party, they were next to a picture of george washington. that rally was for george washington's birthday. there was an active american fascist movement and the 20's and 30's, earlier than people think that was associated with the phrase america first. >> university of london literature professor looks at the american dream in her book. it's sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> today on c-span, "washington then lives next, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house as they consider a resolution on -- calling on to releaseernment imprisoned journalists and then another chance to watch the veteran affairs committee hearing. in about an hour, we will talk to congressman tom call about efforts to avoid a government shut down next week.

of the tax bunn foundation about a possible end of your tax package in congress. later, more on spending negotiations with congresswoman nanette barragan. congresswoman nanette barragan. ♪ host: the hill reports gop leaders do not know if they have the votes to pass legislation that would grant president trump wall.lion for a border one strategy might be to pass the bill to partially fund the government until january and put the request in that bill. this is the "washington journal" for december 13. when it comes to this idea of a shutdown. is there a compromise you can accept to see the granting for the president's request and also an effort to keep the government open?

those ideas and some ideas for a compromise have been floated this morning. if you can accept a compromise, let us know. 202-748-8000 for republicans. 202-748-8001 for democrats -- 202-748-8000 for republicans. 202-748-8001 for democrats and independents, 202-748-8002. perhaps you live in a border state and want to see a compromise on this. 202-748-8003 is the number to call. you can post on twitter @cspanwj and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. a couple of polls taking a look at this idea of compromise when it comes to the border wall situation. .his is the npr poll one question they posed, president trump should optimize on the border wall to prevent for democrats and 29% for republicans and 63% of independents.

the same poll, only 36% responding to that with 21% of democrats saying a compromise should not be granted. ,hen it comes to independents 31% suggesting that. this is from the morning consult and they say the bear poll found 56% of voters surveyed would support a compromise, 44% of those would oppose it, adding that lawmakers face a december 21 deadline to avoid a partial shutdown. democrats and republicans have not been able to reach a compromise. idea for a compromise being floated by the editors of the washington post. the art of the shutdown. they say, for mr. trump, the art of the deal should be easy to grasp. he should offer a path for legal status or citizenship for more

brought to00 reamers this country by their parents and raised since childhood. sweeten that with safe harbor for -- in the united states for 300,000 hondurans, haitians, and salvadorans. wasteful, but it is a stretch to frame it as a moral issue. of the initial funding is hardly the break the bank some by sumington -- break the bank by washington standards. even if the funds were appropriated, construction would be challenged by ranchers and other property owners along the border who can tie it up in court. is one idea of a compromise when it comes to border wall funding and keeping the government open. you may agree with that or not.

let us know. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 if you live in a border state and want to give your perspective -- your unique perspective, it is 202-748-8003. bob is our first call this morning. go ahead. you are on. guest 2: good morning, sir. i totally disagree with the post. you should talk to the border people in texas. however, i -- my compromise through the president would the democrats learn to put americans first. i am a veteran. our veterans, our poor needed to be taken care of. not a bunch of radicals, not a bunch of so-called -- whatever that caravan is. i am really upset with how --rica is saying just like let these people break the law,

but you and me need to obey. the: what is wrong with washington post? what they offer as a compromise? caller: this baloney about the ranchers will hold it up in court. they won't. i have family who hate illegals coming in because of what they have done to the property. host: mary is next from chattanooga. this idea of a compromise over border wall funding, is that something you support or oppose? caller: i don't feel there should be a compromise as far as towards trump. i think he needs to compromise toward the people. the cost of the wall is too expensive and these people are seeking safety. there is a lot going on inside their country and i think we should be more open and more forgiving and maybe some of the other things we place value on,

we need to offer -- face more value on human life. host: is there some middle ground as far as a price tag that could be reached? caller: i think so. from wayne in jackson, i am -- junction, texas, sorry. republican line, go ahead. wayne in texas? hello? you are on, go ahead. caller: i don't think we need any kind of compromise. host: why not? caller: if we compromise now, we will be compromising from now on. host: if you don't agree with a compromise, you are ok with a shutdown. caller: yes. host: why is that? caller: that is the only way we will get the point across and get anything done. host: jim is next from pittsburgh, pennsylvania,

democrats line. you are on. caller: they have already made a compromise. [inaudible] democrat, but -- host: only because you are breaking up a little bit, we will leave it there. these are just some of the thoughts this morning. by december 21, if no compromise is reached, the president says he is ready to shut down the government over that. maybe you think there is a compromise available. maybe you don't. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

.ndependents, 202-748-8002 you can also, if you live in a border state, call us, 202-748-8003. this initially started with senator chuck schumer and representative nancy pelosi meeting with the president. it was senator schumer on the floor yesterday talking about what lies next when it comes to the president -- request for funding and a potential shutdown of government. [video clip] >> it is unfortunate we have arrived at this point. the president's advisors should have been telling the president the truth all along and too many, unfortunately, of my republican colleagues in the house and senate seen too afraid to tell the president when he is wrong even though they know he is wrong. they find it easier to throw up their hands and wait for someone else to solve the problem or capitulate and agree with the president. at the moment, senator

mcconnell, the majority leader of this body and my friend is staying as far away from the year end spending fight. we did not hear a people about it today. leader mcconnell says he doesn't want a shutdown, but he refuses to engage with the president to tell him what is transparently obvious to everyone else. there will be no additional money for the wall. we need to pass a continuous resolution for dhs or all the remaining agencies to keep the government open. host: republicans in the house are attempting to put a bill on the floor that would offer $5 billion in funding for the president. the hill saying it was unclear late yesterday whether republicans would have enough votes to pass such a package. democrats agreed to back $1.6 billion and rejected the $5 billion demand.

to figure outeck which lawmakers were in the capital voting since the november 6 midterm. won higher office have been skipping votes, complicating vote counting efforts. gop appropriators told the hill one passable way to fulfill the bowel for a wall was to put -- ow for a wall was a resolution that would fund until january or longer. that could include the $5 billion for the wall and disaster aid for wildfires in the west and other natural disasters. that is the effort on capitol hill. our interest here if a compromise is capable or possible in your mind. from california on the republican line, samuel, go ahead. caller: calling from los angeles. and senatory pelosi

schumer are wrong about this. they need all the money to build that wall. they cannot take $1.6 billion. they need all $5 billion to get that started worried we have got to secure that border. i cannot believe the democrats don't want to fund that wall to get this country secured. host: is there a compromise in your mind that can work as far as everybody to get what they want in this situation? caller: yes, if they go ahead and the daca, work a deal out 11h the daca and get those million people squared away, then i believe they can make a deal and get that order security. democrats don't want it because they want the boat -- votes. what they have to do is they have to make that deal and secure that border.

look at the people coming in and they will be coming in three or four times as much. secure the border, give them the money to build the wall and president trump knows how to build a wall. host: why are you comfortable with the change for status -- of status for those in the united states? why are you comfortable with the changing of the status of the daca recipients? caller: i would be comfortable with that because that way they can make a deal and build the wall and they will get what they want and the republicans will get what they want. the wall is for everybody. i don't care if you are republican, independent, democrat, the wall will be secure and the people that have been waiting for their status to become american citizens -- let me tell you something. i feel for them because they have been waiting for years and all of a sudden people are showing up and jumping over the border.

it and got to secure everything will go smooth and we will have a great country. host: that is samuel in california. steve in ohio, in cleveland. caller: good morning. i think we should feel fortunate we have $5 billion to put into a wall we are eventually going to tear back down. what happened to mexico paying for the wall? what happened to real statistics? not lies from trump? about immigration being down? compromise is something you would not agree with, then? caller: you know what? it is like when the baby is crying and crying and won't stop crying and once a cookie before dinner and you break off a hunk and give it to them and it shuts them up. do it. what happened to mexico paying

for the wall? host: this is some of the reaction off of our twitter feed this morning. bill king saying for someone claiming he is the great want $5 billion for the wall and i am shutting down the government is not negotiating, it is demanding. off facebook, i would support the compromise of $3.6 billion for the wall. we had two members of the problem solvers caucus and one of the things they talked about was the wall and a compromise they could see and become trouble with. if you want to see that interview, go back to our website. this is mark off of twitter saying he does not support any compromise on a border wall. the president made it clear mexico with pay for it. get some commonsense immigration done. you can post about the idea of a compromise, if you would be ok

with one. we set aside a line for those residents of order states to give their input. taylor, texas, is next. this is patricia. i said i was independent. i am republican, just not a trump republican. i support the border wall. across thefolks border illegally, they have broken the law. as far as daca recipients, it peduld be merit-based and cap off at a certain amount and they should earn their right for citizenship. host: the compromise in the washington post offering status for them in exchange for funding for the wall, is that something you can agree with? caller: absolutely. host: why are you ok with that compromise?

caller: well, because coming over as children, they did not have a choice. i consider them americans in all but citizenship and i think there are commonsense -- good things we can do to help the recipients. offershe new york times a little bit of history when it comes to construction along the border states on the southern border. billion provided 1.6 dollars -- $1.6 billion and the department of homeland security spend billions to replace fences. last year's funding was to pay in -- miles of wall in november, customs and border protection awarded two con t-rex

-- contracts for border construction. $167 million for an eight mile levee in the rio grande sector. the projects will mark the first brand-new section of wall to be built under the trump administration. construction is expected to begin in february. is there a compromise available to keep the government open and meet president's request for $5 billion for border wall funding? marian is next. caller: i am not trying to create a conspiracy theory, but don't you think it is strange timing wise that trump is so caught up with this crew of people breaking across the border and his son is dealing with mexico as well? i almost think this whole thing was staged to make his point because he is so into theater.

host: this idea of a compromise for funding efforts, what do you think of that? wall actually is quite effective compared to what people may think and there are areas that need -- if there are areas that need repair, that is fine. the wall is not the answer. if you put a wall up, they will go around it. host: you said the wall you thought was effective read what leads you to that conclusion? caller: they have such doctored up numbers they throw up all the time. trump is throwing out all the time. immigration has gone down from what it used to be. i think he just wants a wall. i would like to know who is contracted to build this wall. does somebody need a favor? losethe rio grande, do we rights to water if they put the

wall up? let's go to brian in maryland, republican line. caller: my compromise is take 1% of the defense spending budget and use it to build the wall. host: why make that exchange? caller: i feel like that is a good exchange for the democrats. we are not in a time of war. if we -- we upped defense spending 10% last year. i don't see a need for it. host: this is jodey sang the only compromise would be pay -- mexico paying for the wall. by the land and this will all be in pieces before you bite any of it. compromise.ll, no a child will never learn anything if he always gets his way. the president needs to grow up. you know what they say about all dogs. this is a border state resident,

dave in san diego. hello. caller: good morning. i believe they should not shut down the government. if we do shut down the government, the citizens lose. if we don't shut down the government, the citizens lose. the first caller was correct and the border state resident was correct, there are people jumping over walls getting injured and racing down the freeway 100 miles per hour flipping pickup trucks and ending up in the hospital and we for the bill. there was a body found in one of the rivers and that affects drinking water. host: fact to your -- back to your original point about any -- nobody winning, is there compromise to be made? caller: absolutely, yes. host: what do you think needs to

be done? caller: like the callers are saying, daca, people that are here as kids. there are no freebies, you have to stand in line and do it correctly. there is some wiggle room to make it work. it is not a republican, democrat issue. it is an american issue. we really need to do this for the kid's future. host: mark in the pages of the --hington post warning writes about this idea of a compromise. here is what he adds, saying if they don't want to use their leverage -- democrats, to solve ,he illegal immigration problem democrats have laid out an

ambitious agenda from shoring up obamacare, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and medicare for all to modifying the increasing tax cuts, the minimum wage, strengthening environmental rules, tackling climate change and enacting paid family leave. if democrats don't use the wall as leverage, they won't get any of this. chuck schumer told the president elections have consequences, echoing the infamous words echoed by obama in 2009 when they presented him with ideas for a stimulus package. back then, democrats controlled the house and the senate and white house. republicans control the executive branch and have expanding majority. the president has leverage in the form of a pen he can use to sign or veto legislation. to get anything done, democrats have to negotiate and compromise.

andy in new york, democrats line, hi. is our government shuts down, we will face bigger problems. -- iis situation continues think americans -- all americans have to challenge trump as soon .s possible i think all americans have to compromise on that and kick him out of office. station,in columbia ohio. caller: good morning. it is columbia station, ohio. think they should give a full

