liket trump is nancy pelosi said. it is christmas time. we just got over the hurricanes. people need the money. , college,bills to pay

him shutting the government down is the wrong thing to do. he needs to think about other people than just himself. host: what about the larger issue of boardwalk funding? what do you think about the requests the president is making? caller: that is too much money. he said he wasn't going to take any money for running the government. he is rich, why doesn't he build the wall himself? host: that is caroline in virginia. the editors of the wall street journal talk about that exchange that took place in a piece pantomime andfice they highlight the fact of the house-past republican bill includes $5 billion for the wall and mr. schumer says the democrats cannot go beyond $1.6 billion. spat liesinside this an issue of immigration. the family separations that took place last july and texas in the

recent caravans attempt across the border make that clear. all efforts at compromise fail in part because president trump's position on what he would and would not support cap changing. true as mr. trump tweeted this week that democrats by now have little interest in immigration as anything other than a political weapon against the president. on our support line, dave is next in oregon. caller: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i support the wall in a very limited way. host: do you support a shutdown over the wall? because -- let me

tell you what happened to me when i was in high school. i grew up in southern arizona and the border was -- essentially there was no border. there was a free zone and you could go down and enjoy the shops and my stepdad would gather up the kids in the car gallon he got a duty-free for each person in the automobile. when we came to an agreement in the arizona desert, which was part of arizona and sonora and incidentally, that area was part of the gadsden purchase. host: i appreciate the shutdown,on, but to a would you support that over border wall funding and why? caller: let me finish a couple of sentences. we build a beautiful opening --

a crossing and each side -- it was pretty much a local deal. we built new stations and everything and it was really quite beautiful for it we don't need mexico to be an enemy. int: let's go to jeff maryland who opposes this effort, hello. caller: good morning. i am not necessarily opposed to border security. i don't know why anybody would oppose that. it is smoke and mirrors to say we need a wall is because what is going to happen is they will put it in an area where it is not really needed and that is not where the problems are. it is because they have right-of-way they can put it where they need it because they want to put it in wildlife refuges, state owned parks, etc.. i have been going down there for years to bird watch and recreate in the lower rio grande valley

and there are areas where there are problems. that is not where they are going to put the wall. that is not where the money is going to be spent. host: that is jeff in maryland. that is some of the opinions from yesterday's exchange in the white house. you can make comments on this idea the president talked about, the threat over shutting down the government over border wall funding. 202-748-8000 if you support such a shutdown. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. uck, nancy, and donald show. the next two years of divided government promised to be a freak show of finger-pointing -- it isint scoring -- taking the level of dysfunction to new depths.

mr. schumeri and looked bemused and exasperated and pleaded negotiations were best conducted in private. -- you cannot have transparency when the parties involved are not operating with the same set of facts. continuing "we have to have an evidence-based conversation. in georgia, this is larry on our support line. go ahead. support a shutdown. we have got a serious problem at the border. there is no denying that. it is amazing democrats would want to deny that. you can go to the public record and see schumer speaking in 2009 about needing border security and not allowing illegal aliens to come over and be treated the

same as citizens and yet he is changing his tune now. same thingi said the several years back and they are changing their mind because trump is the president and they don't want him to have any victories. host: when it comes to the shutdown, what would it accomplish overall? ? caller: it will be more of a moral but three. you are not talking about a complete and utter shutdown of the government. there are a few services that will be shutdown, but it is all smoke and mirrors when you are talking about this and let me say this about the $5 billion people want to rail against we can use it here and there. democrats during the obama administration seemed to be able up $150 billion to send it to one of our enemies in iran. host: that is larry. let's go to wisconsin, paul who

opposes a shutdown. go ahead. caller: i think it is a total waste of money. 60% or 70% of all of our bridges are getting failing grades and we will waste money on a border wall. what happened to the republican party? what happened when mr. reagan said mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall? how come now all these republicans want a wall so bad. 76% of the people here illegally came by plane. they did not come over the border. these people are lunatics. exchangeterday's prompted a response from the house minority leader nancy quoted on abcs news saying it is like a manhood thing for him, as if manhood could ever be associated with him. a piece in the washington post

takes a larger look at nancy pelosi and the exchange that took place yesterday. office powerplay serves as a message, stands to help pelosi settle a nagging internal dispute over her own leadership. she has been nominated by her party to become the next done theshe has not votes she needs to reclaim the gavel. the oval office skirmish came as her internal critics have largely gone quiet, negotiating behind the scenes over an accommodation that could meet -- give her the votes she needs while winning progress toward their own goal of accelerating a generational turnover. under siege from key party constituencies in lockstep labor pelosi including unions, women's groups, and other activist organizations and some facing rumored primary

challenges. more available in that story at the washington post. in florida, mike supports a shutdown. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the proof is in the putting. -- pudding. they should come in the same as our forefathers have. we don't need any more crime and violence. we have a lot of bad people. host: what does a shutdown accomplish? caller: if you don't have a shutdown, this is the beginning of people coming into the country illegally. they will keep on coming by masses if they know they can just walk across the border without being scrutinized. host: on our oppose line, rosalind in louisiana. go ahead. caller: yes, i don't believe they should shut it down. first of all, what he is going

to do about our people that would be out of jobs and cannot pay their bills? if he wants a shutdown, he needs to build the bridge himself, the wall. host: that is from the louisiana. just some of the calls this morning from the exchanges that took place yesterday concerning this wall and border funding. .ou can see the whole exchange you can go to our website at c-span.org. if you want to see everything said between the president and the minority leaders of the house and senate. that is c-span.org. michael in maryland, pasadena, maryland. a supporter of the -- a shutdown. go ahead. caller: good morning. i support a hybrid-style shutdown. there needs to be some sort of accountability, whether that be that the shutdown actually comes

to holding congressman and senators themselves accountable by the rest of the supporting agencies, there has got to be a method in play that they get themselves into the session and they are not allowed to leave and go home until they focus on america's priority. the other part that is very interesting to me is this seems to be a matter of statistics and data. i retired from 20 years of service and specifically dealt with anti-terrorism and counter .errorism when you look at the potential for somebody to be harmed, i.e. a border patrol officer, what is their life worth? in comparison to putting up a means that to turner's -- deters

those trying to enter our country. then you look at what is the dollar amount each person costs over a 25 year strategic outlook versus what it costs for us to put up a deterrent to keep those individuals out and that is the point i don't think we are hitting. we are getting in this back-and-forth argument versus statistically speaking, what is , saveto cost america less more lives, and who is going to bring that data to the table first and win that argument? host: that is michael calling from pasadena, maryland giving his thoughts on a potential fund that -- shutdown over border wall funding. statistics coming out of the pew research center when it comes to illegals. this is a story by miriam journal saying nearly 8 million of the 11 million immigrants

unlawfully in the united states are in the labor force and .ccount for 5% of all workers "our economy absorbed these workers and employers would like more of them given the low ".employment rate that is an economist at the university of north florida. unauthorized immigrants represent 10.6% of the labor force in nevada and 8.2% in .exas in states like georgia and north carolina, their presence has grown rapidly to represent 5.4% and 4.5% respectively of the labor force. service occupations such as being a waiter, dishwasher, or made have the largest number of undocumented immigrants. an opposer of a shutdown over border wall funding, this is ill in indiana. good morning, you are next. caller: i definitely oppose the building of the wall and the

shutting down of the government. number one, the president is trying to exercise his muscle in doing this and this is not a business, this is the government. this has to be worked out with the representatives of all the people of our nation and he is not seemingly willing to do that. he cut taxes -- he worked the program out to cut taxes and yet he has done nothing to cut the spending. he is going to add to our budget deficit and our debt by probably $3 trillion or $4 trillion during his time in office. another thing, the bible and i direct this to all the christian republicans, the bible in malachi says we should treat our aliens with justice. if this is treating them with justice -- and i realize there is a problem with many of them -- this is not treating them

with justice. they will still get into the country, unfortunately. host: that is bill giving his thoughts, a supporter of the shutdown in maryland in north beach, brad is next. caller: good morning. am -- i don't think either side wants to be shut down. it is a bargaining chip at this point. i think if the government shuts down, it is more on schumer and pelosi than trump. all they are trying to do is impede the wall. they know if the wall gets built, it will make trump get that are -- look better in the next election and republicans can use that to their advantage. if it is not built, democrats will use that to their advantage and say trump has been office all this time it did not say -- do what he said he was going to do. i found it interesting schumer and pelosi wanted to do more

backdoor stuffed. i think trump was fine with that. you give your position and i will give my position. democrats did not want to do that. as far as funding, obama did clash for clunkers and that was $3 billion. i don't recall this much debate over the cash for clunkers program. i think it is more they are trying to impede trump's progress than it is they are concerned of with a shutdown. host: issues along the border was part of a hearing that took lace with kevin mclean. you can see the story at the washington post this morning. nick mirror off rights when he was asked by senator dianne feinstein, the committee's top democrat whether the agents and officers targeted children with tear gas when hundreds of people in tijuana rushed toward the border in a chaotic melee, he

said, absolutely not. we did not target young children, insisting agents responded with gas and pepper ball rounds after "agitators threw rocks at them in an attempt to force their way into the border. four agents were shrunk by roxanne uninjured. needingkneeded up surgery. -- fencing that allows agents to see what is on the other side. another viewer from maryland, sam who opposes this effort, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. me as ancking to american citizen -- these calls isbasically endorse what

against our founding fathers and our entire system, which is to say if the president says my way or i will shut down the government, they are saying, that is fine with me. we have a system of checks and balances and we broke away from britain because we did not want to have a team pretty yet if it is on their team, they are ok with shutting down the government rather than the process of compromise and checks and balances, which is our founding system. that is shocking to me as an american. i never thought i would see the day when americans would be ok with upending our entire system just so their party gets a win. it is shocking the degree to which our institutions are eroding andy degree to which american citizens are willing to endorse that. it is completely shocking.

if you can imagine obama in the same house and this behavior saying if i don't get what i want, i will shut down the government, you would see the most irate calls coming from those same people because it is not about principle anymore. it's just about my team. host: let's go to carol in florida, a supporter of the shutdown grid hello. caller: yes. i believe they should have to come in correctly. like my grandparents, they had to pay to come in and prove they had a relative to stay with. they had to have a job and check in every three months. schumer was smiling the whole time like a smirk, enjoying goading the president into repeating himself. in addition, they want socialism. socialism means open borders over the whole country in every

country that exists. host: what is the value of a shutdown over this? caller: i believe the only way he can get his way and the rest of us who believe in him is to shut it down and then they will be forced to deal with it, that is the whole thing, deal with it. of course, i cannot say our people in the country want a shutdown. in addition to that, they do want the border security. took since the president credit for it, does the blame go to him then? caller: i suppose so. it doesn't really matter who takes the blame as long as we get security at that border. what is happening at that border is disgusting and we are not going to ever stop the ban from -- van from marching on our

border until it is secured. those people climb, i swear, you would think they were monkeys the way they could climb. host: that is carol calling us this morning. another couple actions taking place in the senate, deals with criminal justice reform. billenate will vote on a to reform aspects of the criminal justice system by years end saying proponents of the step act a the first scaled-back version of earlier with 85 the changes votes in the senate. paul ryan privately pressured mr. mcconnell to take up the bill pledged swift action before the house leaves town. the latest bill payers investments in anti-recidivism programs in the expansion of early release credits with changes to sentencing laws.