$25 billion, not a compromise. alone --$150 billion like nothing to iran. the next day, they are burning brokeag in the streets, every sanction we put on them to this day and $25 billion. we spent billions a year on illegals. this has to be stopped. no compromise, nothing. every day democrats are saying just vote for this issue alone. i will never vote for democrats again because of this. this should have been taken care of 30 years ago. host: since the president is calling for a shutdown, you would be accepting of that? caller: yes. a shutdown is nothing. host: that is ed in columbia

station, ohio. the washington post highlights things that would be affected if a shutdown took place. the impact would be limited because about 75% of the federal government's discretionary budget has been funded since next september. there would be no impact on the payment of social security, medicaid, or medicare benefits because those programs fall --er military spending mandatory spending without congressional proposal. the interior, agriculture, justice, commerce, transportation, state departments and nasa could be forced to send thousands of workers home without pay. this could lead to disruptions and delays in services. within homeland security, most employees are exempt from a shutdown and would report to their jobs regardless. that includes fema, border

patrol, u.s. customs and immigration enforcement. these workers could go unpaid if a shutdown dragged on, but they would eventually get back pay. host: one of the hearings that took place on capitol hill yesterday was with members of border control. one of the discussions was drug trafficking between the southern border and the united states but led to the larger issue of the border wall. here is some of that hearing. [video clip] >> we need, between the ports of entry, more the tech should -- detection technology. we need more men and women and k-9 handlers. i do need more barriers because that does impede and deny and prevent the entries. there was discussion earlier and my colleagues are expanding their nonintrusive technology, which we utilize that our

checkpoints and that assists us as well. fits all. one size it is a mixture of all of those things. >> one of the towards you mentioned was more physical barriers. we are in the midst of vigorous .ebate right now in the senate in your professional experience, what is the impact of a wall or physical barrier and what are the benefits of it? >> personally and just to keep it on topic with cartels, when i was an agent in douglas, arizona, east of douglas one night a there was a drive-through, as we call them. i was involved in the seizure of over 490 pounds of cocaine. thankfully, the driveshaft on the truck broke as the vehicle was trying to get south away from us. we had no barrier at that time

along the border in that area. once we put barrier in that area, the drive-through's stopped. that is one example when it comes to particularly narcotics smuggling. as you know, the barriers are needed for impedance and denial. technology provides situational awareness and we certainly need that as well. if we cannot impede and deny when we are talking about a two 2000 mile border and difficult terrain, the sichuan awareness lets me know something's crossing, but it does not stop it from crossing. host: go to our website to hear more of that hearing. this is spokane, washington, independent line. caller: i am calling because i feel like there is an easy compromise. we split it down the middle and put it in high flooded areas

-- mostmigration immigrants are flooding in from. we talk about the drug use. i think we need a more safer way of using drugs. no matter what, people are going to be using drugs. people are going to find a way around it. host: expand on your idea for places in high flooded areas. caller: just like -- i am not really educated on it, i am only 19. tohink -- he is not going stop until he gets his way, trump has that care. we split it down the middle so and startis happy where high flooding areas are coming in. i heard a story where they were cutting open babies and smuggling drugs through the dead

babies. they always find a way around it. it is not going to stop. what we need is like , facilities where people do not od on it. in oregon, i believe there is a bright. called ever host: it is ok. we will leave it there. willis, texas, patrick, hello. caller: smuggling drugs in dead babies, that sounds like a real conspiracy. i do not know why we are going to pay for the wall. of the mexicans were going to pay for it. host: a few people have mentioned that. caller: democrats should not do anything except spend the next few months in teaching

have. - impeaching him. ted cruz shut it down for nothing, because he did not want to give health care to americans. what is $24 billion anymore? host: next caller, republican line. caller: i do not think the republicans need to compromise what is it with the democrats. the democrats never want to give anything. i mean, all they want to do is make demands. ck don't want to be accepting my moral compass from people in congress. they do not need to be giving advice from other people. host: chuck schumer said they will give at least $1.6 billion for order issue. what you think of that? caller: you have got to secure

your borders. hile you go look in europe? when you go from country to country over there, you have to go through checkpoints, which is a form of border control. passportso present before you ever go in. they make sure you are who you are, that you will not do damage to the countries that you are going into. if you fly in there, you have to go through customs. you go to europe, you have to go through customs when you come back into here. host: what you think a shutdown will accomplish? caller: excuse me? host: what you think a shutdown will accomplish is to take place? caller: is probably not going to necessarily -- i don't know, maybe it will get people off of the dead center. if you think about it, representatives and senators

need to go back and remember the oath that they took when they were sworn in to the house of representatives and the senate. they were sworn in to protect this country against foreign and domestic terrorists, people from all kinds. host: that is tim in florida this morning. to that point, rod in twitter writes "the federal government basically shuts down from 5:00 p.m. friday to 8:00 a.m. on monday. a little more won't hurt anybody, and we will save on salaries." president and the gop are already exploding the national debt. we will find other ways. why not a wall on the canadian border? why is that mexico pay for his wall? of concrete on a roads and not

into a wall. @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. we are getting your thinking on a compromise, what is your thinking to give the government open? oru can call (202) 748-8001 f republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents are (202) 748-8002. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8003. called that number and get your thoughts as well. larry, independent line. you are next up. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. feel that the voters who put the president in have already compromised, because originally it was, like, a $25

billion wall, now it is down to $1.8 billion. mr. schumer himself said elections have consequences, so i would not have any problem with a shutdown. how many times have we seen both parties using this right up until a deadline to kind of mass with the budget and stuff? think that somebody like mr. trump can stick to it, and maybe they will quit this. host: so the $5 billion as a hard, fast number, walking away from that is unacceptable in your mind? welcome of the $5 billion i think is already a compromise, and really it is not a life money when you think of how much we are spending for all the problems we had with the overflow.

host: from a border state resident, this is teresa, denton, texas, identifies of a democrat as well. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on. go ahead. yes, i do not think there should be a compromise at all. i do not think there should be a wall. taxpayers should not have to pay for it. he promised that mexico would pay for it. they are not. numbersust exaggerates as far as, like, they have 13, there are a lot of them that originated in the states, and i just do not think it is right. this is america. host: what happens if a shutdown happens, in your mind? caller: i did not think there should be a shutdown, simply because he has got to think about the people who do not get paid before christmas. it is ridiculous, and it is shameful. host: that is teresa in denton,

texas. a border you live in state, you can get input on that line, (202) 748-8003. a couple of stories to show you, this is raphael satter, an ap exclusive, identifying this morning, saying as the president reimpose harsh economic sanctions on iran last month, hackers scramble to break into personal emails of american officials, according to the associated press, another sign of how deeply cyber espionage is embedded into the fabric of u.s.-iran relations. a hacking group, often nicknamed charming kitten, spent the last month trying to break into the private emails of more than a dozen u.s. treasury officials. liston the hackers' hist -- high-profile defenders,

detractors, and enforcers of the nuclear deal struck between washington and tehran, as well as a rather atomic -- arab atomic scientists, iranian civil so side he fits figures, d.c. think tank. the writer saying he was is a little more worrisome than i would have expected," kagan said. james in arkansas, republican line. sure, i support the shutdown. host: what about a compromise, though? there should not be a compromise. hillary nott winning the election. it is the same old stuff.

what is the value of a shutdown, then? caller: uh, just to -- just to show them, i mean, the consequences -- that they should have consequences, like they always say. james in arkansas. about the caravan, there is an additional story by stephen dimon this morning. he says a splinter group from the migrant caravan countdown a u.s.-mexico border has offered a deal, pay them $650,000 each, and they will go back home. dozens of people presented the offer to the u.s. consulate in t1 on tuesday. "it may seem like a lot of money to you," organizer alfonso "but it is small compared to everything united states has stolen from honduras."

other migrants made a different demand, asking that u.s. officials beat up the processing of people demanding asylum at home border security. homeland security puts the , "it is not a basis for asylum under any system," according to a department spokesperson. the "washington times" picked it up, if you want to read it on heir website. should we keep the government open and also give the president has $5 billion request for a portable? hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. two points real quick. i agree with the shutdown. as a marine, i served in multiple terms, i was stationed in arizona. when they passed the first

amnesty bill, within 30 days, there were so many illegal aliens coming across as cutting through the fences and everything else, we had to put up ground penetrating radar to help border patrol track them all. it was absolutely insane. it never stops. so the compromise has been going on since that point in time. as an alternative to that, all of this is really kind of silly. my second point is that, yes, we have problems going on with china, but we have this while we need. we need to protect our borders. i live in southern ohio right now. it has been totally devastated um and of the opioi heroin, rolling people out on to the road because of overdoses. why not offer them to china? why not reach up to china and say hey, china, we would like to offer you an opportunity.

help us enforce the rule of law. come over here, bring some --ineers, bring both of our put both of our people to work, and build the wall out of bamboo. host: caller, you said initially that you support a shutdown. why is that? or for theived down first time round on the mexican border many years ago, and the drugs and problems got really bad. they actually had the largest cocaine bust in the entire state of the time. people were coming across the border with sea is full of drugs. host: you highlighted that was that was set when it comes to the government shutting down itself, what do you think that accomplishes? caller: like you have shown here already, most of the funding for other things is pretty well secured. politics.l it is trying to swing the people to get them to understand that there is a need for compromise at certain points, but when you talk about compromise in leading

in all of these illegals, let me simply pose this. since the first amnesty, how many illegals caps on and, and not enough compromise on the taxpayers' money that has been going on? host: ok, ryan in arizona, on the line for democrats. hello. -- over border security, you know. i think it is a love of trump and controversial policies, and even some republicans sign these policies. for example, the senate passed a law against helping saudis and doing business with them, but unfortunately, they do not accept it. host: back to the original question on a compromise on boardwalk funding, is that something you would support or not? i totally supportive,

and i think trump and that democrats can reach a deal over the wall. what should be the details of that deal? what do you think would be acceptable? i think in the future, we will have a shutdown of government, you know because they do not want to accept anything that is true, you know. host: ok, that is ryan in arizona. the president himself giving his own twitter response to these issues concerning border wall funding, and this tweet -- "i always say one way or the other, mexico will pay for the wall. that has never changed. a new deal between u.s., canada, and mexico, the usmca, is so much better than the old, very costly, and anti-usa nafta deal. that just by the money we save, mexico is paying for the wall."

bob on ouran, independent line, go ahead. . caller: hi. a restatement, then i have a question for you, if i may. i have 35 years with the federal government, and believe me, a shutdown does nothing to harm the american people. all of the services under law continue, even under a shutdown, and none of the federal workers have ever lost a dime, because they get retroactive pay. a question for you, if i may, please. host: go ahead. meghan brezinski recently made a hate speech, homophobic statement, and it is not being covered by liberal media. had a conservative made that, there would have been a demand for a conservative ouster. long will you guys sweep it

under the rug? host: since you asked, what you think of the statement she made? caller: i think it shows the intolerance of those who champion tolerance. host: how so?? caller: it is ok to accuse people of heinous acts, and the case of kavanaugh, someone falsely accuses him, but they did so over noble purposes, and that just is not wash. host: that involved in michigan. let's go to david in new york . i am a registered republican, but i do not think a shutdown will work. personally, i do not think that a border wall is necessarily the best thing, because people get through the order all the time

with things that they should not have, with people that they should not be with, and anyway, canadaaveled to regularly across the new york there are times i have forgotten about things in the car and only later realized i had them, and i gotten in trouble if anyone had pulled me over and checked, so border security as it is is not great. awol going to whole length of the border is not going to help anything. going the whole length of the border is not going to help anything. host: so a compromise not help anything? caller: not really. host: that is david in new york. the washington times" in field of democratic candidates, someone thinking about that very thing, julian castro, who served housing and urban

development secretary in the obama administration, said his committee is helping him think through in the next few weeks. he posted a video, looking at the possibility of a presidential run. here is a portion of the video from yesterday. [video clip] mr. castro: americans are ready to climb out of this darkness, we are ready to keep our promises, and we are not going to wait, we're going to work. aat is why i am exploring candidacy for president of the united states in 2020. i will be talking with folks over the next several weeks, and i will make an announcement on my plan on january 12 here in texas. for now, i hope you will visit forthefuture.com to sign up for updates and show your support. i never thought when i was growing up on the list side of san antonio that i would be speaking to you today about this. my name is julian castro, and i know the promise of america. host: in other political news on

capitol hill, political highlights, nancy pelosi striking a deal wednesday with democratic rebels, as politico describes it, she has agreed to limit her time as speaker to four years at most. in return, a critical number of lawmakers who vowed to oppose nancy will support her in the january vote. she will also limit the time heard deputies, minority whip steny lawyer and jim clyburn can stay in their posts. "i feel myself as a bridge to the next generation of leaders. a recognition of my continuing responsibility to advance new members and the power in new members of the house in the democratic caucus," she said in a statement regarding the announcement. louisiana next. we will hear from jean, democratic line. caller: good morning, pedro.

we must compromise on the finding of a wall. why? liar in chief, trump, literally said that mexico would pay for the wall. now he has threatened to shut down the government if he cannot by funding for the wall the united states taxpayers. the democrats have tried to compromise with trump. the daca proposal, he turned that down. this liar in chief cannot be trusted. the democrats are sick of trump's lies. pedro, thathildren, he can get his way. host: what you think about democrats giving him $1.6 billion? caller: that is exactly what i am saying, pedro, you canno trust him.

the democrats will give him the full 25 million, or billion, whatever it was, he that whatever the democrats or republicans decided, he would support, put up the last minute, he changed his mind. he is nothing but a liar! he cannot be trusted! he said mexico will pay for the wall, and let mexico pay for the welfare and let republicans call in and expound on that that he said mexico would pay for the wall. gotcha. joanne in michigan. caller: good morning. i am one that understood that when we voted for donald, he said he would build that will for us, so it is not really what he wants, it is what the public wants. we want that while, and that is one of the reasons we voted for him. and donald isall, just doing what we want. and i support a government shutdown.

host: oh, go ahead. that theyople who say are not going to have food because their children or their parents are not going to go to work -- don't they prepare for things like this in america? getsverage person terminated, and they have no resources? and we need term limits, please. host: social and some of the president -- so, joanne, people have brought up the fact that mexico would pay for this. what do you think of that? i am sorry that he made that promise, but remember when obama said you could have your own doctor? i am sorry, but he was acting like a politician. maybe mexico will end up paying for the wall. the future is still unclear about that. host: lets here on our republican line, charles in

south carolina. hello, charles, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: first of all, we do need a border wall. to protect us not only from latin america and mexico but from other parts of the world, people we do not really want to have here. donaldy, i think that is decided to cut all of the money to mexico, mexico would straighten up. aboutouldn't think twice not stopping those people that are trying to come into mexico to get to the united states of america. host: i actually want to ask the last caller about -- and he hung up. reportingewsweek" about u.s. immigration and customs enforcement agencies, appearing to crack down on undocumented immigrants in 2018, with the agency overseeing and nearly 650% surge in workplace

300% ofs well as workplace investigations launched, which began in october 2017. and homeland security investigations seems open to 648 andsite investigations, i-9cy also initialed 5981 being used tohem verify the identity and employment authorizations of people authorized to work in the u.s., according to i.c.e. that is compared with 139 criminal and 172 workplace-related arrests in 2017. in pennsylvania, conway, pennsylvania, democrats line, martin, hello.

caller: hello. i want to say one thing about this order will. one, it was supposed to be paid by mexico. that will never happen. but why can't this government use the same formula to keep people from crossing into this at that air they do force 51 hangar, that supposedly has spacious in it? nobody ever tries to pass those trys that read "do not to pass this line, or you will be shot." host: david is in maryland. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, america. i would like to propose that mexico is fading for the wall -- in someg for the wall, respects, and i also would introduce that the walmart pay for itself.

wallnot know the -- the might pay for itself. over thepeople go proposed area every year, and how much does that cost the taxpayer? all right, i will be saving that money every year, because we are decreasing the amount of individuals coming over, but how much are we saving? how much does the wall statements over 20 years? host: that if david giving us his thoughts this morning. he is from maryland. related news to the work of the house and the senate. an agreement remains possible in washington as congress barrels towards a possible government wallown over ordeborader find danger a farm bill was passed him a massive package that passed by a comfortable margin. it requires tighter requirements for food stamp recipients,

backed by the president, of armse previous house f bill that became a sticking point. the farm bill measure as a result of negotiations by lawmakers does not make significant changes to the food stamp program that serves 40 million low income americans. the bill authorizes agriculture and conservation programs, funds trade programs, expand support for struggling theory farmers, andleads -- dair farmers, legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp. caller: i want to follow-up on what the woman from michigan was saying a few calls ago. want, i think schumer and a lot of democrats believe it is just trump.

he says "you will shut down the government because of what you want," he is just following what the people want. thatave to remember millions of us voted for trump, so he is following for what we want and keeping the nation safe. host: how do you think that is achieved by a shutdown, though? caller: well, i am saying that there would not be a problem. like another caller said it really does not affect very many things,. the things that need to be paid for will get paid for. people get reimbursed. it is not really cause that many problems. it has been done in the past. this is not like trump is the only one who would be doing this and causing tremendous problems. we need the wall. host: that is dan in phoenix, arizona. for this topic, plus the topic of government funding and potential struck down, will be continued with one of our

guests, representative tom cole of oklahoma. he is a republican who will join us. later on in the program, we will be joined by daniel bunn with the tax foundation. he will walk us through some of the details of the year-end tax package, walk us through what ans forely it me you, the taxpayer. if you follow us on @cspanwj, you will see a picture of senator orrin hatch. two pictures, actually, one of his first floor speech in 1986, and then his farewell speech that he made. here is a bit from that speech. [video clip] hatch: i was here when regular order, when members worked consecutively with one another for the good of the country. i was here when we can say without any bit of irony that we

were members of the world's greatest elected body. times that certainly changed. over the last several years, i have witnessed the subversion of senate rules committee the abandonment of regular order, and the full-scale deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. gridlock is the new norm. like the humidity here, partisanship permeates everything we do. on both the left and the right, the bar of decency has been set so low that jumping over it is no longer the objective. limbo is the new name of the game. how low can you go? the answer, it seems, is always lower. all the evidence points to an unsettling truth. the senate as an institution is

in crisis, or at least may be in crisis. the committee process lies in shambles. regular order is a relic of the past. compromise, once the guiding credo of discrete institution, is now synonymous with surrender. since i first came to the senate , the culture of this place has shifted fundamentally, and not for the better, and my opinion. here there used to be a level of congeniality and kinship amongst colleagues that was hard to find anywhere else. these days i count democrats among by very best friends. one moment we would be locking horns in the senate floor, and the next putting bread together. my unlikely friendship with the late senator ted kennedy embodied the spirit of goodwill and congeniality that used to

thrive here. teddy and i were a case study in contradictions. he was a dyed in the wool liberal democrat. i was a resolute republican. by choosing friendship over party loyalty, we were able to pass some of the most important and significant bipartisan ,chievements of modern times from the americans with disabilities act and the religious freedom restoration act to the ryan white bill and the state children's health insurance program. these are really important bills that we were able to work together, even though we differed widely on politics. nine years after teddy's passing, it is worth asking, could a relationship like this even exist in today's senate? could to people with polar opposite beliefs and from vastly different walks of life come together as often as teddy and i did for the good of the country?

or are we too busy attacking each other to even consider friendship with the other side? announcer: "wasn't in journal" continues. -- "washington journal" continues. cole representative tom serves the fourth district of oklahoma. thank you for joining us. when the president says he's willing to shut down the government over a wall, do you believe him? caller: i do -- guest: i do believe him. i don't think it is good, productive politics. but i don't doubt his seriousness. host: where do you go from here to keep that from happening? guest: there's really not that much difference between the sides. it seems like there is, but there's seven bills in question. six of them have been agreed to. we could pass them tomorrow.

i believe we should. it is a disagreement not over physical borders on the barrier. agreed tohave $1.7 billion additional spending. the president wants $5 billion. to me you ought to be able to sit down and say we know you don't agree with the whole border wall, but given the amount of money, there's not going to be a whole border wall in this. why not decide the places along the border where physical barriers work and settle it that way? i think this is much more a matter of personalities and political posturing by the leadership on both sides and by the president then it is substantive policy differences. appropriators could think this -- could figure this out pretty quick. host: there was reporting of a package hitting the house floor at felt billion dollars. where are we on this -- at $5 billion. where are we on this?

guest: i think we could pass a package on this. i would seriously question whether he could get through the senate. it takes 60 votes there. you really can't deal either side out here. there has to be some sort of compromise. at some point people need to figure out what that is. there have been a couple of good offers out there. senator shelby talked about splitting this over two years, go $2.5 billion this year. that is a reasonable kind of approach. i support what the president is trying to do. i don't disagree with him in terms of policy. $5 billion isn't the entire cost of a border wall, so let's pick the places where both sides say that actually makes sense. listen to what the people at homeland security tell us they need and approach it that way. this has gotten into one side trying to satisfy its political base, the other side its conference. oft: what is the possibility

a $5 billion package being added to that? guest: there's a good possibility. i am never in favor of government shutdowns. i don't think they work. i've always opposed them. it never ends up where you think it is going to end up or where you hope it ends up. and it inconveniences the american people. your job is to come here to make their lives better. it does not make life better for anybody. if you want to ask questions, it is (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, and for independents (202) 748-8002. when it comes to a presentable -- a potential resolve to this issue, you are the deputy whip. do you have the votes? guest: you don't get your whole team with a compromise, but if you get a deal you'll get both

sides. at the end of the day, when there's a compromise, all said you have 360 votes on the board. -- all funding measures require compromise. you are better in appropriations matters to sit down and work out a deal. host: when it comes to a compromise, can you bring groups along like the freedom caucus, the problem solvers? guest: the problem solvers are almost always there for a compromise. the freedom caucus is more of an ideological group. that is fair enough. they have their principles. quite often you don't get the progressives on the democratic side or something. if you have a deal, either side can often produce triple digits andhe floor pretty easily,

then you get your goal of 50 plus one and move on. host: do you see a path to a victory of sorts? guest: i do, but it is going to require people to be reasonable and climb off their high horses. both sides are on pretty high horses. i think the president's request is a reasonable one and could be met without violating democratic principles in terms of the wall because we are not talking about enough funding for an entire wall. we are talking about what it would take to really strengthen it in very vulnerable places. but i think this has turned into the ethics and political rhetoric on both sides. really at the leadership level, not the appropriations committee level. if you left the chairman of appropriations and the democratic ranking member in a room together, they would fix this in about an hour. but the higher these things escalate, the higher the political stakes, the more it becomes a political fight rather than policy. host: we talked about this idea

of compromise to keep the government from shutting down. many of the president's supporters saying they would be ok with a shutdown. guest: for a while, but not indefinitely. anytime you shut down the government, at some point you have to reopen it. it is expensive to shut down and reopen. you will spend more money than we are talking about. it is better to avoid it. particularly the president is going to get part of what he wants in the $1.7 billion. i don't blame him for wanting more. i think we need more. let's sit down and figure out a way to do that in concert, but again, both sides have worked themselves into a position where compromise looks like defeat. i don't think that is defeat. i think that is how government ought to work. host: the first call for you comes from virginia. this is david on our line for democrats. you are on with representative tom cole. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think there wouldn't be any deal with trump.

this time democrats would stop trump. trump's rhetoric claims the only way is the wall, which is not supported by any fact-based information. i think it is just another show .or donald, the reality tv star www.c-span.org -- [indiscernible] -- unfortunately trump does not want to accept it. he just heard about money. why did he not do anything against brutal saudis? host: we will leave it there. thanks. guest: i believe most americans. do believe border security is a good thing i think the president -- most americans do believe border security is a good thing. i think the president is right to want to increase border security.

there are serious problems. putting additional resources there makes a lot of sense. i just don't think a take it or leave it kind of rhetoric really helps us here. issuek this has become an of symbolism a lot more than an issue of what would really work best to give us a secure border, which we both want. as the president envisioned it, the wall would be a $25 billion item. we are talking about $5 billion, so this clearly isn't a complete wall. let's talk about where physical barriers make sense. i think both sides could do that, keep their positions intact. neither side wants to yield. i think leader pelosi is playing to her caucus. i've got to stand up to trump and i've got a lot of people here that think any talk of border security is racist or somehow inappropriate. at the same time, we've got people on trump's side that say don't give an inch. i'm sorry, appropriations

requires everybody's participation. we've gotten a lot done. this has actually been the best year for appropriations in 22 years. most of the government is already funded. it got passed on time. defense is ok. but we got to finish the job here in a way that is not inconvenient to the american people, but that moves us in the right direction. i think we can do that if tempers will cool and people will lower the rhetoric and talk. after that scene we saw in the oval office, there was some additional discussion. leader pelosi said she had a call with the president that was productive. hopefully behind the scenes, things are working. again, you stick out take it or leave it positions, people don't like that on either side and you can stumble into a shutdown without having meant to go there at all. host: one of the things senator schumer said after that meeting was that the president was already granted 1.6 billion for the border that wasn't spent yet. does he make a point there?