the authors have worked on revisions to accommodate wavering republicans. the bill is expected to have an impact on federal inmates and future offenders. state laws and prisons will not be affected. in dallas texas who opposes this effort. caller: to be honest, i oppose everything because building a wall is unnecessary. people will always find a way. everything going on today, the technology is becoming better. we have criminals finding ways .o get things done there is really no point to do a there are more ways to get into a country change -- it doesn't anything. should we have more security

though? that would be nice, i think. at that end of the day, whoever needs to cross and they are starving and they don't have any way of making it in those poor countries and their kids are the most important thing, they have to find a way. how are you going to let your kid die because you cannot have a job in a secure, stable home? ben ine will go to pennsylvania. a supporter of this effort. caller: i support the president breaking down -- shutting down the government. that meeting was out of control. fair caravans, it is not to those waiting in line for years to come to this country. i feel like nifty pelosi is trying, but she is too busy trying to secure her leadership instead of trying to help real americans. if you cross the border, you cross it is legally without any

papers, if i go and drink 10 beers, i get pulled over. i get separated from my family and go to jail. host: why do this over a partial shutdown though? caller: because democrats need to know he is playing for real. talk, talk, talk no action has been the government for years and years. i am 22 years old. as long as i remember, bush and kerry had just been playing around. host: debbie from flint, michigan, opposes this effort. caller: good morning, pedro. i love c-span. let's not forget a year ago he was asking for $25 billion. all these people act like $1.6 billion is chump change. i disagree with everything trump is doing and i think we ought to roll back everything since the day he walked in because he is a criminal.

these people are still supporting him. host: what about the larger issue of border security? what do you think about that as an issue aside from threats of a shutdown? caller: these people are running for their lives. you cannot tell me a woman that walked 1000 miles with a kid on one hip and one holding her hand -- that these people were not running for their lives. what he did is he shut down almost the whole of asylum process. the last time i looked, this country has a lot of land and we have big hearts. we need to help these people. the one lady called them monkeys. how ridiculous. i cannot believe these people. it makes me ashamed to be an american. int: let's hear from billy texas, a supporter of this effort. caller: good morning. i support president trump. i am 65 years old and they have

been talking about border wall, security, securing this, even the democrats said you have to come in legal. everyone forgot what barbara jordan said, come in legally, accept the united states laws. i understand people are fleeing from countries that are bad, but you have to stand and fight for your right not to come and impose your belief into the united states and change our laws to suit other people from other nations. i don't understand why people are so against this. as far as the fight is concerned, that should include a shutdown in your mind? the fight should include a shutdown then? should.yes, it

they are not coming over here to adapt to the united states, they come into change the laws. terrorist,communist, to destroy the united states. they are not really coming to build and grow the united states. host: that is billy in texas. the last call for this topic. we will carry on the conversation when it comes to border security and trying to find results and other issues as republicans and democrats try to resolve those things with two members as what is next -- of what is known as the problem solvers caucus, a group dedicated to bipartisanship and finding solutions to problems. tom reed joins us and josh gottheimer. that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪

announcer: win the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in history. leaders.ess, new

watch it live on c-span starting january 3. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's ande television companies we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the supremeuse, court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. on q&a.y night hadhe american nazi party -- the rallyg and was for george washington's birthday. there was an active american fascist movement in the 20's and 30's, earlier than people think,

but it was associated with the phrase "american first. thearah churchwell looks at terms "america first" and "of the american dream in her book "behold america." "washington journal continues." host: two members of what is known as the problem solvers congress -- caucus. we are joined by tom reed, cochair of the congress and representative josh gottheimer. thank you for joining us today. how would you boil it down as far as what is the purpose of the caucus? guest 1: the problem solvers caucus is a group of democrats and republicans. there have been 24 democrats and 24 republicans. we come together every week and

sit down at tables like these and talk about how we can get things done and where are the ?reas we can find common ground the idea is to make sure we can move things forward and it's all about getting a yes versus talking about where we don't agree. it has really been a great two years of working together. host: give an example of things you discussed with this group read guest 2: thank you for having us on. vote as as a group to block on the legislation or policy or issue we can get to 75% ofnsensus issue of us agreeing to it. we took on gun safety and things like the controlled substance schedule. health care, we took on some issues. what i have found in this caucus is this is truly the only place on the hill i've experience

where we have a culture of trust and a relationship of respect. we are proud republicans and democrats who bring philosophies to the table and not being afraid to engage in debate. host: is the group generally moderate? are somethere moderates, but we have hard right and hard left folks in the group because they want to govern. guest 1: people who come together who want to govern, sicken tired of the screaming and yelling and want to figure out ways to get the -- move the country forward and go home and talk about the issues that matter. the issues that got played out yesterday and you both probably saw what happened in the oval office. what does this mean for the future of congress and the white house? guest 1: one thing we worked on for months is immigration reform and we spent a lot of time and it took months to get there.

we have to get to 75% of us agreeing on a position. not easy, but we found a path for dreamers and to make sure we have really tough borders. we found the path forward. why this is tough is you have to spend time talking to one another and figuring out where that path is. it is there and we found it on this issue. we will have to keep working on it. host: $5 billion in the house bill, what do you think about the stance some are taking? what we proposed -- guest 2: i think it was $3.4 billion. we are continuing to have those conversations as to how the funding bills can be taken care of. guest 1: we proposed let the experts about the weight and decide what is best to keep our

border secure and make sure only people who are here stay here. you saw yesterday, even as unique and maybe some folks described it as something that was ugly in regards to seeing that strange -- to have the leaders talking and even with cameras in the room, that is a good thing because that never does occur here in washington. i appreciate the president and chuck schumer at least going down and having a conversation and i think that will bode well in the next congressional system. are they going to play politics and theater all the time or are they really going to roll up their sleeves like us in the problem solvers caucus and say, issues.lve these that is why guys like josh and the group on our side -- these are real legislators who want to do the work for the people back

home. with us, yousts can call on the line. it is 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 when the president calls for a shutdown, how closely aligned are you to that? avoid2: i think we will that. we are talking about what is the number that will secure the border or make an investment to make it secure? if we focus on the word wall, it becomes a political issue and you will not be able to find common ground. if you talk about border security, which includes structures on the border, but do more than that, then you can get to a solution. host: your party takes control of the house next year.

what do you think about that and this idea of bipartisan efforts to get things done? guest 1: we can talk about the rules reforms tom and i and the problem solvers worked on. starting january, we will be in a divided government where democrats have the house and republicans have the senate and we will have to find ways to work together. the only way to get things through the government is if we work with each other. we worked on reforms called break the gridlock. back -- am frustrated a frustrated about, they have had it with the screaming and they want us to do our jobs and we found there are rules in place in the house of representatives that prevent things with broad bipartisan support where more than a majority of the members of congress actually would be willing to debate and vote on it if you could get it to the house

floor and on health care, infrastructure, which i think is a great bipartisan issue we can get traction on early in the .ext congress the system is built right now to allow small factions to hold it up. we really believe we should be able to at least have debates and votes on this issue and when i got to congress, that was one thing i could not believe. guest 1: and with -- guest 2: and with the new speaker, we positioned this a year ago. we would only support those candidates and embrace these reforms to encourage this bipartisan consensus government -- governing. that type of approach, many members and i think the american people are sickened tired of it. secure thesee to reforms that will allow at least opportunitieshese

to be discussed on the floor of the house. guest 1: we started talking about this, what are these things that are here that we can fix that would allow something -- when you get to 290 people behind a piece of legislation -- 430 people in the house, 209 of them getting behind it. it seems reasonable that it should be able to go to a vote. that is one of the things we just got through as part of hopefully the rules reform package and these commonsense things, there is a bunch of reforms like it. if 20 democrats and 20 republicans support an amendment -- a suggested change and say, i can make this better with this tweak, you get a chance to make sure it gets its day to be

heard. i think those reforms are commonsense sense and simple and it really doesn't push things one way or the other, but allows us to have a real debate and discussion. host: you will vote for nancy pelosi as speaker of the house? fort 2: i considered voting -- voting her. what i would be looking for would be may be additional reforms put together. of these were part of the break the gridlock package. i want to make sure we are doing this for a long-term perspective. we are looking for good faith positions we can take on the republican side of the problem solvers caucus, is there something we can do on the rules package? are there other votes or symbolic action we can take to show we are here in good faith? packageak the gridlock

would have gone either way. we would have held our leadership to that accountability and that is why josh had the opportunity. about both sides being able to say we are going to put aside our political abels for a minute and focus on what is best -- americans first, getting things done. i think if we all show up with that in mind, that is how we get things done. on the proposals we made on getting down premiums with health care and helping to address the marketplace where premiums go up or infrastructure or criminal justice reform and other steps we got as a package, there are people in your respective parties that are not thrilled with you because you do not get everything you want every time. in career and private sector, you don't get everything you want every time. that is how you make progress and get things done.

host: this is tennessee starting a soft, troy, you are on -- starting us off, troy, you are on. caller: i am sort of confused. i am for border security, but during the campaign, president trump said mexico was going to pay for the wall. will somebody explained that? guest 2: obviously, the president is committed to the border security, the wall and securing the border. we have to take a step to move that ball forward and having mexico pay for it, it -- it is not the upfront payment the president was articulating mexico would advance. his strategy of maybe having it paid after the fact -- i think that is where he was going. i will not speak for the president. whoever pays for it, we need a secure border.

our border is not functioning. you are seeing people not being able to pursue the american dream. .t is not securing us folks can come here with criminal record and criminal activity. if we focus on that, i think we can take care of the price tag in regards to who is going to pay for it down the road. guest 2: the key is making sure we have secure borders, but also, we make sure we balance our values as a country and that is why i think it is important .e stand by our dreamers as many presidents have, democrats and republicans made sure we have a secure border treaties keep out terrorist and gang members and make sure the people who are here want to be here and folks that are going to be productive members of our community.

i think that is important, but it is a balance. it is what we propose in a bipartisan way. guest 2: and maybe a little bit of fine-tuning. when i talk to folks who come here illegally, they are essentially stuck in america because they are like, you don't know the horror, the hell i went here -- through being smuggled here. if we don't have a functioning border that works and controls who is coming and going, we are exacerbating the problem. that is why border security is more than a structure and i hope the debate evolves to more than just a wall. host: there is --guest 1: there is technology, drones and others that can help keep our border secure. leigh in's hear from new york, republican line.