guest: he does make a good point. i think that is a fair point to make. they need to have a secure frame of funding to go on, but it should be on agreed-upon things. i am not trying to jam anybody here, but most people think where we have physical barriers in cities and places like that, they work. so let's figure out the places that whatever your point of view is on the overall issue, let's pick places where we agree and where homeland security says this would make a difference. they usually can tell you what they need in a given physical setting to be effective. host: from florida, independent line, rich is next. caller: my question with the like the issue to me seems we have a lot of it illegal immigrants that are in this country that are working for

companies like reported the other day in "the new york times" for the trump organization. they are employed here. these people are even being withd by these employers documentation and stuff like that so that they are here illegally. that reason for these people to be here illegally -- let's cut off the addictions so that people aren't bringing drugs and there's no pity -- there's nobody addicted. guest: you certainly make a good point. about 40% of the people here illegally actually didn't come illegally. they came legally and then overstayed visas. in many cases, as you pointed out, they are employed. we have a system, e-verify, which would identify people here illegally. once you figure that out, you come to a rational system where people can come and work, go home.

but there's got to be some way to know who's coming to my who's going, who's here on a work permit, who's here on a green card, or who wants to come become a citizen. , having a defined, defensible border i think is part of the answer as well. i think that is what the president is trying to achieve. host: what is the resistance to e-verify, do you think? guest: i think people think it is going to expose a lot of people that are here illegally. the old estimate used to be about 11 million. this yeara new one out of yale university depth of the number more like 16 to 20, so we've got a lot of folks in the country that theoretically should not be here. the vast majority of them are working, obeying the law. in many cases they are contributing. so you need to have a larger discussion. the united states is a very desirable location. no question a lot of people would come here if they could,

probably more than we can easily handle. compromise,dea of if the democrats said give us a change of status for some daca recipients in exchange for border funding, is that something you would support? guest: absolutely. we put that on the table twice in the last session. unfortunately not a simple democrat supported it. strangely enough, i think senator schumer offered something like that a couple of years ago when it looked like daca status was going to run out. the courts have delayed that now. president trump wanted more. we should have taken the deal then, in retrospect. i think that is a fair deal. daca for border security. you have a daca problem because you had insecure borders. why not help kids that are here that are working hard? if you are a daca recipients, you haven't committed a crime, ,ou are in school or working maybe in the service -- i have met with a lot of folks in my district. these are splendid people. they don't have anywhere to go

back here. in some cases they don't even know the language where they came. let's help those kids. the president actually offered that he would sign a bill that would give not only the daca recipients, but daca people eligible -- a lot of people don't sign up because they are afraid it will make them eligible for deportation -- it is about 1.8 million people he was lit willing -- he was willing to legalize and support for border security and wall funding. host: republican line from maryland, rick. go ahead. caller: yes. tom, i assume you are concerned about the security of the united states. guest: very much so. caller: more than any other country. president bush -- or president trump here is concerned about that very much, and he wants this wall. well, $5talking about,

billion, maybe we will compromise on like $1.6 billion or $1.3 billion. answer me this question. we give israel $4 billion or $5 billion for their security. $38 billion,y got and the only congressman that opposed it that i know of is rand paul. so tell me how you justify giving israel $38 billion, and tell me what they do for the security of the united states. guest: i will. first of all, they didn't get $38 billion. they got a guarantee over 10 years that we would spend that much money. it is about $3 billion to $4 billion a year. we get quite a bit. first of all, we had pieced in the middle east -- we had peace in the middle east.

we helped the egyptians as well. war in the middle east is expensive for the united states because of the risk to our of lives and security because it helps breed terrorism and pushes up the price of oil. in addition to that, israel has been a remarkable -- has a remarkable record of intelligence cooperation with the united states. it helps us in terms of identifying terrorism. we work with them on developing anti-ballistic missile and anti-rocket systems in tandem. they've been an important strategic ally of the united states for a long time. that,s an investment interestingly enough, presidents of both parties, including president trump, have supported. it doesn't matter who is in control of congress. i think because the facts are pretty overwhelming when you sit down and look at them, this has been in the long-term interest of the united states. host: from california, ray is next. democrats line. caller: good morning.

guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions for you. , the united states has a law that says asylum-seekers can present themselves at any place along the border and turn themselves over to border patrol at the request for asylum. is that true? if so, is not our president sort of misrepresenting the caravan? also, i don't mind spending money for border protection, but my issue is that most of the illegal drugs come in a shipping truunks ofand in cars and through airports, so i

don't understand why those issues aren't in the forefront. and then the last question is how much does it actually cost for the government to be shut down? host: ok. we will leave it there. guest: it is expensive to shut down the government. that is why i've always opposed government shutdowns. and they never achieve their objective. republicans tried to do this in 2013. i was against it then. it did not achieve the objective of trying to shut down obamacare. i saw the democrats do it to try to achieve a daca settlement. it did not work then. the preparation for shutting it down, the actual time -- we never, by the way, when we lay people off, we come back and compensate them for their salaries. they might miss car payments or

house payments along the way. so again, your point about that as well taken. i don't favor a government shutdown. both sides have tried it. both sides have failed. i don't think it would be any different this time. in terms of drugs, a lot of them do come directly across the border. obviously if you are in a car, you go through a border stop. a lot of shipping containers. we are 4% of the world's population. we use something like 50% of the world's illegal drugs. we got a problem on our side of the border in terms of consumption. you have cartels and all the violence associated with this. it is something we need to work on in multiple ways, but a more secure border i think is one of them. i am trying to remove your third question now. host: i didn't jot it down. apologies for that. guest: my fault. sorry about that. host: what is going through your mind these days as you are going to become a member of the minority party next year? guest: how painful that is going

to be. i've been here long enough to serve in minorities and majorities. it is thought more fun to be in the majority. fortunately in this case, we still have the administration and a much more secure majority in the united states senate. we are not going to be dealt out , but it does mean going forward, anything big that is going to get done is by definition going to have to be a copper mise -- to be a compromise. and there are areas we can cover mise. infrastructure -- we can compromise. infrastructure is an area, bringing down the price of prescription drugs. but again, if you don't know how to work together to get things done, you'll just have two years of bitter stalemate, and that is not productive for the country. i will work really hard to try and get productive things done where we can agree, and make sure the government functions well and on time.

it is a normal midterm. no one has had a good one since 2002. people say it is all trump. if that is true, it was all obama in 2010. we had some things that hurt us in suburban areas. part of that is presidential style. style helps us in certain parts of the country, and hurts us in others. that is true of any president. i think there needs to be some serious thinking because we did produce a good economy. we've not been involved in major wars in the way we have in previous administrations. there is a lot good to run on. the closest to peace and prosperity we've had since 9/11, quite frankly, and we still lost ground in the house. i think it is time for republicans to do some introspection and course correction. host: representative least a

phonic -- representative lias to was asked about this. minimizing the damage -- minimizing the root causes behind these losses will lead to repeating them. you better not look in the mirror and say everything we are doing is great. clearly there are things they need to change. but both sides seem to be under a lot of pressure. the democrats are coming off a great victory and leader pelosi has had to struggle to put together the vote. she appears to have done that yesterday to make sure she's the next speaker. there's a lot of dissatisfaction in democratic ranks even after a big victory. host: what do you think about a move like that? guest: that is up to democrats,

not us. i wish them well as they work through their problems. -- wet think generally have term limits on our side. this is a new step for them. but at the speaker level, you have term limits. every two years you have to get the votes. i don't think it will change things materially very much. she's a very capable and tough opponent, and she will remain that. why for years, when you are 79 years old -- four years, when you are 79 years old, that's a pretty good deal to make. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. it is a pleasure to talk to you. i do remember with the violence against women act, the democrats helping you out because the republicans did not want the reservations and all of that. the problem i'm having right now is in 2013, the senate, which president trump keeps on saying

the democrats in the senate, there was a bipartisan immigration reform passed by the senate. bipartisan. they would not bring it up in the house. why is that? is that because the republicans always like to this, and now we have a president who just yells they are bringing disease, they are bringing this? this is what the problem is. billingn terms of the 2013, only 14 republicans in the united states senate voted for it. that was an overwhelming democratic deal. you are not going to get a bill that gets all the democrats and 14 republicans through a republican house. speakers don't bring up things -- i always tell people, give me the one-time nancy pelosi ever brought a bill to the floor the majority of her caucus opposed. she never did. a majority of republicans opposed that particular immigration bill.

it's pretty easy and divided government to play that game. pass something you can only get through your house, and then blame the other party when you cannot pass it. 14 republicans and 40 odd democrats are going to decide what happens in the republican house? it doesn't work that way. you have to sit down with the other side and work out something that is agreeable to both. it was a political stunt from beginning to end. host: republican line from maryland, ruby. caller: thank you for allowing me to ask a question. wall is part of national security. my question is why there is a party dispute. democrats and

republicans all for american. they all protect americans. border wall is a part of national security to protect america. into thisut politics discussion? , itthe government shutdown has to. the president protect american, and he has no other choice. host: thank you, color. i had -- thank you, caller. guest: i agree on your basic point about or security being part of national security. i think what the president has asked for is reasonable and we ought to do it. butwe've done parts of it, we need to do more and do it at a quicker pace. i think that is what he's insisting upon. and democrats in the past have supported this. if you look at what the president is talking about,

pretty much it is what passed congress in 2006 on a bipartisan basis. the obama administration just quit and you had many democrats back then that were very much in favor of it. now i think it has gotten personalized. if this happens, it is somehow a victory for the president -- and and we areess -- going to deny him that victory whether it makes sense or not. honestly, people have made it a political issue when it actually shouldn't. i agree we should all agree on protecting the country. we can debate on what method works, but we don't disagree fundamentally. your point about shutting down the government, with all due respect, and i quite often and in the minority in my own party, it is not going to work. it never works. sooner or later you're going to have to reopen the government. and the other side can say until

you reopen the government, we are not going to negotiate with you. every day you shutdown functions -- and unfortunately -- and fortunately in this case, most of the government would go on, but one of the places that wouldn't would be border security itself. homeland security has not been funded. they won't get paid. they won't get all the equivalent they need. projects that are ongoing, and there are construction project at the border now, will stop. it just seems to me that it is very unproductive, and it is an empty threat. if you threaten something we know have been tried repeatedly and has never worked, and we know both sides have tried it and they have always failed, i fail to see why people think this is an effective tactic. it is just not. you make life worse for more i'm our best for more and more americans the longer it goes on. the state department hasn't been funded yet. are we going to shut down all our embassies?

are we going to shut down travel because we can't issue visas and passports and things like that? you shutdown the apartment -- the government of the interior. shutdown indian health care. really? you want to do that on reservations? so this won't last long, but it won't work either. host: before we let you go, there's reporting today that a copper might have been made in the house on how sexual harassment claims are handled on capitol hill. what using the long-term effect will be? guest: first of all, it is the right thing to have done. i really commend both sides on this. bradley byrne's and jackie spear , republican and democrat respectively, were negotiators on the outside -- on the house side. it will make people that commit a sexual offense responsible themselves. in other words, they can't pay for any damages out of office funds, or there's no judgment

fund from the house that would protect them. they got to write the check themselves. there's all sorts of additional penalties and reporting that goes in. this is going to make life better for young men and women. predominantly it is male to female. that holdsthing people accountable, makes people transparent, and says we will not stand for this is a good thing. host: will it be transparent as far as what is paid to whom? guest: i don't know. far they go how back or what kind of records they have, but something like that happens, the public has a right to know. the public shouldn't be responsible for covering your personal misbehavior. you ought to be responsible for that. i think this is a good step in the right direction. i'm glad we had a compromise. it actually wasn't a partisan dispute. it was an institutional set in-house kind of debate.

i think the house version is a tougher version, and i think that's appropriate. host: this is representative tom cole joining us, a mother of the appropriations and budget committee, and a representative of the state of oklahoma. coming up, we talked to daniel bunn about the tax package republicans are putting together. also later in the program, representative nanette barragan on a potential government shutdown and other issues. all of that when "washington journal" continues. ♪ announcer: 50 years ago, apollo eight became the first manned spacecraft to successfully orbit the moon. this weekend, american history tv marks the milestone with special features.