guest 2: i have been listening -- caller: i have been listening to you fellas and it sounds wonderful except for one thing. i have been watching congress for two years and i see the voting and except for binoculars one switches parties. even in the committees, people are ruthless. it's amazing -- i am sorry, on the democratic side. even at this point, we are because jeffats flake is saying no judicial nominees are going to go through muelleri want the organization -- etc. and people are stopping everything -- you stop everything. i think one of the

things you are seeing is what we are trying to fight in regards to reform and the rules of the house. of the house encourage this environment because it doesn't allow for the broad bipartisan consensus type legislation to come to the floor. you have to go from the -- through the top down driven approach. down here going to go because we are deciding to listen to a small fracture of the party, on both sides this occurs. hopefully with the rules reform, you will see more of this .onsensus type debate we need a robust debate about the issues. as we found in our problem solvers congress, it is -- caucus, it is amazing how often we talk past each other. until you sit in a room with someone for hours, you don't understand where they are coming from. guest 2: what often doesn't get

reported are the things and beyond the post office, that we work on together. there are plenty of times we work on legislation together and it often does not make news, but it happens all the time. i think there needs to be a lot more of it. center named me and my team the most bipartisan freshman democrat because we spent so much time engaging with the other side and there are so many other members of the problem solvers caucus and other members focused on how do we talk to each other and make legislation better? it takes a lot of work and to oneness to talk another and listen and understand the differences so you can address them. on our health care idea to get premiums down, we spent at least 50 hours or more in rooms together talking to one another. same thing with school safety

and gun safety and infrastructure. it takes a lot of time. have a: because we relationship where we trust each other, the openness, the honesty of the conversations lead to better outcomes because then you are like, i did not see it from that perspective and that makes us better legislators and that is why i think these reforms are very positive for the institution and the house of representatives because it will make numbers better and stronger and they will be voices of the american people rather than this town being controlled by extreme fractures on the east side of the party. guest 1: you cannot just guess what other folks think. you sit down and have breakfast and say, i did not see that and by having those conversations, those are the best moment i have had because when you can

actually have a breakthrough. on some of the toughest issues, we have been able to get to 75% of us or 36% of us actually agreeing because we are willing to talk to one another. tost 2: and we are willing stay in the room. so often i see if people don't agree with what is being stated, they tune out and walk out the door and that cannot happen. we make a commitment to stay until we find that common ground. host: from illinois, independent line, mike. go ahead. top -- caller: top of the morning. this seems to be a manufactured distraction. we have over 10,000 families lose their houses in california. they are building two fences 100 miles apart.

one in mexico and one in here. there is a country being built between two countries. . collated trump country people are calling from texas to build that wall and they don't realize they are losing thousands of square miles. ms-13 and cia are in bed. there is no way they are cleaning these countries out of all this riffraff and building a border and then they tell us you cannot fly out of the country if you owe the u.s. $50,000. host: we will let our guests respond. , i thinkon the fires tom and i are on the same spot, we will address them and i feel just awful for so many families that have been displaced and

lost their homes. guest 2: and the recent hurricanes. that is still a uniting issue on capitol hill. when our fellow citizens suffer a natural disaster, that is in our hearts and it will that is what we should do. as a new member in 2010, i remember when we had hurricane sandy and that coming up. tois us now, but it is going be you next because mother nature does not pick new york versus texas or other areas. that is a great lesson to learn. those are the things that come together. that is really an important lesson. democrats in the house, leadership in the house, pursuing their track in investigation on the trump white house -- the trump white house,

does that if he their ability to work on things like infrastructure? guest: no, you have to do oversight responsive -- response -- responsibly. but we also have to make sure we address infrastructure. and address immigration reform. you have to walk and chew gum, and that is our responsibility. host: what convinces you that they will have the ability to do that as the investigations go forward? plenty ofause with screaming, we are able to do it and there are a lot of people who are really eager to go home and say we need to fix that road, and get health care. a lot of people talked about in the last election, rising health care trainings and needing more choice in the financial marketplace you have to make sure that we address the pressing issue you cannot just turn around and say --

guest: maybe i can add a little bit here. the question of investigating and oversight, is it a legitimate and proper role of us in congress? thatcognize that we take responsibility very seriously. it is whether or not that becomes the overreach, they go beyond that. that can be devices. but as that theater is going on, there are people like josh and other folks, as well as other members that are saying, we are tired of that, too. we want to legislate. maybe with the theater going on, there will be another avenue. they have opened up a path that we can pe potentially run these possibilities that the president will sign. guest: that is the key. to make sure that in this divided government that we do our job, oversight, and address policy issues and make sure we get health care and infrastructure, and address

jobs. and we all continue to work together and do not just scream at one another. frankly that is when everyone shuts down. can we get together and figure that out? you not understand why cannot go to washington and get it done, too, that is what we pay you for. find common ground and get it done. i hope that the senate proceeds the way we do, and the white house, too, and we can get things done. host: is there a similar type of group on this side? guest: we have had some amazing meetings with 10 to 15 senators have stated couple of hours. in my tenure in congress, having that group of senators stay in a room for that amount of time is unheard of. a democratic member is going over, and one of her main platforms was to embrace this type of governing. i will tell you there are people over there that i know who want

to govern. like coryn, guys gardner, who is a good friend of mine. practical legislators who want to get things done. the is what we want, and house has evolved to this. guest: jacky rosen, members of congress, and senators we both spoke about -- bringing this problem-solving approach to the senate, i am really looking forward to working with them. they are both stars. and other members being able to say let's all sit in a room together and get this done. i think that is exactly what people want. host: two members of the home solvers caucus. representative, tom reed from new york. this is willie from cincinnati. go ahead. willie from ohio, good morning.

don in riverside, california. go ahead. refreshing. this is i am so glad to hear your guests this morning. i sure hope you can get together and get something done. time.ne project at a if i can give you that advice, and get it done, get it finished, then move onto something else. but you are really -- your resolve is more important than anything else. thank you very much. guest: thank you, sir. guest: that is what it is all about. i hear that repeatedly and i share that sentiment. we are look at the criminal justice bill. we had jared kushner reach out to us with van jones and grover norquist. they came to the pump solvers caucus months ago and floated this criminal justice reform idea. to the problem solvers caucus

months ago and floated this criminal justice reform idea. now it is about to be signed into law. that is what we are trying to spearhead -- consensus-driven opportunities. not 100% pure. there are some items that will be concerning to many of us, but at the end of the day it is a great reform. it andwe talked about said, would you consider this? would you talk to each other about it? there are folks who went in and said it is not my thing. after a couple sessions, we dug into it and said we can get behind this. and we did. guest: and smaller things, too. we had a controlled substance schedule. a former u.s. prosecutor led the charge. and there were efforts to block it from the more extreme's exceptions -- the more extreme sections of the party. but it actually got through the system and signed into law.

thing.that is a good that comment right there is why imc committed to this because i share what i think most americans share. that's why i am so committed to this because i share what i think most americans share. we respect and trust each other, and that is missing in washington. host: how do groups like the freedom caucus view what you do? guest: sometimes they view it positively. i am the artist of 12. it is in my dna i am the youngest of 12. it is in my dna. they want to legislate and get away from being obstructionist, but at the end of the day they see it as a potential threat because they are losing control, too, of their in it -- of their ability to move from the floor. it makes sense to most americans, but it is a threat to the people who have the power

concentrated in limited hands. ,e have to keep pushing forward and it is an incremental type of effort. guest: there will be people who obstruct for the sake of obstructing and want to lock everything. you have to be willing to accept everything -- and want to block everything. you have to be willing to accept that you cannot get everything that you want. one of the rules we had in our group, you cannot campaign against anybody else in the caucus because how are you supposed to develop trusting relationships and speak to one another candidly? if we had that kind of trust and culture, we would be talking to each other a lot more. i think we can work together here. i think that is the way this has to work. host: on our independent line from south carolina, kirk, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your guests' input. theve a comment regarding

$5 billion the president wants for the wall. theeems to me that he wants $5 billion, and the democrats are fighting him tooth and nail every way. but there always seems to be the money there for the support of the illegal aliens -- health care,jobs programs, day food stamps. everything is there. why can't they come up with the money for the wall? they always seem to find the resources for these other folks. i was in the service many years ago. i served in vietnam. country, and iis believe that anybody that is in this country legally is entitled to a safety net program. you can have social programs and things for our own citizens.

but i object to the illegals coming in here. host: kirk, thank you. appreciate that. thank you. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. i am greater -- i am grateful for that, to our country. problemo back, the on makingucus worked sure that dreamers have a pass, who came here with children -- guest: that is why we need to fix the border. that is why we need a secure border. and it is bigger than just a wall. if you do not fix the border, you will continue to have this problem of illegal immigration into our country. that is where reasonable members on both side i think we'll come to the conclusion -- we want a ander where folks can come

go, where we know who is coming and going, the bad guys are kept out of the country, we are protected from the bad guys who want to do us harm. and when we have a situation that we address it. we fix it. that is what border security is all about. you have to fix the problem about it illegal immigration, and that is the fundamental debate. conversation, our one of the big issues was if we take care of the 12 million folks a legally now -- the dreamers and associated folks with them -- how do we know that you are also going to fix the border? they always bring up the reagan experiment where they said we will take care of the illegal population and then we will fix the border later. that is one of the things we got creative about in terms of how to solve it, where the funding would be part of the package and would be guaranteed going forward so we could fix the border and address illegal immigration. there is frustration about that because the fellow citizens who

are here legally are struggling and are facing difficult times. why would you mayor ties the debt why would you prioritize the non-american with the american citizen? host: also passing spending bills and making sure that becomes a efficient process. guest: we have had numerous discussions on how to do that and how to make sure we are tackling the national debt. one of the things that is common among members of washington, they are concerned about the national debt. the debt is a crisis that is going on as we speak, and members recognize it. there have -- there has been a lot of openness to coming up with a solution. the only way you are going to solve this is if both sides do it. that is where the simpson bowles effort from years ago, they laid the foundation. i hope we can take this on and get it done sooner rather than later. i have talked about it

with other members and i here at home, the debt -- they say why can you not do what i do at home, which is balance my checkbook? costs are going up. panickedhat they are about in terms of health care costs and premiums keep going up, and drugs. too many holes, and they have to fix their car. there are so many issues that i think if we -- that we have the responsibility here to address and we can help with. that is our job. as we have talked about, there is lots of anxiety. technology affecting the lives. there are wonderful benefits of it, but they are concerned about the future. there are so many issues that we have the responsibility to address that are not about screaming and yelling at one another, but actually looking at how we are going to solve problems and address challenges. we recognize that you cannot just go to your wings and stay

there and not talk to each other. you have to come together and figure out a place where you can find common ground. host: steve is a democrat from new jersey. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. very concerned about the security of the united states. thered a news report that is a base being developed in venezuela that has nuclear capable jets in our backyard. i am just wondering if any of you are on the armed services committee, and is anything being done about this? can you shed some light upon this report? host: and maybe to the larger issue of discussing the border security, what are the larger issues of security? guest: the reports are concerning. you are seeing a russian

influence in the world growing, very aggressive country and russia. you have seen it in ukraine and elsewhere. we need to recognize that these threats are there. it is not so much the monroe doctrine because you have a next generation of threats out there. not only nuclear but ciber, which is a huge issue. we are a smaller world where everything is connected. armed services, and josh is not on armed services, but it is such a national parity, keeping americans secure -- is such a national priority, keeping american secure. one of the things they did do was that they were cutting very deep into the spending -- into the defense budget. i did not support it, but i recognized that the defense budget was seriously threatened over the last few years. now they have the resources to rebuild and make sure the country is secure. guest: we need to be prepared.

that is the bottom line. of threats.lot one that we focus on is helping make sure we are prepared for continued assaults and threats of terror, whether it is isis inspired or lone wolf threats here at home. the law enforcement community does an incredible job protecting us at home and around the world. i cannot thank them enough. there are many threats that we are currently facing. we have to be prepared. we have to agree that we cannot -- josh and i, coming from new jersey and new york, the lessons of 9/11 are never far. it is amazing when i go into a high school, a group of young men or women, they do not even remember that. they read about it in the history books. we know people who were killed in the 20 hours.

that reminds me why this is so important because this could have happened at any moment, a time, anywhere. and you need to be prepared. being prepared is -- guest: on saudi arabia, we are constantly watching moves around the world, whether it is hamas or isis. districteople in my lost their lives on 9/11, and the threat has not gone away. our military has done a remarkable job, the national security community, getting ahead of it. the nuclear side, nonproliferation is something we need to embrace on both sides. when i see president trump go to north korea and essentially get mocked by our national media, that was not a good thing. that was a negative thing because at least he is taking on someone who is committed to proliferating nuclear weapons,

who obviously has demonstrated that capability. he really does embrace the peace through strength model. not messing around. supportedy i never the iranian deal because i never saw the meat on the bone that whatever hold them accountable to -- that would ever hold them accountable. when you have bad actors like that ends state -- and state-sponsored things like north korea, iran, they continue to be a real threat. but you also have terrorist cells that are active in embracing and gathering nuclear capabilities. that is something we have to keep an eye on. guest: and the cyber threat continues to be a significant concern. host: we will hear from mary in maryland, republican line. we are short on time, so go ahead. caller: i am calling because the wall. we already have a debt of $21

trillion. every cent that we can spare the governors along the border are all against the wall. mr. trump needs to listen. we can increase security by , moresing manpower helicopters. there are other ways of doing it. people can be employed. i really feel the republicans, like flake and bob corker, we are losing the best republicans, and that is very sad. host: thanks, mary. i hate to cut you off there. representative reed, jake $5rman is reporting that the billion funding for the wall is on the floor. can you tell us where that is? guest: that is the next move we need to do before we go into next week.

i do nothing any decisions have been made, but it is in response to the meeting yesterday. do you have the votes for that in the house? i think they are there in the house, and this begs the question, do we do that, and put it where the real heart of this debate will be resolved acca where chuck schumer and democrats will get this resolved. to see that we have the votes in the house to get this done and see what the senate can come up with. host: when democrats take the house next year, what is the goal of the problem solvers caucus? what is the main driver? guest: we just went through a whole real organization effort. one of the best things about the caucus is that it is driven by the members. a lot of the issues we dealt with -- immigration, health care, infrastructure -- are opportunities that we see over the next session. they you get into issues like drug pricing, health research, nih.

there was a host of national security issues. they come as member driven. our job is to represent the membership of the concord -- of the caucus and to make sure we are agile and able to respond. we needwo levels where to respond is in drug prices and infrastructure. representative tom reed of new jersey. the both of you gentlemen, thank you very much. we will continue on with the question we started with this morning, concerning funding of the border wall. if you want to see the government shut down over it or maybe you do not, he of us a call if you support the president path threat to shut down the government for funding. we will have that discussion when we come back.

announcer: when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse class in history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span, january 3. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television company's. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: sunday night on "q&a" -- party hadrican nazi

20,000 supporters who came to at madison square garden in new york. that rally was on george washington's birthday. theas associated with phrase "america first." churchwellsarah looks at the history of the terms "america first" and "the american dream" in her book "behold america." on "q&a." announcer: washington journal continues. host: the president yesterday in meeting with leaders from both the house and senate, the discussion turning to border wall funding, the president saying he would shut down the government if he did not see the money that he wanted for border wall issues. we are getting your thoughts on

that this morning. let us know and get us input on that. you can call us on the phone lines. you can reach out to us on @c-span wj. saying a very bad terror attack in france. we are going to strengthen our border even more. they must give us the votes to get additional border security. $150dent obama gave iran billion and got nothing. they cannot give us $5 billion for national security and a wall? also yesterday, one of the people giving their input on the president's threat and the issues, the events that took place in the white house, was senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. appearing before cameras after a lunch meeting, here is what he had to say. mcconnell: i understand

it was a rather spirited meeting. we all watched. but i would still like to see a smooth ending here, and i have not given up hope that that is what we will have. schumer shutthe down in january, right? over an entirely different issue. one thing that is pretty clear no matter who precipitates the government shutdown, the american people do not like it. it will be avoided and both sides will understand that is not a great way to end what has, in my view, been the most successful congress, right of center, in decades. host: if you support the idea of a shutdown over border wall security, call and tell us why 202-748-8000. if you oppose the idea, it is 202-748-8001. on social media, you can post at

signc-span the bj. .- c-span wj the meeting that took place at the white house yesterday, john dingell giving us his thoughts, saying it was unfortunate to watch the president melting down, pray for our beloved country. also, representative gwen moore saying that trump's throwing away $5 billion of american taxpayer money on a wasteful wall. let's get to know taxpayer funding for the wall act passed and end this mess once and for all. to shut downfound the government services and put the economy at risk. all to get his way on a wall that most americans do not support. this is not governing, this is a tantrum. this is a tweet from jamie

gomez, highlighting that and giving us thoughts on the funding itself. you can add your input on our @c-spanwj.d donna, good morning. go ahead. caller: first of all, the man who is in the white house has lots of investments in cement. i am sure he would be very happy to put walls up all over the country. how about the 4000 miles on the northern border with canada. if he is going to keep this up, in the first place, we should find out why so many people are coming here from south and central america, what has happened in their country, and why the leaders of the countries have fallen down on their obligations to support their people. from there, we move forward.

if it is a gang problem come we should offer to come in there and help them get rid of the gangs. the republicans do not want to think about any of that. all they think about is there wealthy, gray-haired, potbellied, retirees. host: let's go to chris in fredericksburg, virginia, who opposes the effort. caller: good morning to my fellow listeners. i opposed this government shutdown. worker,eral government this goes beyond any type of comprehension. beennment workers have subject to shut down after shutdown over partisan issues, and i think keeping the government open, keeping americans working, the thousands of americans that work in the federal government, and their not worththis is playing political hardball over. keep the government over. -- keep the government we can

fight about order security at a later date or time. keep americans working. keep the government open. host: have you been prompted by your agency about a government shutdown? have you gotten any advisement from them? caller: no. host: what has happened with your economic situation regard to government shutdowns? caller: thankfully, the banking institution that i have has been pretty understanding about government shutdowns. they credit us with our normal pay. but why should we even have to do that? host: what branch of the government do you work for? caller: dod. host: that is chris. -- in in corporate crissy

corpus christi, texas. go ahead. opinion, it is sad that they are being used as trump cards, but they reality is -- no one has addressed it -- the man has said mexico is going to pay for it. aren't they speaking up? they are cowards. the men specifically through his campaign said mexico. where are we at with that? i would like people to step up and say something about it. walter is in maryland, a supporter of a shutdown. go ahead. caller: good morning, everybody. listen, i would rather he get $5 billion for the wall then have or $30d $20 billion billion a year supporting the illegal aliens that make it across the border. what is this all about? votes for the democrats. we know it. it has been that way for a number of years now.

the important thing to remember is that president trump is trying to protect the borders and the u.s. people, not trying to bring in the world. host: how does the shutdown achieve all that? caller: it will force the democrats to talk. we need to have some people talking to each other. yesterday was the beginning. when you have two people ganging up on the president at the same time, i saw the whole thing. i appreciate what the president was trying to do. took since the president responsibility, do you think ultimately republicans take responsibility if the government shuts down? caller: i doubt that. both parties are going to go after each other. that is the way it has always been. the president said he would take the heat, and he will, believe me. host: this is donna on our opposed line from kentucky. caller: i think they should shut down the government and get rid

of donald trump and throw him out. ast: why do you oppose shutdown of government over this issue? caller: donald trump wants to make a name for himself. all he is is a predator. it is time for people to wake up. it is time for america to wake up and know what he is. int: that is donnie kentucky. this is done from pennsylvania. -- this is don from pennsylvania. caller: yes, i would like to make a comment about the wall. the problem is that the alternatives of building the wall, donald says that mexico is going to pay for the wall. i have a fantastic idea. he is already spreading wire down across the border. why doesn't he just put up solar panels and build the wall out of solar panels, and then mexico will pay for the wall and we would not be in this.

beironmentalists would happy. all the democrats would be happy. all the republicans would be happy, and we would be -- host: a question. do you oppose a shutdown over this? caller: i believe we ought to give him $5 million. it ought to be a solar panel wall. host: you made that point, but as far as a shutdown is concerned, do you oppose a shutdown specifically? -- i oppose the shutdown of the government at any point. i believe they ought to compromise on this wall to prevent the shutdown in order to build the wall, but do it with common sense out of materials that the people can benefit from instead of brick-and-mortar. his: that is tom giving thoughts on this exchange that

took place yesterday, in which the president said he would take responsibility for a shutdown of the government over border wall funding. we can agree that we do not want to shut the government down over a dispute. pres. trump: the last time you shut it down and the you opened it very quickly. i do not do -- i do not want to do what you did. you have said it. pres. trump: you know what i am saying -- yes, if we do not get what we want, one way are the other, whether it is through you, the military, anything you want to call it, i will shut down the government. and i am proud to shut down the government for border security, because the people of this country do not want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. i will take the mantle. i will be the one to shut it down. i am not going to blame you for an. the last time you shut it down,

it did not work. i am going to shut it down for border security. thank you, everybody. host: if you want to see that exchange, go to our website at c-span.org. and weur facebook page have posted a poll that you can participate in. ago, a couple of seconds over 7000 people are responding. you can do so as well. you can also give your thoughts there. you can call us on the phone line. louise, from our opposed line. go ahead. you are on. go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to know how much fuel has been wasted on air force one to fly trump down to florida to play golf and to go out and do all these rallies. host: we are talking about a potential shutdown or you say you are opposing that. caller: this is going right on

it. that money could have been spent on the border wall. what good is that border wall going to do when the cartels have got tunnels into the united states? they will just start coming through that way. up next iny wisconsin, a supporter of a potential shutdown. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of questions and a couple of points. thank you for c-span, and it is a pleasure to talk to you, sir. in the scheme of things, $5 billion is not a lot. is the only rallying cry the republican party has. i do not understand why -- if isolationism, and if obama ran on isolationism come and if trump ran on isolationism, why are we even discussing this? it is never even brought up. the legal ramifications, the

legislation that went through , it was designated to become a wall in 2006. it is now 2018, 2019, and we are still arguing about legislation that passed 13 years ago. host: do you have a shutdown? caller: if the government is going to shut down regarding parts of legislation for 13 years, why isn't it shutdown already? host: spelling it out, you think the president should shut down the government over this? caller: in my mind, sir, in my ignorant mind, it seems to be the case in so far as legislation has been passed regarding the wall being built in 2006. the government should have been shutdown. host: from maryland, go head. this is bill. caller: hey. i support what the president is trying to do.