:00 a.m.sunday and on eastern, we are live from chicago's museum of science and industry, home of the apollo psule, taking your phone calls. at 4:30 p.m. eastern, and oral histories interview with apollo eight castle pilot jim lavelle -- capsule pilot jim lavelle. sunday night on "q&a" -- hadhis american nazi party 20,000 supporters who came to rally at madison square garden. as that footage shows in the middle of new york, stormtroopers in the middle of salutek giving a nazi next to a swastika and a picture of george washington. that was for george washington's birthday.

it was associated with the phrase "america first." announcer: professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms america first and the american dream in her book, "the hold america," -- "behold america," sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: daniel bunn of the tax foundation joins us, here to talk about the house considering a year end tax package. good morning. a little bit about the tax foundation, what it is and the stance to take when it comes to tax issues. tax researcha think tank that's been around since 1937 that looks at the economic effects of different tax policies and studies how different proposals, whether at the state of federal, or global level impact decision-making for businesses and individuals. host: we are talking about the

house on the republican side passing a tax package. walk us through what led up to the package and what is expected from it. guest: this bill that hasn't yet passed, originally chairman brady worked on this at the end of november. the original proposal included some tax extenders, generally just housekeeping towards the end of the year that comes up basically annually in washington. there's also some provisions on health care taxes thomas some things on retirement savings. in fact, a large portion are towards retirement savings provisions. there are some other technical corrections related to last year's tax law. it is a pretty substantial bill, , thei the end of november house decided not to take this up for a vote. since that time, this week chairman brady has come back with a slightly different proposal without the tax extenders as part of it. whereas in november it was about a $54 billion targeted tax

relief bill, a lot of that has been trimmed down. $30 billion of that was the tax extender package. host: what led to the trimmed down? guest: a lot of the tax extenders are related to things you will not always get agreement within the republican party. some things related to renewable energy products. what has happened with the extenders discussion over the last few years is a few years ago, you had a bill that was over $600 billion in different individual extensions of tax policies. now the field has really narrowed so that there's not really much left over business at the end of the year, and it is possible you would see this kicked into next year, and rolled to part of the funding debate of 12. host: let's go into some of the details -- debate as well. host: let's go into some of the details of this proposal. what is a medical device tax? several of these health

care taxes were part of the financing mechanism for the affordable care act. the medical device tax is a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. it is widely unpopular within the house and senate, and has been delayed several times as part of this package, and would be delayed again. host: what type of medical device? how is that defined? guest: it is mostly technology that is used as part of health care treatment plans. it is one of the things that you would expect, all of these things to be rather expensive, so adding the excise tax would make the production of some of these devices almost prohibitive. host: additional details of the package will be discussed with our guest, daniel bunn, of the tax foundation. if you have questions, (202) 748-8002 four republicans,

democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002. when it comes to other health related issues, another part of this package would delay taxes on high-value insurance plans from 2022 to 2023. guest: high-value insurance plans are those that provide a lot of benefits and actually cost a good deal in health insurance premiums. the idea behind the cadillac tax was to tax these high-value plans in order to finance some of the affordable care act and to be able to have a financing mechanism for some of the lower end plans for lower income people. host: what led to the push for another year? guest: this is all tied into the health care financing part and the difficulty with which the house and the senate have had dealing with repealing or replacing, or changes to obamacare.

similar to the medical device tax, the cadillac tax is generally an unpopular thing because one of the changes it would make is take away some of the or change the incentives for health insurance providers such that individuals who have these high-value plans would see their costs rising and potentially not the options as available in the market. host: a delay of the health insurance premium tax. guest: again, another part of the financing for the affordable care act. the health insurance premium act would be a direct tax on health insurance premiums. generally unpopular, especially with republicans. with the shifting out of these delays, it seems like the republicans and chairman brady are trying to set up individual debates on these different items over the course of the next several years. host: when it comes to, aside from this year-end tax package, this is on top of another tax package that was passed last year. can you scope out what we have seen because of that?

guest: the tax plan that passed last year, this was a big overhaul of our tax system, a dramatic reduction in the corporate income tax rate, a huge shift in the way multinationals are taxed, and a big shift in the way individuals are taxed. a dramatic tax cut across the board. the way we are looking at this over the course of this year, a lot of the data is still coming in. we expect the effects to be slow going as far as building up over time. overall over the next 10 years or so, we would expect gdp to be about 1.7% higher than it otherwise would have been, but it is slow going to get to that point. one of the things we have been looking at, estimates prior to the tax reform showed that about $1 trillion of liquid assets were held by u.s. multinationals overseas and their foreign subsidiaries. a lot of lawmakers wanted the tax reform to be such that those

foreign subsidiaries would move that money back to the u.s. and back to their headquarters. over the first have of this year, we have seen about $500 billion move back. that could be current or past earnings, but it is directionally what we would expect from this tax bill. generally speaking, the economy is in a fairly good place. i wouldn't a credit that all to the tax bill. there are also things going on that could reverse some of the impacts of the tax bill, especially with the president's trade policy. we expect the president's trade policy to erode a lot of the benefits of the tax bill, so they are working kind of at odds. host: we sought republicans claim victory with the passage last year of the tax bill. what is the likelihood they will get this year end tax package? guest: i would separate the two a little bit. this year-end tax package is more of a housekeeping effort. it is much smaller in scale, and there are some simple technical

far asions, simple in as the corrections, but meaningful to the businesses that would be impacted by them. you have a provision that businessa lot of investment in qualified improvement properties, so a lot of retailers aren't able to take it vantage of a provision that would allow businesses to deduct the full cost of their investment in new plants, equipment and property, or assets that have lives less than 20 years. wasre part of the tax bill that some businesses, like retailers and some restaurants and other types of businesses in similar situations, wouldn't be able to deduct the full cost of renovations or a new sink or things like that. host: again, daniel bunn joining us. websiteation.org the for his organization if you want to know that. caller: good morning.

i wonder if a bill of rights to protect themselves for cat scans, x-rays, you name it. the problem is they have to throw everything away. with the sutures outcome of the instrument to take it out, the thing was. too old they tossed it -- the thing was too old. the cost of writing to the garbage. i couldn't believe it. guest: thank you for the question. the big shift that has been going on and the big debate around health care policy has been about trying to finance a system that provides health care for low income americans and also shifted the incentive structure around the health care system that has been built up over time. mechanism creates a lot of strange incentives in the health care industry.

what we would hope to see over the course of this debate and over the different issues that sometimes get resolved and sometimes don't is changing incentives so the health-care industry is a bit more efficient and cost-effective, and that people are able to see the real cost of what they are paying for as opposed to having those costs hidden and consuming more health care than they otherwise would. a lot of what needs to happen is more transparency in the system and more of those costs being made clear to individuals who are taking on the care. host: harold in palmdale, california, go ahead. caller: yes. i am a taxpayer. is our public sector, public servant sector, growing too big? is this raising our taxes higher and higher? i guess that is my question. guest: one thing you've seen

over the last several years is there is a growing public sector, as you mentioned. one of the things the tax foundation looks at when we are looking at different government policies were state policies, federal or international is whether a tax system is able to finance the priorities the government has set on the spending side. budgeting is very much about priorities and paying attention to the revenue side is critical. one of the things that we try to pay attention to is the structure of the tax code, whether that is efficiently designed to raise the revenue that a government needs to finance its priorities, or whether it is designed in a way that really damages business investment decisions or the ability of individuals and families to save. the importance overall is to make sure that those things are balanced with the other priorities governments have. host: when it comes to the price tagged and a we are estimating

$80 billion for this new package. put that in perspective. guest: the score of this new package was actually i think closer to $54 billion at the end of november. it could change based on what ultimately happens as part of the funding debate, but relative to as far as these and of your packages are concerned, there was a package in 2015 that solved a lot of these different issues as far as creating permanency rather than these temporary expiring provisions, and that package was upwards of $600 billion. it was a much larger effort to clear the decks and provide a way forward for tax reform to get rid of some of these -- not get rid of, but make permanent a lot of these temporary provisions. now what you have is a much narrower field of provisions. of that $54 billion, about $30 billion are the temporary provisions. these go to different industries , and there's always considered which menzies -- there's always

constituencies for different narrow tax cuts. it will be interesting to see how this plays out with the end of your funding debate or if it gets kicked into next year. one of the interesting things about the way this was handled last year, you had the big tax bill in 2017, and then the extenders were not debated or not finished until 2018, and it was retroactive for the year of 2017. it is a lot of difficult times for end of year planning at businesses that are impacted by these extenders. host: what element of this year in package is incentives to encourage retirement savings? how does that work? why is it in this package? guest: this has been a multi-year effort by ways and and finance committee to be able to allow smaller businesses and individuals to be

able to have access to retirement savings accounts and manage those plans on a lower cost basis, and be able to simplify how those plans are set up. at the same time, there are some changes in this that do cost some revenue. i think the revenue score on this part of the package is about $13 billion. but those changes are necessary to make the retirement system and the preferred retirement savings accounts to work better in general. host: dave is in michigan. go ahead. caller: a question for daniel. i tried to get through on tom cole, too, to try and search something out that i don't understand. point with a somebody ahead of me to make this short, but how does our tax revenue actually figure out earned income in this country coming across borders and so

forth internationally? are we really getting the bang for our buck when they come over? notust seems like we are getting enough. how much of this? i will take my answer off the air. thank you. guest: one of the things we think about when we think about international investment and businesses that are headquartered overseas when they invest in the u.s. is whether that benefits americans. generally speaking, when a foreign company decides to set up a factory or service center or other business entity in the united states, they hire american workers. those american workers pay taxes , and the coveney pays taxes on their profits generated in the united states. generally speaking, that is a win-win for the united states, and it improves our international relations with the countries that those companies

are headquartered in. it improves our relations on tax treaties, trade treaties, and things like that. those generally are things we see as benefits. a lot of times you have companies that are looking for different opportunities to invest around the world. one of the things they are looking for his profit opportunity. for companies looking at the u.s., u.s. tax reform last year generally should be an incentive for companies to look at the usmc profit opportunities where toy may not have been -- look at the u.s. and see profit opportunities where they may not have been before. trade the president's policies worked against this in disrupting some of the investment opportunities and questioning whether those international trade relations will continue to be stable.

hopefully those difficulties can be ironed out, but generally speaking this tax reform and the way foreign companies invest in the u.s. and higher american workers is good for everybody. host: one of the issues domestically with this end of your package deals with nonprofits and how they deal with politics. what is being considered? guest: i will admit this is not my area of expertise, but generally the debate is whether nonprofits would be able to have more political engagement, especially those nonprofits you wouldn't think of previously being able to have direct political engagement. this is tied up in the debate around the johnson amendment and whether politically active nonprofits, and to what extent, could maintain nonprofit status. the bill as it is right now would repeal provisions that would restrict that ability for nonprofits to be more politically active, and more permanently. host: from our line for democrats, marvin is on with our

guest. he is from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i was looking at tax rates way back when i was in school. i graduated in 1968. the tax rate was amazingly high up until 1964, after roosevelt was -- host: keep going, marvin. go ahead. caller: i just wondered, what would it take to get us back to tax rates of eisenhower and kennedy? host: thanks for that, caller. wast: as the caller beginning to describe, yes, tax rates were incredibly high. marginal tax rates were incredibly high post-world war ii, and they came down significantly. what we have seen over the years with the reagan tax cuts in 1981 and some tax cuts since then is a shift to pay attention to those marginal rates. that work and earn

income for their families oftentimes pay attention to where their money is going to whether they are earning that paycheck and being able to bring the majority of that paycheck home, or if marginal tax rates are incredibly high, whether they will be able to bring $.50 on the next dollar home or something less than that. incredibly., it is important for individuals across the income spectrum to be able more,k and earn and earn and be able to do that without the tax system distorting those. one of the ways you can do this is to move to a potentially little flatter tax system. our tax system is still incredibly progressive relative to some very flat systems around the world, but it has moved in the direction where marginal rates have come down. host: let's talk about the other side of tax efforts, the effect on revenue. what are we seeing happening because of last year, and how is

it affecting issues of debt and deficit? guest: it was certainly a big tax cut last year. the economic effects of this tax cut, and several other think tanks around washington did as well. we expect revenues to be below what otherwise would have been expected outside of the tax cuts and jobs act, to be below that baseline until about 2023. we are seeing the results of that was lower revenues than otherwise expected this year, and for a few more years. over the long term, we expect this tax cut to be about $450 billion over the 10 year. after 2024 or so, you would expect revenues to be above what the otherwise would have been without this tax cut. a lot of the tax cuts and jobs act was temporary. if all of those provisions were made permanent instead of the -- permanent, and set

of the 1.7% gdp growth and other effects, you would see something closer to a 5.7% increase in gdp relative to what it would have been. host: that makes a significant difference? guest: it is a crossover point. the tax cuts and jobs act had a lot of incentives for economic growth. with higher economic growth to me you're going to see higher tax revenue just because businesses are more profitable and individuals earning more. it is that crossover point. for the first few years, we are below baseline revenue. after that crossover point we would be above baseline revenue. but again, over the ten-year period it is still in that $450 billion tax cut. host: we will hear from martin in richmond, virginia. caller: the morning. i was wondering if you read the republican story recently -- the pro-public a story that came out recently, that there was a $4 billion loss from the slew of

irs agents, that we are losing 1/3 of them and all the international companies are not , and theeir taxes elite modifying the laws aren't paying their taxes. guest: on the irs funding issue, this is certainly a critical debate. the irs as our tax enforcement agency should be able to do its job. it acts as not only an enforcement agency, but also as a data collector that researchers like myself use a lot to be able to inform our research. so making sure the irs is well-funded is a critical issue. as far as different corporations supposedly not paying taxes, different corporations pay different levels of tax based on their business model or correct your profits -- were current

year profits. if the tax code is more favorable to certain types of business models, you might see those businesses pay lower shares of taxes. this may be just the rules of the game rather than some sort of gaming. the international tax rules are incredibly complex, and businesses spend a lot of time figuring out how to minimize their tax burden. one of the things we would like to see more of is more transparency and simplicity in systemes throughout the so that this isn't a question of complexity or who can game the system best, but rather a system that is neutral towards business decisions. if a particular business isn't paying tax in a certain year, you need to ask whether that was tax planning or similar because they weren't profitable in a certain year, or whether the tax code is designed to make sure that business doesn't have to pay taxes in a given year.

host: the last call is from colorado, the independent line. charles is up. caller: you mentioned the supply-side thing in 10 years on a that we are going to get this money. but what i see right now is that we took these tax we gave the middle class a a little break, the upper class, but the corporations are sitting on $1 trillion on cash, they bought all these stockback. and our debt and deficit are going through the ceiling. it seems to me like we need some kind of -- i agree with you on simply filing the system. we can't just be charging things on credit cards and watching our debt go through the ceiling. how would you address that in a tax cut? guest: as you mentioned this is an incredibly important debate to be having over our deficits and our debt levels. one of the things you see with

debt and deficit is a lot of times you see those paired with lower growth economies, but it's not necessarily something that's happening in the u.s. at the moment. what you want to have, this is what the tax cuts and jobs act did is policies that promote long-term growth so that the long-term debt problem isn't as much an issue. if we're not growing and throwing up a lot of debt, then that may be one issue, if we're growing and if we have profitable opportunities for businesses and higher earnings for individuals and families, then it becomes less of an issue. and one of the things that you see going forward from the tax cut, you mentioned the tax cut for middle income earners versus tax cut for higher income earners. our tax code is incredibly progressive. if you are going to cut taxes across the board, then you are automatically going to see higher income earners benefit. it's an incredibly important

debate to be having. and to be focusing that debate on growth and not just moving money around from one part of the economy to the other. but if we can can have this discussion about growth and how tax policy can improve incentives to invest in growth, then i think we would be better for it. host: the foundation website is taxfoundation.org. check out their work and research there. daniel bunn director of global projects joining us. thank you. pen phones until 9:30. independents 2302-748-800 . we'll be right back. >> when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse

freshmen class in recent history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span. tarting january 3. >> this weekend c-span city's tour takes you to lawrence, kansas. >> lawrence was founded on a principle and in conflict. for those that know about bleeding kansas, it was the beginning of the civil war, but it started before the civil war. and for 1850's. it drew a lot of people in on both sides of the slavery issue. to decide whether kansas would be pro-slavery or not. lawrence was burned in 1856 because it was the headquarters of the free state movement. >> on saturday at noon eastern on book tv we'll hear from local authors as we learn about the history of lawrence. and then sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv, we'll take you to local historic sites and

to the robert dole institute at the university of kansas to hear about the life of this long serving senator from the state. the c-span cities tour in cooperation with our cable partners around the country, exploring the american story. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our twitter feed is at c span wj. r facebook page is facebook.com@c-span. michael cohen on many papers this morning, the president's former personal attorney at manhattan court receiving his sentence of 36 months. that's the "wall street journal's" rendering of it. if you go to the "usa today," jonathan turley, george washington university, who has been on this program several times, has a piece, cohen could deliver what mueller needs. he plead two felonies of note, perjury to congress of what he described as an effort to alter the facts to be consistent with the white house account on the moscow dealings.

second, he violated federal election laws in an effort he claims to cover up trump's quote, dirty deeds. now the question is who communicated with cohen during 2017 and 2018, and what they discussed. cohen says he knowingly lied on both issues. if he made that intent clear, coordinated a false account with white house lawyers or officials, the scandal will have metastasized within the white house and criminal conduct could extend to the oval office. the president himself talking about michael cohen via tweet saying in part, i never directed michael cohen to break the law. he was a lawyer. he's supposed to know the law. his called advice of counsel and the lawyer has great liability when the mistake is made. that's why they get paid. despite many campaign finance lawyers have strongly date stated i did nothing wrong with respect to the campaign laws even if they apply. he goes on from there when it comes to the statements from the president this morning, if you want to read it itself, you can find that on his twitter feed. also "washington times" this

morning, highlighting the fact that the publisher of the nabble enquirer admitting wednesday that the tabloid worked with the trump campaign to make a hush paymentle to karen mcdougal, america media incorporated. $150,000 payment was an attempt to keep her talking an affair she says she had with trump in 2006. california's up first in this open phones. palos ar from kevin in vertas. caller: good morning, pedro. i i would like to address what you were talking about earlier, the border situation. i'm from los angeles, i grew up near the border, crossed it many times. i think the wall is tremendously important. i think losing the idea of the wall just a drop in the bucket for overall immigration reform. i think it's terrible that the democrats are using this as leverage because to cross the border across certain parts -- near arizona, the terrain is

really, really dangerous. people go through extremely difficult, dangerous, put themselves in serious situations, their families trying to get over this border. if there is a wall there, it might deter them from doing that because they get hurt, killed. all sorts of things happen we don't share about every single day in the news. host: ok. ingrid next in kentucky. independent line, hello. caller: good morning. serving 31 years in the military. the department of veterans affairs is not part of the -- the department of the disabled american rip ns using the logo to off military being the puppet masters to the department of veterans affairs. they steal us blind.

i have not -- what they have done to our veterans. they have taken -- offshore accounts. they have the lawyers doing it. the department of disabled veterans do not donate because they are the puppet masters to the v.a. host: that's ingrid in elizabethtown, kentucky participating. one of the activities on the senate yesterday was push according to the "washington times" headline plan to censure the saudi government saying the senate wednesday voted 60-39 to open debate with a resolution with a handful of republicans joining in the chame -- joining the chamber's democrats. a final vote on the measure, a direct response to the outrage generated by the october killing of the u.s.-based dissent khashoggi in turkey is expected before the end of the week. one of the senators going on the floor co-sponsoring efforts to

directly deal with the saudi government was representative mike lee of utah. here's part of his speech from yesterday. >> many of my colleagues will argue, some of them have argued just within the last few minutes, that we're somehow not nvolved in a war in yemen. my distinguished friend and colleague, the senator from oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said we're not engaged in direct military action in yemen. let's peel that back for a minute. let's figure out what that means. i'm not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here. maybe in a very technical sense or under a definition of warfare or military action that's long since been renered -- rendered outdated, we're not involved in that. but we're involved in a war.

we're co-bye lidge rants. the minute we start -- co-belligerents. the minute we start targeting. the minute we're involved in the decisions involving making sure that they know the right stuff involvement in a war. host: more of that debate and other speeches made are available at our website at c-span.org. democrats line from canada. billy, go ahead. caller: morning, pedro. i'm just calling about -- a lot of callers calling about saying that we don't want illegal immigrants coming in. it's good if you come in legally. the g.o.p. position seems to be they don't want more legal immigration, they want to restrict legal immigration. if you look at some david perdue's conservative immigration bill, it rolled back a -- reduced legal immigration.

so there doesn't seem to be consistent on the republicans' position. you want to come in legally that's great, but we're going to restrict it. that doesn't make sense. host: are you an american living in canada or canadian? caller: i am an american living in canada. i work here. temporary work permit. but it seems like with the tax policy a lot of the g.o.p. senators used to come from these elite schools, with the tax policy they want to tax those elite schools that have endowments. so it doesn't seem like there is very good incentives for education in the tax cuts and jobs act. host: from glenn, potstown, pennsylvania. independent line, hi. caller: yes. pedro, i just got a comment to make. if the republican really want a border wall, they just make a fast track for $1 trillion for the deficit.

also for chuck schumer and nancy trump to they want worder, chuck schumer and nancy pelosi, take the money out of the $1 trillion tax cut he just did. host: glenn, pennsylvania, calling us this morning. the "washington times" highlighting signups for obamacare that's known. tom howe jr. rgets half a million million femur less have selected coverage than at this point last year. signups continue to lag heading into the final days of the 2019 enrollment. more than 4.1 million people had selected a plan on health care.gov, december 8, including one million in the preceding week as interest picked up ahead of the sixth and final week of signups. the deadline for much of the country is saturday.

the marketplace is struggling to match last year's pace, which roughly 4.6 million people had chosen coverage to the fifth week of enrollment. a number of theories why enrollment is down. premiums that are rising modestly are going down in someplaces. trump expanded the availability of cheaper, skimpier alternatives for people who feel premiums have grown by on the web-based changes. he chided the zap the individual mandate requiring people to get overed or pay a tax while in person enrollment assistance was slasheds. caller: how's it going. question. is it possible that you could have a -- like a group of people off to the side that when the republicans and the democrats say come on and they voice their opinions and their facts and stuff that they could be fact checked and actually be told

what the truth is? because republicans, they don't believe a single thing democrats say. democrats don't believe a single thing republicans say. they come here with their facts and none of it is true. host: we had a republican and democrat on this program yesterday together, actually. caller: what's that? host: we had a republican and democrat yesterday on this program. caller: i mean when -- like now when the people are calling in. because they say these things and none of it is true. and that way if they said something that was false, you have a panel off to the side while you are talking right now, that way they can be educated, both republicans and democrats, because some of the things that come out of these ideas of their minds, they are just -- they are being lied to. host: that's not our approach. we let people call in on these open phone segments. give comment as they wish. that's the way we do things. richard, georgia, democrats line, hi.

caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm calling in to talk about this so-called border wall. this thing is more or less a joke to me. how can you build a border on ,000 miles and put this big old fence up, or big old wall up -- 2,000 miles and put this big old fence up, or big old wall up and expect people to pay for it when they are struggling. people like me in the $50,000 to 8 $$80,000. we can't afford to pay for no wall. where the money going to come from? where do they think this money is coming from? we're the working people of this country. how do they expect us to live daily and afford to pay for a wall? host: what do you think of democrats on the senate side willing to offer $1.6 billion for border issues? caller: if they are going to put up something to enhance or make it better for the border p

patrol, or however more border patrol, i'm one of those people who have been down on the border on a monthly and yearly basis. crossing over, going to take supplies in and out of mexico on a truck. this thing about a border wall is a joke. it's a campaign stunt. it's all about jimmying up people to make fear of the people. this thing is crazy. host: we'll hear from david in yonkers, new york. independent line. caller: good, pedro. it's on yemen and how to really get out of yemen. basically deja vu all over again. our military and material support of the right wing puppet governments in the middle east. and as proceeded with the costly strategic during cold war and in the past 20 years in many countries there, continues to remain unabated in yemen. yemen has a lot of issues.

ands being supported by the more directly by the saudis. saudis consider government to be an extension of their sovereignty. the only solution is learning from excruciatingly painful lessons we have had in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, and why we must put an end, once and for all, to all military meddling in the region. host: leave it there only because you are starting to break up. keith in savannah, tennessee, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i want to say is we would be better off build the wall, tighten up our borders, and be cheaper in the long run than letting them illegals in and get rid of the rest of them. we don't need them here. host: couple of international stories. the "wall street journal" highlights recent decisions by he north koreans saying it was

south korea on wednesday indicating that the north korean leader was unlikely to visit seoul before the end of the year. an objective the sides laid out at a summit in september. meanwhile, north korea has issued a commentary admonishing south korea for holding an air force exercise this month and criticizing seoul's large-scale arms buildup. the developments are setbacks for south korea's president who has been instrumental in bringing the u.s. and north korea to negotiations and lowering the threat of armed conflict. that's in the "wall street journal." if you read it there. if you go to the pages of the "washington post" this morning, david farenthold saying for the -- for the past five years, the remaining consulate in chicago has held its national day celebration of the chicago cultural center, 120-year-old city landmark. this year the consulate chose a new venue, the trump international hotel and tower. the event included a speech by

the consul general and musical performances and reception according to a posting on the website. that event sponsored by the arm of romania's government came at a time when the president's company is already facing scrutiny over its dealing with foreign governments in two pending lawsuits. e president has violated the constitution's emoluments clauses. that bars presidents from taking anything from foreign governments or individual states. missouri next up on this open phones. go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to say that we seem to have entered a time in our government where not with e we dealing jerusalem which is a very crucial partle to our religious -- the building of the third temple in jerusalem. they are wanting to build it.