i do not think he is doing anything different than what the previous caller mentioned about -- i think it was even done before that with clinton. there has been public comment from obama and from schumer in ae past about supporting border wall. i do understand why the democrats are all up in arms now . in the past they obviously supported this effort, this type of effort. trump is not just pulling this out of thin air. this is something that the border patrol, the border has definitely, been behind and agree that it is the most effective way to take care of this issue. host: what do you think about the president resorting to a shutdown over this? caller: i do think he wants to shut the government down. i believe that he is making a stand, as he should, because this is something that has been legislated for years. all about getting things

done and doing things for the american people. host: do you think it is worth a shutdown? caller: if the democrats want to continue to resist something that they have been for in the past, this is ridiculous. host: do you think it is worth a shutdown? it is: yeah, i do believe worth a shutdown. but it should not come to that. the politicians are being ridiculous. the obstructionists that goes on right now with the congress is unwarranted. host: that is bill and marilyn, giving his thoughts about supporting or opposing -- that is bill in maryland, giving his for shutting down the government. particularly the senate when it comes to the future of the farm bill, the senate passing that it hundred $67 billion farm bill. it will head to the house -- farmng that $867 billion

bill. it will head to the house. not shrinkhey were individual benefits, the final bill includes several changes to the snap program. among them is a new national accuracy clearinghouse, which will prevent individuals from receiving food stamp benefits according to congressional aides. --ng them is -- the final they would be high performance related to access. more of that story is that "the washington post." here is carol in silver spring, maryland. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. first i want to say i am a native american, i am a woman, i am a democrat, and i support everything that president trump is doing. he is trying to protect us. i do not get how people think it

is ok for undocumented, illegal people to come in this country. there is a process, and it needs to be followed, and he is just trying to protect us. i do not get it. host: why do you support a shutdown? caller: it has got to happen some way. and i am a government employee. host: so you would be personally affected by this? caller: yes. host: house of? caller: i wouldn't -- host: how so? caller: i would not be able to come to work. that only those agencies do not have the budget approved. it is not a complete government shutdown. host: that is carol in maryland, giving us her perspective on a government shutdown. from north carolina, on the line who support this effort, sandy, go ahead. say,r: yes, i just want to

i love how people put words in our president's mouth. he said the wall is part of the package he is talking about. lookednd chuck ridiculous yesterday, and i to shutthat if he has it down, there are a lot of americans out here backing him, and they had better -- in 2020, it is going to come back and bite him in the butt. our president is trying to help us. i have spanish people that live around me in stuff -- around me and stuff. i live in a trailer park that is mostly spanish people. i bet you 80% of them are here illegally. you hear officers and cops coming in here and stuff because they do not give a crap about us. all they care about is free, free, free, on the backs of americans. i am a taxpayer. use my money to build the wall. host: that is sandy in north

carolina. michael cohen, in the paper this morning, kevin mccoy in the pages of "usa today," saying did michael: come clean about every crime known? not know foro sure, and that is one reason they will not recommend leniency for the 52-year-old attorney. for which they say he deserves some credit, but they wrote that he should not be spared prison time as he requested. they urge the district court judge to sentence him to 42 months, still a substantial term of imprisonment. there is a long-standing legal protocol. a story concerning paul manafort also on the same page. saying a federal judge has set a tentative hearing for genuine

25, disputing whether -- for january 25. bowie, a caller from maryland, on our opposed line. caller: i have friends who work in the federal government. was correct, this would not be a total government shutdown. yet using this as a way in order to advance the building of a wall, i feel this is irresponsible because there are other ways in order to achieve the same goal. why go ahead and have employees not being able to work, especially before the holidays, in order to achieve this process? host: from maine, joseph is next . good morning. caller: good morning. yes, this is absolutely ridiculous. i hear people on the other side

using the term "resist." where did that come from? the lies that donald trump used telling about the immigrants, who they are -- what happened about the talk about middle easterners? it is all lies. yesterday he brought up 10 terrorists. more lies. so donald trump is going to be fact checked in every meeting, in every tv show, and the people on his side are going to see a mountain of lies crumble down upon him so he can call for a wall. what happened to the mexicans paying for it? host: why do you specifically oppose a shutdown over this? caller: why would we shutdown and cause people more harm, more financial losses to have his parade, his show, his tv show? you see him leaning up in his chair like he really had something to say. host: jerry in dayton, ohio, a

supporter of the wall. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry, my name is janyy. you notice that chuck schumer does not look at the president at all. nancy and chuck are dancing to the tune of corporations and businesses that want cheap labor, and they want these immigrants to come in and work illegally. that is what nancy and chuck get their donations from. i am not saying that is all, but that is a sizable amount. us,ou want to see who is on you see donald trump leaning forward in his chair. anybody who has ever done and interrogation will tell you that somebody leaning forward is a sign of honesty. chuck schumer never looks at trump in the eye at all. that is a sign of dishonesty. they know that president trump is doing what is best for

america, and they are doing what is best for their owners. host: jerry, dayton ohio, calling about the president yesterday. if you want to see that whole exchange, we would point you to our website at c-span.org. one of the questions on capitol hill is a relationship that the united states should have with saudi arabia. this week, a vote in the senate that could at least discuss the future of relations between us and the kingdom of saudi arabia. joining us to talk about that rollcall, good morning to you, sir. walking us through the votes that are plans this week regarding the relationship between the u.s. and saudi arabia. guest: there are a couple of things in play. know, what we

know this morning, probably sometime this afternoon, we are going to see the senate vote proceed to a joint resolution under the war powers resolution that would effectively end u.s. support for the war in yemen, being led by the saudis. proceeding to that, the next thing that the senate will have to decide is what exactly the rules are of this debate. remarkably, the senate really never had a war powers resolution debate. these expedited procedures that is available to the senate, but it is not something they have used before. the first question will probably be a vote on some sort of motion made by bob corker, the retiring

chairman of the foreman relations -- of the foreign relations committee, who will china and set the parameters for what kind of amendments may be and set-- who will try the parameters for what kind of amendments may be offered, who will try to see what kind of amendments are germane to the yemen matter. to perhaps short-circuit the broader debate on the whole of the u.s.-saudi arabia relationship. host: in your opinion, what is the temperature of the senate as a whole in seeing this passed? guest: if you had to hold the vote right now, this resolution as written would pass. i think there may be some movement forward on a resolution, typically a

nonbinding revolution -- nonbinding resolution, criticizing the crown prince of saudi arabia and the saudi government for various recent actions, most notably the murder of journalist jamal khashoggi in the consulate in istanbul. so that is a separate piece, most likely. of those could advance, but one thing i will say is we are also expecting sort of simultaneously -- the house is likely to adopt a rule for debating, of all things, the farm bill that also includes language basically saying that they do not have to take up the yemen resolution during this congress. so even though there are expedited procedures, even if the senate passes something, we do not expect anything to go further than that. votes,n light of these

what has been the reaction from the trump administration and the upper level of the federal government? guest: obviously the president has been more supportive of saudi arabia than most anyone on capitol hill in either party. particular as well as some other aggressive actions by the saudi government, including the incident involving -- excuse me, the minister in lebanon. and other things that have riled up people on capitol hill. that as you have probably seen, and as your viewers may have seen, there was an interview with reuters that president trump did, that reuters news service published last night, in

which basically he said he was still on the side of mohammad bin salman, at least for now. host: if votes in the senate are scheduled, they take place -- i know you cover the senate side -- what is the interest in the house doing the same? onst: it goes to this vote the farm bill. the actual substantive yemen measure is probably not on the agenda, almost certainly will not be on the agenda in the house. however, this is all going to get much more interesting. because this is not necessarily one bite at the apple situation. whomever thesi, or speaker in the house next year, or house democrats wanted to afterorward on something january 3, it would be in their

power as the majority. then the question would come back to mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans as to whether or not take whatever shot across the about that the house bow that -- across the the house democrats might take. host: what are we watching for in the next couple of hours? thet: the first thing is position on the yemen resolution, and the second thing is if there is any agreement that can be reached on sanctions for saudi arabia, or if all they can come up with is a nonbinding resolution. whether or not the action more broadly against the kingdom has any teeth. rollcall,report from niels lesniewski.

regarding saudi arabia and the relationship we have with them. niels lesniewski, thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you. host: joining us now from .allas, texas, robert jordan diplomat resident of the -- of the power center. would you scope out the relationships between the united states and the kingdom these days? guest: i would say it is probably at its lowest point since 9/11. it is a very serious situation that we find ourselves in, an ally perhaps gone road. we are -- gone rogue. we are trying to scramble on how to rein him in and how -- what it means for the future of our relationship. host: that the senate is

planning votes on the relationship, addressing the relationship with yemen overall, what does that say about the appetite of this government regarding saudi arabia? i think it is encouraging that the senate is taking up where the executive branch failed. we are seeing now some leadership from the senate, particularly corker, graham, and others. it is important to realize that we have three branches of government here. the senate has been relatively silent lately on foreign affairs, and i think they are realizing now that some elements in president trump's administration do not seem interested in the kinds of values america has stood for throughout its history, and they are now standing up to that. host: what is your perception as far as the president's support for saudi arabia? guest: it is mystifying for me.

therems to be he thinks is a binary choice here -- it are you condemn and completely eliminate the relationship, or you stand solidly by this crown prince. there are many areas that constitute a middle ground. that is what diplomacy is about. diplomacy should be used to modify the behavior, to condemn the murder, to condemn any kinds of rogue activities, which would include a senseless war in yemen, a blockade of qatar. this is a range of activity here that needs to be dealt with, and the saudis need to understand, and hopefully the unders -- hopefully the adults in the room in saudi need to understand. this ambassador is off the rails. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8000 for democrats. you were the ambassador to saudi arabia on september 11. how would you characterize the relationship between then and now? we certainly reached a low point after 9/11. i arrived in riyadh about a month after the united states was attacked on 9/11. the question was, were the saudis friend or foe? were they behind the attacks on 9/11? i spend a great deal of time sorting that out, then with princes almon -- with salman, now with king salman. we finally turned a corner with them and they became a solid ally within a few months after that. i think if you compare it to today, we have to have some diplomacy today as well.

unfortunately for two years we have not had an ambassador in riyadh, so we have not had someone on the ground day to day in their face reminding them of what our alliance stands for and the values that we hold so important. what they constitute. thankfully, the president has identified general john abbott is a to be ambassador. i know him well. on the groundm properly, and i hope the senate will confirm him properly. host: if that were to happen, what would be the direct line of statements the ambassador should make concerning our current relations? best: i think he needs to quite vocal. the kind of conduct we have seen with this crown prince is not consistence with -- is not consistent with an alliance with the united states. items in our toolbox concerning this level.

he could certainly make it clear to the saudi's that going forward, we have an alliance that is important. the alliance is with saudi arabia, not personally with mbs. in the saudi government who can influence the conduct going forward. host: could you briefly scope out how we ended up as an ally to saudi arabia, particularly in yemen? the alliance goes back to 1945 between king aziz and franklin eleanor roosevelt. that we would provide a security umbrella in exchange with uninterrupted flows of oil from the kingdom. we have felt it is important to protect saudi arabia's territory and integrity. they have been an adversary of the saudis, an adversary of the

public government that the saudis installed in yemen more recently after the arab spring. efforts tosupported resist the houthi takeover in other parts of yemen. the iranians saw an opportunity to come in, so our grant strategy of resisting any incursions by iran fit in well with saudi national interest in resisting the houthis. host: our first call for you comes from maryland, democrats line. jeff, you are on with our guest here it go ahead. caller: thanks a lot for c-span. i was hoping you would clarify what all the tension is between qatar and saudi arabia, and how that sort of cop locates the efforts to sort of navigate foreign policy in the middle east and what the implications for connections with other

arab countries. in that region. guest: good questions. haveaudis and the qataris had significant animosity over the years. resistant.een they have supported the muslim rutherford, including the brotherhood's attempt to take the hosni mubarak in egypt, installation of morsi, and the resistance that the muslim brotherhood has demonstrated both to the royal families in the uae and saudi arabia. qatar has been viewed as a destabilizing influence by the saudis. they have supported al jazeera, a newspaper that has been pro-iranian and anti-saudi over the years, and a television

station there as well. they have given refuge to figures in has been law and hamas. the saudis have made demands over the years that qatar sees their support of these activities. so the saudis instituted this blockade along with the uae and egypt and bahrain. this is a few that has now risen to a significant level, probably one that the saudis and m emiratesould -- and would resist. america has a significant effort in resolving this. our largest military base is in qatar. we need them to play a role in the gulf, and they should not be driven into the arms of iran or turkey as a result of this blockade. vegas, nevada, ron on our republican line. you are on to the go-ahead. caller: ambassador?