yearysically as far as the -- we don't have the eed to fund and fund a war that's coming up. host: apologies again. the signal you have breaking up. let's go to richard in missouri. democrats line. caller: yes. i'm calling -- i see on the news over there in yemen i guess it is, that -- wherever that war is going on, that kids, they are talking about people, a million people die of hunger. this is just as bad as the holocaust. we're all standing by and watching people starve to death by the millions. great powers in this world should have enough sense to stop that some way. one other thing, talk about the

wall. i remember back when america was great, the citizens had run up to canada to keep from having to be killed can over there in vietnam. we was refugees at one time trying to get away from tyranny. that's all i got to say about the situation. host: "the new york times" this morning highlights a new report that has come out about that school shooting in parkland, florida. this is based out of miami. saying that within the weeks after that shooting in parkland, florida, the widespread criticism was focused on scott peterson,ed armed sheriff's deputy who heard the gunfire and failed to run in and stop the massacre. but a state commission has been investigating the february 14 attack at marjory stoneman douglas high school for the past 10 months found the shortfall police response went further. seven other sheriff's deputies who raced to the school and heard gunshots stayed outside the building, according to the commission, and officers even

lost more time scrambling to retrieve bulletproof vest from their cars. a total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives in that attack. 17 others were injured. the draft report released wednesday by no means lift the blame for peterson. it did point to other failures on the part of school law enforcement official os that likely contributed to a shooting so deadly it set off a national youth movement against gun violence. in louisiana, we will hear from frank, independent line. caller: yes. how you doing. host: fine, thank you. caller: the border wall makes no sense. the fence that we have along the border wasn't even keep people out it was to keep diseased animals out. how can are you going to keep people out, they can dig underground. having more people on the wall, yes. that's fine. having drones, that's fine. we don't need no wall to keep people out.

america wasn't built on that. host: julie from rhode island. republican line. caller: yes. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: hi. just want to comment about when president trump was sitting and talking to nancy pelosi and uck schumer and nancy wanted the cameras to go out of the room because they need to talk in private and we were watching it, and president trump said, it's called transparency, nancy. and politics is for us, the american people. we put president trump in office, and he has been the most long arent president in a ime.

i'm all for what he's doing. host: that's julie in rhode island. the financial times on its front page highlights a photograph of the british prime minister, theresa may. that's by mark duffy, saying that last night theresa may awaited the outcome of a vote of confidence on her leadership. after the m.p.'s launched a koop attempt to seize control of the final stages of brexit, spent the day to keep her job as prime minister. after the vote was called in the early morning seeking to shore up support, she signaled she would step down as prime minister before the next election in 2022. but insisted a change in leadership now would put our country's future at risk. surviving that, that's the status of british prime minister theresa may. and the future of brexit. alan next. from delaware, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning.

thanks for taking my call. just a couple ideas on this wall thing. i think there might be a couple of barriers along that 2,000 miles whatever it is. it might be a good idea to have a physical wall there that would be tough to get across. but in other areas, why couldn't we just have say an observation shack by the border patrol every 70 miles and put these high tech sensors and cameras in place. they could watch that and respond to anything. but you wouldn't have to have a physical wall there necessarily and create more jobs for border patrol. you have to save a lot of money putting cameras in versus a wall. host: independent line, jeff is next up. he's in tore reince, california. good morning. -- torrence, california, good morning. caller: good morning. drama, drama, drama. -- hello? host: you're on, go ahead.

caller: yeah. cool. you think spending our taxpayers' dollars and building a wall, you think donald trump will have a brain to think he's a businessman? it's a waste of money. host: that's jeff from torrence, california. the "wall street journal" this morning their pape they are morning looks at the topic of homework. and the future in some districts saying school districts across the country are banning homework, forbidding it on certain days or not grading it. in response to parents who complain of overload and some experts who say too much can be detrimental. it adds the average number of hours high school students spent on a week of homework increase interested 6.8 in 2007, to 7.5 in 2016. the latest year available from the u.s. department of education. the average hours per students in k-8, stayed flat at 4.7 during those years. homework changes have been met with concern by some teachers who say it takes away a tool to

reinforce the day's lesson. and parents who feel left out of the academic process. there is more of that story if you go to the website of the "wall street journal." san francisco, california. line for republicans. frank, go ahead. you are on. caller: hello. good morning. yes, thank you for taking my call. two thing i like to talk about here. one thing is the saudi arabia involvement in yemen. and the second thing is what's really going on with the border, the wall. i mean how much money can we spend in building the wall, $5 billion? i mean if we invest that money in creating more job. we need people. we need people to work in the farm. please tell me, is anybody like you when you talk on the tv willing to work in the farm, pick up toe at this mow and

lettuce so we can have the food. if it wasn't for these people coming through the border and working in the farm, the prices would be skyrocketing. nobody can afford to buy anything to eat. host: your thoughts on yemen? caller: i'm sorry? host: your thoughts on yemen? caller: my thought on yemen. saudi arabia is involved in destroying yemen from the day god establish yemen. saudi arabia taking the oil which has been -- is more likely to be in yemen than in saudi arabia. saudi arabia is in the high ground. yemen is low ground. and the oil come yemen, saudi arabia will be back track. that's the main reason for the war. host: hear from michelle. the last call for this segment. she's in florida. line for democrats. caller: yes.

i just got a couple things i'd like to say. one is about the border wall. quit calling it a wall. call it border security. i have security around my house. for drugs that are in the neighborhood. let's get the security around the united states where we need it. everybody's gents trump. why are we against trump? he's trying to bring the laws back to america which is what america was done on. having laws for the people. let's start thinking it that way. another thing about yemen, that's kind of you've got the give and take. i agree the prince shouldn't have killed the guy. that is not what america would stand for. but at the same time we have to think of america around the world and what would be done. those are my thoughts. host: final call for this segment and the last guest of the morning will be

representative nanette barragan, democrat from california. she serves on the homeland security committee. and we'll talk about issues concerning security particularly in light of this debate over border wall. she'll join us next on "wall street journal." >> sunday night, on "q&a." >> this american nazi party had 20,000 supporters who came to rally at madison square garden. as that footage shows in the middle of new york, storm troopers giving the nazi salute with a swastika next to a picture of george washington. that was for his birthday. there 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. >> university of london literature professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms america first and the american dream. in her book, behold america.

sunday night at 8:00 eastern on -span's "q&a." >> 50 years ago apollo 8 became the first manned spacecraft to successfully orbit the moon. this weekend american history tv marks the milestone with special features. starting sunday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we're live from chicago's museum of science and industry, home of the apollo 8 capsule with author robert kersen taking your phone calls. at 10:00 on oral histories, the 1999 interview with apollo eight commander. and 4:30 p.m. eastern an oral histories interview with module pilot jim lovell. watch the 50th anniversary of apollo eight on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative nanette

barragan joins us, democrat from california. member of the homeland security committee and also serves the 44th district. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: being a member of the committee, what do you think about this debate currently over border funding? how does that fill into the larger picture of border security? guest: it's been an ongoing debate tore the last congress. it's unfortunate because we who sit on homeland security have people come in day in and day out and they talk about national security threats and what we're doing. we all believe in a bipartisan basis that we should secure the border and we want to protect our country from threats. and that's the thing. let's talk about the real national security threats. it's not going to come in from the south. the need for a $5 billion for a border wall is ineffective and waste of taxpayer dollars. host: make the case on that. guest: we have, for example, needs at the port of los angeles, i represent the port, c.b.p., customs and border protection, they need more staff. why? they need to see cargo coming in

to catch things like drugs. coming into this country. if you also talk to people at the ports, they'll tell you that the coast guard, very instrumental in having planes overhead, seeing ships and boats coming in, they are trying to smuggle in drugs. they are not getting the funding they need. c.b.p. needs more funding. if we're going to put money into border security, let's put it into what's really going to stop terrorists. what's really going to stop the crime and drugs really coming in to this country. airports and seaports. terrorists are more likely to come in through airports and seaports. that's where we should be putting funding. not in a border wall that's really just more of this president's anti-immigration agenda. host: we're going to see the house at least reportedly try to pass $5 billion on the house side for that. where do you think that will go? do you think it has legs? guest: don't think it does. we can't get the g.o.p. members to show up to finish their votes here in congress. in a week -- we were here all

week. they didn't even come in. they are going to call them back to come in? i don't think it will go nowhere. even if it gets past the house, it's dead in the senate. if they have the votes, they would have already put up the $5 billion. host: is there a compromise in the sense for the $5 billion maybe something will be done for daca recipients or anything like that to change their status? is that acceptable? guest: that's nothing new. we tried that last year. if you remember, chuck schumer went to the white house, sat in the room with the president, oval office, they thought they had a deal, and all of a sudden the president changed the goal posts. he all of a sudden wanted to end legal immigration. he wanted to end the visa lottery system. end family reunification. this president, unfortunately, can't be trusted to negotiate. when this occurred in the past, he did not follow through. he told us -- we were going to get a vote on the dreamers. we haven't gotten that vote yet, either. it's really unfortunate we have come to this. people should be aware.

the congress in this past year passed $1.3 billion. i didn't support it. but they passed $1.3 billion for fencing and wall. there have been efforts and every year that homeland security passed this funding for border security, national security it includes money for technology and other things that are needed at the border. that's a bipartisan issue we want to secure this country against threats. don't believe the rhetoric, unfortunately, coming out of the white house. host: when it comes the physical structures, is fencing enough? connected, the wall enough? guest: if you talk to those who work at the border they will tell you they prefer fencing because they want to see through what's on the other side. they don't like the walls where they can't see what's going on. that for them is a concern and problem. so we have seen that some fencing money has been put there for replacement fencing and new fencing.

the president got $1.3 billion this past year. host: nanette barragan will be with us until the end of this program. 20 -74 - 001 for republicans. democrats, 20 -748-8,000. independents, 20 -748-8002. when democrats take control of the house next year, specifically how does your committee handle issues like this? what do you think is going to change as far as the approach? guest: a lot more oversight than there has been. family separation, we'll have hearings. the conversation will continue to happen. this is one of the most bipartisan committees in congress. we get bipartisan legislation out. we work together. there is no doubt that the wall has become a political issue. if you talk to members across the aisle, they will tell you it's not the most effective use of taxpayer dollars. when you take a look at the drug cartels, they are going underneath walls. they are going overwalls. that is not going to stop

terrorists and it's not going to stop the drug cartels. host: what's the approach the committee will take countering that? guest: it's what they have been doing for the last several years. they have been putting in technology. they have manpower down at the border. the coast guard, making sure they have the eyes and ears not just on the waters over overhead and have the technology necessary. there is a multiapproach here. some of that in the past has been fencing. but it's more than just putting up a wall which i believe will be a wall of hate. under this president. host: we have calls lined up. first one from larry in texas. democrats line. are you on with nanette barragan, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. do you remember when i believe his name was chavez when -- uest: elchapo. caller: they built this tunnel. work of art. it was beautiful. he just walked out. what i'm about to say they have

tunnels all around this $5 billion wall. all around it. you can't stop anybody who is trying to help their family. no way. just a waste of money. guest: thank you. we actually recently -- i saw an article several months ago where in texas there was a fast food chain and they found a tunnel that went underneath from the fast food chain to mexico where they were smuggling drugs. those are the things we should be concerned about. that's where you put more money in intelligence, more money in officers. and k nine units. those are -- can canine units. i have been advocating for more c.b.p. funding. so that we have the staffing necessary. right now there is a shortage. it's happening at the ports of entry. host: we hear the president talking about terrorists coming through the wall. a as a member of the committee what's the truth? guest: we haven't heard any reports about that being the case. again we're seeing terrorists

come in through visa overstays. they are coming in through airports and seaports. they are not going to be hopping -- a border wall. -- hopping a border wall. they are more sophisticated than that. that's why you see updates all the time the real i.d. act and what's happening in airports. and i think those are areas we should continue to focus on. and the committee does. they take us out to airports. they show us what's going on. they show us where there's gaps. and those are the areas we're working on. intelligence and partnering with other countries have been helpful as well. when the u.s. helps invest in some of these countries, that makes life easier there, it prevents more people from coming to the united states. host: we saw models of the wall, what the president would like to see being built in california. there was reports this morning some of those sections will be taking place, being built in the next year. where are those going to be and are there better locations for that type of walling? guest: walling can't go everywhere. this has been an ongoing