, during theis this course of the last administration, the entire middle east became very chaotic, and a lot of problems developed eriod of time. it is my belief that the president is working very firmly to modify everything, and the way i look at it, if we leave him alone and let him do his job, and he did not have so much opposition, i believe he will get it done. the saudis, of course -- i have mixed feelings about the saudis because i believe there is a possibility that during the course of 9/11, that could have been an issue which we may have had a lot of responsibility for, which i don't think that has

ever been proven. the most important part i think that could happen right now is, let the president do what he is attempting to dupe you mentioned a number of times, what our values are. but those are our values. the middle east is an entirely different situation here in their values have nothing to do with us. what we need to do is take a direct hit on how to solve these issues, irrespective of what our values or their values. host: caller, thank you. answer really the depends on what you think the president is accomplishing with the saudis. it is certainly not resolving the israeli-palestinian conflict, which i think has been a grand design of the president and jared kushner. the saudis have not been helpful in that regard, and the israelis seem to have very little interest in settling with the palestinians, so that conflict

continues. i think we have not seen progress in terms of the saudi economic plan. they have been unable to score the ipo for aramco. they have been unable to finance finance the grand designs i have. -- so the public relations side is good, while the mckenzie reports look good, i'm not sure what it is that the president is actually doing more accomplishing with the saudi's that we should be so deferential to. there are certain things that are universally human rights, regardless of whether they are simply american values, they are universal values. there is a universal declaration of human rights. murdering a washington post journalists, living -- washington post journalist living in virginia, is not -- regardless of saudi values. host: in your opinion we should have taken a stronger stand against the death of jamal khashoggi?

guest: absolutely. all we have done is canceled that of the murder team conducted the hit. all that really means is they can no longer visit the u.s. and go to disneyland. there is something more found that needs to be done. we need to provide stronger sanctions and a stronger condemnation of this murder. host: sanctions such as what? guest: i think we can slow down the arms sales to the saudi's. we don't have to accomplish all of this instantaneously. we can use our leverage with the saudi's to bargain with them over the conduct of the yemen , andthe blockade on qatar their apparent campaign to -- dissidentsnce around the world by kidnapping them, bringing them to saudi arabia, and inflict bodily harm on them. there are plenty of tools and toolbox,x, -- in our

economic sanctions, spare parts for the airport, and i think it's quite important that the private sector make a stand. foreign investment in saudi arabia needs to halt right now, international corporations need to understand that their policies on corporate social responsibility also stand -- extend to doing business with murderers. host: and many who were attending that would -- was it thecancellation of many to saudi arabia and conference a good sign? guest: it was. and i think they need to keep the pressure on. they are in a unique position to do it because the saudi's are very desperate for foreign direct investment. host: from florida, on the democrats line. hello. caller: we need to put up a , it could beall done by innovation parking in

tallahassee. caller, this segment is about the relationship between the united states and saudi arabia, do you have anything to add to that yet again -- that? caller: yes, we have an energy process, using ocean currents. the ocean currents will power electricity. , we will even there. as far as the ability as it is the united states, in its ability to produce oil, does it change our relationship with saudi arabia and to have sway? guest: yes. we still import several million barrels a day of a particular kind of saudi crude. i think we have to bear in mind that even though we are relatively independent from an energy standpoint, the rest of the world is not. so what happens to the price of oil coming out of saudi arabia affects our allies, japan,

europe, and many other parts of the world. we still have to be attuned to that. but our unique reliance on the saudi's gives us more leverage with the saudi's, as we see her today. we are the senior partner in this relationship. duane,rom georgia, from on the independent line. good morning. i hear a lot about khashoggi being killed, but i don't hear any reason why. administration, we had a president drone a u.s. citizen and kill him. , -- butidn't know why we did know why, he had joined isis. reason whyy possible

couldink that khashoggi have been killed? i can think of a bunch of them, ,hat he could no and if he knew and was working for the cia, not only with the saudi's have had --him, but had he but had he had knowledge like a staunch -- like julian assange, we would have taken him out. host: caller, thank you. guest: there are all sorts of conspiracy. about every human being on earth if you want to hypothesize, but let's look at the facts. jamal khashoggi was a respected newspaper columnist and editor in saudi arabia. he had differing views on the future saudi arabia, he never call for violence, never call

for the overthrow the regime, but he did call for a freer werety in which dissidents not jailed for political opinions. he took refuge in the united states. he wrote columns critical of the crown prince. we do know according to the reports from international media is that his calls were monitored , including calls with a colleague in canada. we know the crown prince orchestrated a campaign of rendition, bringing dissidents to saudi arabia for discipline or other treatment. he was viewed as dangerous by the crown prince, simply because he was critical. last year the saudi's passed terrorismn defining is any criticism of the king or the crown prince. attitudes kind of towards criticism and dissidents

, i think it goes a long way toward defining why he was killed. host: you talk about pressure outside of the kingdom towards the kingdom, what sense you have of pressure inside the kingdom to make changes to leadership or otherwise to resolve this issue? guest: given the history of last year's roundup at the ritz-carlton of many senior saudi royals and business people , there is a seething resentment now among the senior ranks of the saudi's against this crown prince. he is most unpopular i think within many branches of his family. whether they will do something about it remains to be seen. he has replaced the heads of the military, the heads of the national guard, and the heads of his security services with his own people. but the rank-and-file may still be loyal to some of the more senior predecessors, who had been in office for many years. the king of course, gives his son great license here.

i think it's going to be difficult to replace him. but there are known to be criticisms within many branches of the royal family. host: is it the king who makes that decision? guest: there is a family council but the king can generally trump that. there are 35 senior princes who make decisions on who the crown prince and next king should pay. when king solomont passes away there is some likelihood that there will be a debate within the royal family as to whether this crown prince deserves a promotion. host: from matt, in maryland, on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my and thank you for emphasizing human rights, especially universal human rights. i wanted to ask, how do you think human rights plays in our relationship with saudi arabia? obviously not enough where we are putting sanctions on them, but this is a country that just started allowing women to drive.

guest: this is a long-standing conundrum that i think western nations have in dealing with countries that do not have the same kinds of records on human rights. you can even look back to world , we made an uneasy alliance with joseph stalin and the soviet union to win a war. sometimes you have to make alliances with very unsavory characters in order to achieve a greater goal. right now we don't have the kind of existential's -- existential threats that we faced in world war ii, so we can be more selective in who are allies are. having said that, the saudi's are still important to us. they maintain a flow of oil to the rest of the world, they are important in the muslim world, custodians of the holy mosque in mecca and medina. they occupy an important

geographic area and they have been reliable allies in fighting isis and al qaeda along with other terrorist activities over the years. we still have value to this relationship. but we can also have disagreements with allies. .e can even sanction allies this is where we have to calibrate it. it's not an either/or situation. host: how to characterize the secretary of state's role in spelling out how we stand with saudi arabia? guest: that's an important spokesman, his authority is derivative of the president. so if he has a confidence in the president and can speak with the president like jim baker did, for example, with bush 41, then you have an effective secretary of state. i think the secretary of state is still getting his footing. i think he is trying to thread a needle in maintaining an alliance, and at the same time not supporting every idea that

the saudi's come up with. he is in a tough spot. host: from maryland, on the independent line, then, hello. --ben, hello. caller: i have opposed the president on almost every issue except this one. i think this is a mistake that we make over and over again in our foreign policy. 1979, this back in because the iranian revolution. i think this is a matter that should be handled in private, it should not be a political issue. we need all of the allies. now the biggest threats, iran, turkey, are already on that side. abandoning saudi arabia over any other ally would create a problem for the u.s..

making the same mistakes we made in 1979, and weing a strong ally are doing it again with saudi arabia. this will cost us in the long term. all the problems we have today can be linked to the bad choices made in our foreign policy and , thereith human rights is a lot of death happening in russia, deaths of journalists in turkey, this has become such a big political issue, i think it was wrong and i disagree with it. but i think it should not be dealt with publicly. host: with gotcha caller, you have made that point. ambassador, go ahead. guest: i go back to my previous

statement, yes we have to maintain a relationship with the saudi's, but at the same time we are not simple he talking about some abstract sense of human rights. we are not talking about freedom of assembly or of the press, we are talking about a murder. a state-sponsored murder of an and americandent journalist employee at the washington post. i think a stand has to be made. you don't have to cancel the alliance. it's not binary, it's not a false economy. host: compare and contrast the relationship we have with saudi arabia verse our previous administration. guest: there are some similarities. one thing that president obama said and president trump said is that the saudi's and other health monarchies need to take more responsibility for their own neighborhood.

this has led to a more aggressive foreign policy by the saudi's. in some sense there is a similarity. i will say that president obama was known for being more on the general concept of human rights, and this president seems to be more interested in the commercial and what economic benefits the saudi's can provide to us. i think he's ignoring the saudi's. ambassador robert jordan is joining us for this discussion, he served as the former ambassador during the george w. bush administration from 2001 to 2003, also the author of the book desert diplomat: inside saudi arabia following 9/11. , -- my apologies, we will hear from william in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you ambassador.