conversation within committee, environmental groups. there are someplaces along the texas border where you just can't put a wall. there's already vegetation and things in the way. the department is looking at areas on where they believe they need fencing or replacing fencing. those are still in conversations. frankly i think these prototypes are out there because it helps the president and his agenda continue the conversation about the wall to try to please his base. but what i believe this $5 billion really is is a blank check. this president want as blank check so that he can can continue to separate families. he can continue to tear gas asylum seekers, and sending unnecessary military troops down to the border that's costing us millions of dollars and keeping our troops away from the families during the holidays. it's unfortunate it's come down to politicizing this issue. and make no mistake, democrats

and republicans want to secure our borders. we want to make sure our country is safe from threats. we're working hard to protect this country from terrorists. host: from california, republican line, glenn, go ahead. caller: good morning. i really wish ms. barragan would educate herself since the census , the harvard study on the ensus, said 76% of illegal immigrants, illegal imglants -- immigrants, are getting welfare, which -- and other government assistance which is $124 billion a year. that's incredible that you think the american people are so stupid about $5 billion, which isn't even the full amount, to citizenry. american

it's incredible. i would like to comment after you. let's hear what you have to say. guest: my parents were immigrants from mexico. i am the proud of immigrants. and frankly, a lot of people come to this country when they are escaping violence. coming for a better opportunity. immigrants contribute to this economy. if you take out immigrants, it's going to really have a huge negative impact. not just on the economy but in our schools and what's happening, even if you just take a look at the dreamers for just a moment, we have community colleges that are at threat of shutting down. it's unfortunate we continue to hear this argument about immigrants and how they can come here and they can just get all this welfare. public assistance. it's not accurate. there are many, many programs at require you to have a social security number, to just

have other status other than just coming over to this country. and then just getting welfare. it doesn't work that way. it is unfortunate that that is the rhetoric out there. host: quick response, caller. caller: it's a harvard study, ma'am. i love immigrants. i embrace immigrants. i worked with immigrants all my life in construction. i'm talking about illegal immigrants. would you not use reverse psychology on me? host: you made your point. guest: i mean -- i think there are a lot of studies out there and data that we know that immigrants in general contribute to the economy. some of those are immigrants who came the legal way and some of those are immigrants who didn't come through ports of entry. but that is america. this country is built on immigrants. and i am hopeful that we will continue to have our values of welcoming them into this country. those who have been here for decades, who have been contributing, paying taxes, who are good people, and let me tell

you, democrats and republicans both agree that if you are somebody who has come to this country, that are you doing bad things, you are a murderer, those folks should do time. they should be sent back. there is no debate about that issue as well. host: just to highlight this, the headline that i think the caller's referencing, census numbers analysis done by the certainty for immigration studies. from crockett, texas, barbara, you are next up for our guest. good morning. caller: thank you. i'm going to reiterate what the guy from california just said. i don't know where this lady's getting all her information, but there are studies out there. we stand 116 billion to $174 illion on illegals every year. you could have your money for the stuff you want.

we could have money for the wall if we could just cut the illegals out of here. yeah, we're a country of immigrants, but our immigrants came legally in the past. and this wall, if you would talk to some of the border people that are down there, they say a needed. laces is -- we don't need it to hold it the whole 2,000 miles. are you sputing lies and misinformation and nothing but democratic rhetoric. host: we'll let our guest respond. guest: we certainly hear this argument. but we have -- i have had hearings. we speak to those who work down at the border. and at most they tell you it's a speed bump. it's not an effective way to keep people out. there is a larger underlying issue here and that is that people need opportunity. in many instances, if you look at folks currently down in

mexico who have come -- they are come interesting central america. they are trying to escape violence. some of them their children have been killed. i know firsthand, i represented a guatemalan family. a mother and child. where they had already killed one of her children. she came here because she felt if she stayed there they would kill her other child. that's what's happening. we're a country where we have asylum laws and they are there to allow people to come to this country. what's happening at the ports of entry sun fortunate. people are showing up and not allowing them to present themselves. out of desperation, out of not knowing what to do, some of them are going in between the points f entry. that would be considered illegal. we have situation after

situation where families should be considered for asylum. it's completely legal under united states law to be applying and considered for asylum. think we should continue to have compassion and consider those folks. oftentimes we need to look beyond whether think presented themselves at the port. whether they came within the ports of entry. let's just have some compassion. a court will decide whether they qualify to be here. let me tell youtary, very hard to get asylum. it is very hard. host: how has the committee treated employers who employ illegal immigrants. how might that change once the democrats rule that committee? guest: what the president has done under i.c.e. and department of homeland security, they really increased the inspections they are doing at different employers.

. we have gotten reports. don't think that will change under congress because the president is the one who gets to govern policy with some of these agencies. what you can see and probably will see happen is more oversight. more hearings on what is happening and how they are going to about doing these down at the port. our business vs. come forward. we have also seen the videos. we have seen videos of some bad ales within i.c.e. -- apples within i.c.e. that have, we believe, not been appropriate. and we will have oversight on those types of issues. i think that is one change you will see happen under democrats. is the oversight that we haven't been seeing for the last two years under republican control. it really is not a democratic or republican issue. congress has a duty to provide

oversight and making sure that agencies are carrying out their responsibilities. what we don't see happening and what we feel has been happening is this empowerment of lawlessness. empowerment of not focusing on families. it's been a focus on families which is a real departure under what we had under the prior administration. host: the focus employers needed? guest: there is certainly always a focus on employers and there should be are holding people accountability and responsible. the question is, are there targets being done, being led by politics? are they driving -- are they doing what they are supposed to be doing? host: what leads to you that conclusion? guest: we have been reading a lot of all of a sudden there is this increase in investigations. some people have reported that

there has been some improper things happening. the question is, if we get those reports, congress looks at them, then should we hold the hearing about it? i think that is one thing that should be done. i think there also should be hearings sometimes on how policy is instituted. when we have the travel ban happen, there is an area, complete dysfunction. there was policy that handed down. nobody knew how to execute it. we as members of congress should have oversight. that's part of our responsibility. i think that is what you will see. starting with separating families and oversight on making sure we continue to highlight that issue because children are still separated. and we read article, after article that they are continuing to be separated. host: this is representative nanette barragan joining us, democrat from california. member of the homeland security committee. this is eric from california. democrat line for our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning, america. thanks, representative for your

service. i'd like to talk about the immigration situation. historically we all know that california, texas -- in american history was set up different. and even the rule was simply that christians had the right to come and go in north and south america freely. as long as you was a christian you had the right to cross the border. it was not a problem. even the democrats and republicans know that they have this right. it is being used for political reasons. they know they owe these people citizenship. even historically, we have this with the baby boomers, they are going to, again, retire. and we need this. it is being used for political, a bunch of money. i also would like to talk about the situation with the saudi arabia. we all know that in a kingdom,

the king knows everything. but yet and still the media when they talk about this, they act like they did not participate in that man's killing n a kingdom, the king knows everything. host: two topics. we'll let our guest respond. guest: thank you. when you think about the second topic of the murder of this journalist, he was a permanent resident here in the united states. yet the president doesn't seem to believe the involvement of the saudis. it's very unfortunate. that is something that i believe congress should continue to ask questions about. and not let this president just get away with giving him a free pass. and i don't know if we would get the same response if the journalist was an american citizen. this is where you have more concern of whether the president just treats people differently whether they are immigrants or not immigrants. but it's an unfortunate thing.

there should be outrage about a journalist getting murdered. and what we have heard and the transcripts we have seen from what occurred in the embassy, which is really who are risk. so i hope democrats and republicans, we have heard some of them come speak up but not forcefully and making sure that we do more. i agree with your caller. on the value of immigrants, can't comment too much about the what he mentioned about going back and forth freely based on religion. i believe that we have to have a system in place. we need to go back and fix our immigration system. there is no doubt about that. at some point i'm hoping we're going to have that conversation on comprehensive immigration reform. it's not just the dreamers. it's t.p.s. it's keeping families together. but it's also about the 11 million who are here, who have been paying taxes, who have been good citizens that we need to

continue to address. host: republican line from council bluffs, iowa, go ahead. caller: yeah. nanette, it sounds like you don't have any problem with all the little mexican dreamers. what about the white dreamers and little white kids getting killed? you mexicans. i'd like to know where you are getting your facts at. host: you can respond if you wish. guest: besides sitting on the committee for homeland security, i have experience from family who are immigrants in this country. we work with deported veterans across the globe who have come to serve this country and they are deported after they served our country. so we have a lot of great immigrants in this country. i am hopeful that when you talk to people in red and blue areas across the country, they

understand that. one of my republican colleaguesp once told me behind closed door about his experience. he's in a very red district. and told me his experience with immigrants. he's like, look, i can't talk about this too much because i'm in such a red district very anti-immigrant. i will pay the price. that's unfortunate. i think we have parts of the country that are like that. your last caller i think, kind of shed a little light on maybe parts of the country where you have that. for me, it's not just immigrants from mexico. we just saw an article where the president is targeting vietnamese immigrants. this president is going after immigrants on a totality of the basis not just mexican immigrants. for me as the daughter of immigrants, even though they are from mexico, i believe that we need to continue to have those american values, being

welcoming, understanding for those who are escaping violence. and i hope that people across the country won't listen to some of the rhetoric. that's just spewed out there, some of them are lies, and unfortunately this president has been at the forefront of putting out information that that's not factual. people believe in it. it's very unfortunate. hopefully we will be able to move beyond the negative rhetoric. host: you heard the guest reference policy or consideration force vietnamese war refugees. here's the headline from a recent story to show you the president moving to deport those. we'll go to our next call from illinois, stephen. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the comments from congresswoman barragan. a couple comments and then a question for the congresswoman.

it's painful to listen to this debate about the border wall. about i think that's just part of democracy. unfortunately it's not always pretty. president obama said more than once that there is -- this is part of democracy, too. in order to perfect it we're going to have debates that will get heated. some of it's based on misinformation. as far as the wall goes, congresswoman, as far as the funding for department of homeland security, are they adequately funded in the department right now to provide the security from a national security and border standpoint, security standpoint, are they adequately funded right now to take care of -- to meet the needs of the border? of protecting the border? host: caller, apologies for that because we're running short on

time. i want to let the congresswoman gets her thoughts in. guest: we're doing the best we can with the budget we can. but there is no doubt that the department of homeland security has areas that could use additional funding. i mentioned a few of them. you have c.b.p., the customs and border protection. staffing issues at the ports of entry. the canine units in the past have been splashed from funding. we need to increase funding for those areas. those would have been helpful for our airplanes and seaports. we could find areas. investments in cyber security. as i mentioned i represent the port of l.a. they were targeting within the last year or two. that would wreak havoc on the economy and the incoming of goods coming into this country. there are lots of areas we can continue to invest in. that's why i believe that we should continue to invest in things, smart and making sure we're using taxpayer dollars efficiently. so looking at some of these other areas are things i would

be more than willing to do. intelligence, c.b.p. agents at the ports of entry, cyber, lots of areas. that could help beef up our national security. we will always find areas, we also need to balance that with investing things like education and roads and bridges and infrastructure. let's not forget that. host: what was your level of support for nancy pelosi as speaker? what do you think about the recent decision she's made about limiting her power? guest: i support nancy pelosi. i did when i came in two years ago. i support her now. we saw her display at the white house this week with the president, which just reconfirms why we need her at the table. she has just the knowledge base. she's smart. she's very quick in responding. and has the demeanor we need this this country. -- in this country. the proposal, i haven't seen the complete proposal you just referenced about the limits. something i want to look at, want to talk to some of my

colleagues and think about it. but we always in the democratic party have talked about making sure that we get new faces in leadership. we did that this year with ben ray lujan going into number four slot. hakim jefferies the chair of the democratic caucus. so we're seeing that happening. it's great to have the conversation continue on how do we get more -- of the young generation into leadership. when i say that, it is really meant to be inclusive of new members that are coming in. we saw very diverse new freshmen class coming in. superexcited about the number of women, the women of color. in 2016 i was the only new democratic latina. now we have a lot more than that. great thing. host: representative nanette barragan joining us. democrat from california. member of the homeland security committee. thanks for your time today. that's it for our program. another edition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we'll see you then.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> funding for the federal government expires on december 21 unless congress approves the spending bill before then. there will be a partial government shutdown that will include the state department, homeland security, justice, the environmental protection agency and other parts of the federal government. some agencies have already been funded and will remain open. next week both the house and senate are expected to consider government spending bills and you can see that debate live with the house here on c-span and the senate on our companion network, c-span2.

>> 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. -- "washingt" continues. cole representative tom serves the fourth district of oklahoma. thank you for joining us. when the president says he's willing to shut down the government over a wall, do you believe him? caller: i do -- guest: i do believe him. i don't think it is good, productive politics. but i don't doubt his seriousness. host: where do you go from here to keep that from happening? guest: there's really not that much difference between the sides. it seems like there is, but there's seven bills in