, is thison is this grandstanding political opposition to gay print in the headlines? hundreds of reporters and media people are killed around the to stay in the headlines? hundreds of reporters and media people are killed around the -- why doeshis one this one dominate the headlines? i just cannot believe that one dominate the headlines. these explained to me. i'm senior citizen. so in my. and i think that's a legitimate question. i think the reason has to do -- and that's a legitimate question. i think the reason has to do with jamal khashoggi, he was a well-known citizen in the middle east and had a relationship with the saudi's over the air. he was murdered in such a graphic and brutal way i think it has caught the attention of many around the world. he was also an employee of the washington post, and they are

not taking his murder lightly. they have kept the story alive in a responsible and accurate way. it does contrast, somewhat. if you talk to some people on the street in yemen, they say what are people talking about the murders by the saudi's of the yemenis? this same crown prince is responsible for perhaps a hundred murders a day through the acts of war in yemen. i think it's a legitimate issue. when people are being killed around the world, there is sometimes a sense of just taking it in stride. khashoggi's murder reminds us that there is no such thing as taking a murder in stride. host: is the previously about revolution --en resolution. chris murphy commented on that, a democrat from connecticut.

in his thinking he said i think the resolution itself is a sufficient-- is answer to the khashoggi scandal because it's the most important foreign-policy -- yet, and pulling out is a significant hit. a point,think he has but i think there are ways to feather our support of the saudi's. and i think there are ways to try to bring the yemen conflict to a resolution. we need to use our support, or withdrawal of support of the saudi's, as a means of bringing an end to the conflict, and not closing at any opportunity for us to play a role. i think in a sense, saying that the war in yemen loses our support may be a blunt instrument. i think the threat is perhaps stronger than the actual execution.

ali from falls church, virginia. caller: hello. you previously said several times that my people, and saudi arabia, are backwards. changedng if you have your mind, if that is something you want to apologize for. this is a very xenophobic thing to say about people. i hope you will also talk about your meetings and why he refused to meet with those who want to have democracy, just like what you have in the united states. thank you. guest: ali, with due respect i don't know what your talking about. i've never said the saudi's are backward, i said many people are resistant to the kind of change that we have seen from the days goingg basil -- fazel

forward. they have resisted education for girls on television and radio. they have resisted women driving, there are cultures in many parts, but not all of them, that has resisted this. that's what i'm talking about and i think you know that. i have not refused to meet with anyone. during my time as ambassador i met with you and others. i met with dissidents from time to time in london and elsewhere. there are many ways i think where we can try to find ways of agreement. but we don't really need to make false facts on this broadcast. the currente heard print discuss his desire to modernize aspects of saudi society, how is he doing? guest: some of this is a public relations game. the notion of letting women ande is very important,

it's an important role for them to play in society by being able to drive. but at the same time he has imprisoned the very same women who were agitating for that right, and has made it clear that they really do not have rights. they have privileges granted by the crown prince and anyone who tries to claim a have basic rights and saudi arabia is likely to be arrested and detained. this is where i would agree with the number of the critics of the regime, there needs to be a much stronger emphasis on allowing the people the freedoms that we think are universal. host: what is the press situation in saudi arabia? guest: until recently the press had a certain degree of latitude. they were, in many ways, self censored. we are announcing a number of figures either dismissed from , andyment, detained certainly not to the same level we have seen in turkey, but

there is a greater sense of limitation on what is acceptable. next on the democrats line, in jacksonville, florida. hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: i want to thank ambassador. his information was extremely helpful for me to understand how things are happening and how we relate to them. i would like to stay -- to say that he is correct, i can see the similarity of the way these dictators behave and the way our president is behaving. we lose a he says, if valuable ally in saudi arabia, he must be taking it personally, as i understand we have not had 9/11,assador there since when they would not even allow us to investigate that they might have perpetrated the thing.

so i don't understand what the president is saying. i would like to conclude by saying ambassador, thank you. i appreciate you being on the air. .uest: thank you let me clarify one thing. we did not have an ambassador on the ground at the time of 9/11. the ambassador arrived a month after 9/11, and that was me. we have had ambassadors in saudi arabia since 9/11 with the notable exception of the last two years, when this president has failed to even nominate someone for that role. hopefully that will now be corrected with the announcement amsygeneral mc -- general is going to be nominated. much as ambassador how access to have two top leaders in saudi arabia? could you call for a meeting? guest: i had great access when i was there, the king had suffered

a stroke and the country was being run by crown present dilemma -- crown prince abdu llah. i also dealt with his foreign-policy advisor on a weekly if not daily basis. and he is now the foreign minister of saudi arabia. as the american ambassador, you have almost unlimited access. and it's a close relationship even if we don't agree on everything. john, on the republican line, from mississippi. go ahead. jordan, it'ssador good to talk to you. i wanted to ask you about the role of journalism in the world. i think even here in the united hannity, allcosta, these guys are supposed to be journalists but in reality they are trying to do what khashoggi did. and try to do in saudi arabia.

to influence policy and change in the government and the way it functions. do you think that undermines democracy? guest: i think in many ways it enhances democracy. if using back to our founding fathers, journalism was very important, thomas payne and other journalists expressing opinions were extremely important in the founding days of our democracy. style disagree with the of these people, that i think many thousands of americans have fought and died for the ability of us to maintain a free press. host: it was here in washington yesterday that senator joni ernst appeared at a forum to discuss many things, one of the thing she talked about was the yemen resolution and her concerns about how it might affect larger issues of peace talks worldwide. i want to play a bit of that conversation and get responses. >> i think two separate issues, we do have the murder of

journalist khashoggi, which we cannot overlook. terribleost a man to human rights violations. he was outright murdered. we know that. and whatave to do those consequences are, i see it as right now, separate from the discussion of the saudi's and their actions in yemen engaging the feast -- the houthis. the other week, we are engaged in peace talks etween saudi's and the houthis rebels, that discussion started last week and the united states was in for -- instrumental in getting those two parties to the table. so engaging in a discussion of pulling u.s. presence out of that region, and not engaging, puts those he stalks -- peace

talks and jeopardy in my mind. so on one hand we have the khashoggi issue, separately we have issues between terrorists, and what is going on in yemen, and the saudi's, and their engagement. at some point they will merge together, but right now we want to focus on is making sure we can get through these peace ands so the houthis saudi's can work out an agreement and we need to come back and revisit the khashoggi murder. host: ambassador, what do you think of that assessment? guest: there is some validity to what she has said, and this goes back to what i said earlier, the threat of withdrawing support from the war in yemen may be our most effective tool right now. but it is also important that we have never had a public debate

inut the role of congress authorizing military conflict. there is a link between the show he murder and the crown princes -- between the khashoggi murder and the crown prince's initiation of the war in yemen. that's a pattern of reckless activity, activity that has led to what is called the world largest humanitarian crisis in yemen. it's important to find resolution. we have not seen this administration, from the executive branch, exercise any kind of supervisory role. any kind of restraint on the brutality of the war, on the indiscriminate bombing of school buses full of children, for example. i think it is understandable that congress would now need to step in, and say wait a minute. this is not the kind of war to be prosecuted this way.

are useful, but only if the administration is also going to provide some kind of restraint on this crown prince. host: one more call from mike, in ohio, on the independent line. caller: good morning gentlemen. mr.k you for your service, ambassador. i can see or a serious person. my question is this, i think we have inserted ourselves in a proxy war between iran and saudi arabia, with israel involved. it seems to me that we farmed out our foreign policy to the state of israel. i think you would maybe agree that countries really do not have friends, they has interests . sometimes our interests do not coincide. it would not surprise me one bit if the saudi arabians were aided by mossad, in mr. khashoggi's

murder. it seems to me outrageous, especially when you have the national security chief, john bolton, when asked about listening to the audio tape of this man being murdered -- well i don't speak arabic, i don't know what he said. but i think it's outrageous. host: ambassador, go ahead. guest: i think ambassador bolton's comment was inappropriate and not well thought out. he should have listened to it to get the feeling for the desperation, the brutality of the moment. i don't think you need to speak arabic to understand that part , and he had access to the translations. i think it's important to recognize that we don't have evidence that israel was involved. that's all speculation right now . what we do now is the saudi's

were involved. the crown prince was involved. basiss sufficient actual for us to take more aggressive action than we have. host: even and might of the current concerns, do you think it will be business as usual approach when it comes to the future of saudi arabia and the u.s.? i think it depends on who is making those decisions. there are a lot of levels at which we can say this kind of conduct shouldn't go forward, even though we have a lot of business to do with the saudi's. i think the private sector has a role to play. andve had some businesses, others, contact me saying should we really be doing business with the saudi's? what is our corporate image going to be if we do? will we be regretful? i think there are questions being asked, just as they were asked in october at the

investment conference that so many business leaders decided not to attend. host: our guest wrote a book about his experience, desert diplomat is the title. robert jordan, the diplomat in ambassadorerved as from saudi arabia from 2001 to two thousand three. thank you for your time. guest: it's a pleasure. thank you. host: until the end of the program for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest most diverse freshman class in recent history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span, starting january 3.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service i america's cable to help -- by america's cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. sunday night on q&a. >> the american not the party had 20,000 supporters who came to rally at madison square garden. and in the middle of new york, stormtroopers giving me not say salute next to a picture of george washington. that was for george washington's birthday. it was a very active american fascist movement in the 20's and 30's, earlier than people think.

it was associated with the phrase america first. >> professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms america first, and the american dream, in her look up -- her books, behold america. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> washington journal continues. paper, theritish guardian reports that theresa may could offer to stand down before the election, to win support and a confidence vote. this is the debate continues over concerns of brexit. it was theresa may who addressed marla meant -- parliament about brexit and her future. >> does prime minister may recall that when she left on her journey, we were about to start date four of a five day debate on the deal. since the prime minister has not achieved any changes, either to

withdrawal agreements or the future partnership, can she now confirm that we will have the concluding debate and vote within the next seven days, before the house rises for their christmas recess? i had discussions with a number of people yesterday, and i have made some progress. [yelling] >> but of course there are further discussions to be held. you have asked about the vote, the date of the vote will be announced. -- thetion will be motion will be agreed and discussed in the usual way. [jeering] i will say when we have had a meaningful vote, but we did have one in the referendum of 2000 -- [jeering] date he wants a meaningful

i will give him one, the 29th of march, 2019, when we leave the european union. >> totally and absolutely unacceptable. [cheering] to ais house agreed motion, we have agreed to five days of debate, this house agreed when the vote was going to take place. the government tried to unilaterally pull that and denied this house a chance of a vote on this crucial matter. the prime minister and her government have already been found to be in contempt of parliament, and today this is just contemptuous. [cheering] available on that our website, you can bring that up and other things on our open phones. for republicans (202) 748-8001,

for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. you can also go to our facebook page. there is a poll if you want to participate in the poll that we started off. in arizona, on the democrats line. helen, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the new border that the president wants to build. i live on the south side of tucson, the closest side of tucson to the mexican border. which is 90 miles. see no hispanics rushing to get across the border. the brick wall that he wants to moneyis just a waste of

that can be put to use somewhere else. that is all i would like to say. thank you. ,ost: james, from orlando florida, on the independent line. caller: i wanted to speak about the last guest, a couple points. thing,saudi arabia president trump has already denounced it, so many times. i think people, but especially politicians, democratic and republican, if they think this is the first time saudi arabia has done something like this a are wrong. -- they are wrong. they had done it before, they just got caught. and what about all the reporters in mexico? and what about what iran has done to america? none of the politicians have spoken out about that and they want to give president trump a hard time on not doing enough.

i just wanted to say that it's hypocritical of the politicians to keep talking about this thing. , atother thing, yesterday the white house, i thought nancy pelosi and chuck schumer were so disrespectful of the president. nancy pelosi started a whole fight. she started the argument. it was supposed to be a meet and greet. i don't think nancy or chuck were very professional. is james in florida, the president did send out a couple tweets after that, talking about events happening in france, and then specifically saying we are going to strengthen our borders, and chuck and nancy will give us the votes for border security. that obamant adding gave iran $150 million and got nothing, and we can get $5

billion for national security. jim is next, in new jersey. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- regarding the saudi prince, people are critical but it's difficult. how can you hold a country fully accountable for a bad leader? we take issues to deeply with saudi arabia, and we walk away from that, we will quickly see it filled by russia or china , depth our abilities in doubt. we have such issues around the persecutions of middle eastern christians, our military bases are there. i'm sorry the ambassador left, my question would be how do you bring the right amount of power to force a change? they killed this sky and that was the wrong thing to do, but do you think they will have a

change of leadership. or if you break ties, what would our ability to work in the middle east be? it's a difficult question for a difficult situation. that's jim, in new jersey. the wall street journal takes a look at chief of staff john kelly leaving his position and what this could mean for the head of the department of homeland security, saying the removal of john kelly as top aide is part of a rolling staff makeover that could result in the departure of the homeland security secretary, kierstin nielsen. according to people close to the administration. layout, kelly on his she is increasingly vulnerable and department officials are bracing for a change. officials have said people are waiting for the guillotine. denise, from kentucky, hello. caller: hello. comet want to know how

everybody is disrespecting the united states president. you have the mainstream media -- i just don't get it. , but ike every person was raised not to disrespect the man in the oval office. but you all do it a lot. just imagine what he could get done if he didn't have everybody on his back. he has done a lot for us americans. we know that you do not care about americans, you just want our money. you care more about the foreigners than us. host: cheryl from texas is up next on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have concerns, i have seen the president doing this time with putin, it seems like the question about mr. broward with act,inistry act -- minisky

and he had some willingness to comply with putin, but we have a government that very strong and we shop -- we thought that we should protect, and have a say so in mr. broward not being given to put. --putin. i have a concern, i am wondering if the president ever had a princeion with the saudi , or someone in his camp. i see that he looks to men in , and there was also todence with the tapes given the president, it seems as though there was a great disregard for the evidence there. lindsey graham was able to speak out about this. i am wondering where the president -- is here clear -- if he clear thinking in the matter?

can ago beyond the powers at hand? thatresident needs to have can it go be on the powers at hand? the president needs to have a role in making decisions first for our country, we need to have more clarity i believe. host: that is cheryl, in texas. the front page of the wall street journal takes a look at recent discussions between the united states and china, particularly over terrorists --tarriffs. china was planning to reduce auto tarriffs and written -- discus i've held a teleconference involving the treasury secretary, steven mnuchin. as well as the chinese vice premier. since they have reached a 90 day truce and when azar is. it's unclear if the early pledge will suffice.

we jumped in the story, and it highlights that on the auto front, it was the chinese officials saying beijing would to 15%, downs from 40%. it is unclear when the change will take affect but washington is pushing beijing to make concessions as soon as possible. that is in the wall street journal this morning. up next is cara, from maryland, on the republican line. caller: hello. i wanted to ask two questions to the ambassador, i'm disappointed i didn't get a chance to. he had prior knowledge of the khashoggi was -- of who khashoggi was and he was really with the man. why did he not mention that he had actually been a confident of osama bin laden?

why is that never mentioned in the press? the other question i would have asked him would have been about the supposedly night of the long knives in saudi arabia. there was an extreme change in the line to the kingship in that country does he think we would have been better off with -- with -- in line for the kingship? these are questions not addressed in the mainstream media. there are questions about his death at that have not been addressed. i would encourage everyone to -- she is doing on the ground research there that may prove that what we are hearing about is not the truth. host: let go to jerry, in north

carolina, on the democrats line. here.: i'm a lady calling about not people respecting donald trump. to me, donald trump disrespect himself. -- disrespects himself. people are saying what about saudi arabia during 9/11? to me, i cannot understand why he is so popular, when being unpopular is the thing that he does. thank you. showing video from the conference center place with the house and senate minority leaders with president trump and sitting.president that for conversation is about 17 minutes total, available to you at c-span.org.

taking a look at the charlotte observer this morning, a proposal for a new election has been questioned. saying that a proposal for a new primary in the ninth congressional district was stripped from a bill on tuesday after a sponsor said he could not get enough legislators to go along. representative david lewis, republican, wanted to be primary and the state board orders a new election, all indications are that the same activity that is alleged to have occurred in concerning absentee ballots, could also have occurred in the primary. voters want opportunity to start over by electing a new candidate. not a proposal and the house will vote on wednesday. lewis said he could not get enough negotiators to sign off on the idea. michelle, from maryland, on the independent line. ,aller: for the gentleman

khashoggi, who passed away. feel a lotmerican, i are -- because he is an american. and one of the callers that a lot of people don't respect the president. the president barely respects anyone. if you don't agree with them he doesn't have any respect with you -- for you. half of the things he is currently doing in the white house, that people are ok with, there is no decorum, no integrity. president,s still these things would have been more acceptable to many people. there are a lot of things that i agree with, but i don't think he comes off doing at the right way are saying at the right way, and he's not been taken seriously. if he could change his attitude and personality of it he would work with people better. but that's all i have to say on the matter. host: the front page of the new

york times is taking look at potential 2020 democrats and the funding issues they may run into , saying that senator elizabeth reject superely to pac's, according to two people familiar with her thinking and the former vice president, joe biden revealed in a little known passage in his book that he would have gone without one, had he run in 2016. that's the story this morning at the new york times, and you also find that the question is a politically vexing one. the financial fire powder is alluring to those, senator cory booker was seen as likely to have a super pac according to people close to him. some allies are discussing possible super pac's for senator kamala harris, kirsten but aides to both of them say they are not currently seeking this fundraising vehicle.

from phoenix, arizona, on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to remind everyone that the issue that the last guest discussed is going to be debated by the senate this week. debateate is going to america's participation in yemen. , i havebe on c-span two seen a lot of speeches, but there are a lot of important debates in our recent history. right now, the saudi arabians are trying to starve to death 14 million people in yemen. , is participating in this. themve been selling billions of dollars in weapons. i urge everyone to watch this debate, and when you make the .ebate, -- and then please call we can make a difference. thank you. maryland, on the

democrats line, janetta, hello. caller: hello, i wanted to make not respecting the president. to me, respect is earned and he has not done anything to earn my respect or the respective most of the people in this country. another thing, i wanted to comment on the fact that this president is ripping this country apart, and it's really sad to see that the immigration problem when not be such an issue, making it nearly impossible for people to be citizens of this country. that's all i have to say. host: in the washington post, a hearing that took place with google ceo -- googles aceto on many topics, but the topic the story focuses on is that he confronted a barrage of criticism from house republicans who said his company suppresses conservative voices, exposing google to the same kind of scrutiny that has destabilized its peers.

he insist that google is careful to eliminate political bias. the story adding the democrats objected to the hearing in the beginning arguing that republicans were playing politics. the two parties share broad concerns about algorithms and and one of the pieces of discussion that came up yesterday was an exchange between steve king and the google ceo, particularly about ads and how they appear on phones. here's part of that exchange. >> i have a seven-year-old granddaughter who picked up , she'sefore the election playing a game, a gimmick it would play. and there's a picture of her grandfather. i will not say what kind of language was used around that picture, but i would ask how does that show up on a seven-year-old iphone? >> congressman iphone is made by

different company. >> it may have been an android, it was a hand-me-down of some kind. i'm happy to follow up when i understand the specifics. there may be an application used which did have notification, so i could understand it better. host: from new york, hello. i wanted to get in a few things real fast. the most important thing, and the way to keep immigrants were not citizens from staying here is to eliminate -- but the rich was the cheap does to limit hiring them, but the rich once the cheap labor. and the president is doing best for what is him and his family, he has a legal people working at says one thing and does another.

he cares about money anyway he can, most immigrants come here ofplane, and there is no way -- and then overstay their visas. but most people don't realize that. what do you do about that? this is god's world and he lets everyone live in it. most people can except the mexicans came from other countries and trump considers them immigrants. we do not own this world. why are we saying this, that, the other, belongs here, there, and the other. host: ok. let's go to bob, from tampa, florida. wondering, how it is that we got so involved -- or how the saudi's got so involved in yemen. i'm not a news junkie who is

locked in on this all the time, so there are bits and pieces that come across, they get to me. recollection where , largely had personnel of an intelligence friday, were in yemen for some time, and instigated an uprising. that, what was of the saudi's of that situation? also, was that not in large part because there were elements of the international terrorist organization, al qaeda and its spinoffs. including, even an american actsen who was encouraging of terrorism in the united states. host: that's bob in florida, the

hill reporting nancy pelosi is closing in on a deal with some of her fiercest democratic critics to support term limits for party leaders, that would pave the way for the speaker's gavel in january. the tentative agreement was supported, involving nancy pelosi publicly supporting a caucus rule imposing a three term limit for the top members of democratic leadership, the deal was that 98% of the weight -- the deal was 90% of the way done. and there are various conversations going forward. made, and alleen involved are about the institution of the house of representatives. under the proposal, if leaders want to run for a fourth term, they would need support for two thirds of -- from two thirds of the democratic caucus, a much higher threshold than the current simple majority. just a few minutes left before the house of representatives comes in for its business.

if you want to see that, stay tuned to that. if you want to see other segments go to our website at c-span.org. on our independent line, bruce. go ahead. saying, iwas just think trump does not say everything everyone wants to hear, but i believe he's done more in the time that he has been in office than a lot of presidents have done. about the foreigners and everything, i think they ought adjust all try to work together with them, get stuff done. the economy has turned around, but you never hear about the positive things that he has done. he has done a lot and nobody seems to recognize that. everbeen a huge witchhunt, since he has been in office and they ought to concentrate on making america better altogether, not just all fighting against him, and get

him out of office because they think he's doing wrong. for the country, china's changing our economy and he's the first president is actually a businessman that is changing this economy because that's what this company needed. host: let's go to joan in minnesota. go ahead. caller: i started today by i start everyn -- day by watching c-span. i'm a news junkie, but i don't want fox entertainment, i don't consider it real news. a lot of people i know that our republican, that is all they watch. i guess i feel sorry for those people, they are not getting all of the real news. they don't really know what's ,oing on with the white house and the russia connection, or anything like that, and they don't believe it. that's because they are only watching one channel. when people say that we don't respect the president, people

always respect someone who doesn't lie to them. but when we are constantly lied to, how can you respect someone? how can you trust someone who is constantly lying to you? could you be married to someone like that? and to have a president who is a businessman, i was married to a businessman, i know what business was about, i was a business person myself. i was not in business for the country, i was in business and my husband was in business for our bank account. a businessman is the worst person to have for a president. host: we will leave it there. this is linda, from florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to respond to everyone talking about president trump, he did earn the right to respect. he's our president. we all voted for him. and square and he deserves to be in that position. i think what is sad is that we don't support our very own

president. we look like a joke to the rest of the country. do you think they would tolerate people not supporting their. second a business person doesn't know how to run does does know how to run the government. he doesn't know how to have the etiquette because he does not aroundl of these people him supporting him like obama and everyone else did. everyone should gather around him and help support him. host: we will leave it there, because the house of representatives is coming in. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 12, 2018. i hereby appoint the honorable kevin yoder to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the ho