immigration and border security issues. at 9:00 a.m., carrie johnson on the opening day of testimony for william barr, president trump's nominee for attorney general. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] it is the "washington journal" for january 15. was stripped of all his assignments yesterday. some republicans are even calling for representative tenney to step down from office. your reaction to these events in the first half-hour. here is how you can give a call. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can post comments on twitter @cspanwj and you can also post

on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. representativeom king existed in an interview that took place with the new york times. in part that read it when it comes to the topic of white nationalism -- white nationalists, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive? king afterive learning he was going to be removed from his committee positions posted on twitter some statements about what happened. in part he said when i used that word in the interview, it was a reference only to western civilization and not any previously stated evil ideology, all of which i have denounced. my record as a vocal advocate in western civilization is nearly as full as my -- it was kevin mccarthy in a statement following the decision on steve king reading in part

these remarks are beneath the dignity of the party of lincoln and the united states of america . his comments call into question whether he will treat all americans equally without regard for race and ethnicity. house republicans are clear. as congressman king -- let us hope and pray earnestly this action will lead to greater reflection and ultimately change on his part. the new york times highlighting -- the washington times mr. king had been a member of the judiciary small business and agriculture committees in the last congress including serving as chairman of the judiciary subcommittee on the constitution . that decision made yesterday by gop leadership and for the first half-hour, we get your reaction. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002.

if you want to post on our twitter feed, you can do so @cspanwj. also, you can post on our facebook page at c-span.org. a couple of posts from this morning. christopher saying there is no way to verify the context of what was said. impossible to get context without a recording. looks like they are trying to find a reason to throw him under the bus and also on twitter, hisf -- stephanie says belief and public comments are not new. this should have happened a long time ago. those are some of the ways you can let us know your thoughts on this action -- these actions by gop and the minority in the house yesterday. florida, democrats line. arnie, go ahead. what did you think about this decision by minority leadership in the house? caller: i think it's a waste of time. host: why do you think it's a

waste of time? caller: the united states is the same way. are we going to get all excited by that? i am a black person. host: that is barney from florida. this is john. john is in covington, georgia. you are next up. good morning, go ahead. caller: yes. making -- the people elected him, you know. he is a representative of all the people when you are elected. host: did you find the actions -- what did you think specifically of the actions of the house minority leadership? that is the minority

leadership, right? host: let's go to bob in wisconsin on our republican line. bob from clover, hello. caller: good morning to you all. i am really concerned about our free speech in america and how it is being limited by one color, black people. they are taking it out of racismion and can holler anytime they want. this is scary to me. i don't want racists. i really am against that. if i say a black man is a jerk, it has nothing to do with racism. his words were taken out of context by many blacks. host: did you think this was overreaction then by kevin mccarthy and other members of leadership in the house? caller: yes, sir, i do. i certainly do. when i was in the army, if i said something to a friend and a

black overheard it, i am a racist. it had nothing to do with racism and that is what i want to stop. host: a couple of tweets from members of leadership. bobby rush, democrat from illinois saying today i announced i will be introducing a resolution to formerly -- formerly center steve king for his patterns of racist and tina phobic statements. a similar statement coming from tim ryan from ohio saying the dangerous ideology of white supremacy is no place in america , let alone congress. it doesn't matter if you are democrat or republican, we all have a responsibility in calling out represent of king's harmful statements. a resolution of censure. name,e is a reprimand in but does not specify or carry any penalty other than having to stand in the well of the house as charges are read aloud. -- raise a question of privileges of the house it means

some floor action must take place within a few days. this is on top of the decision of removing represented of king from his committee assignments. this is chris, democrats line from buffalo, new york. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes. .bout stephen king i am going to read a passage --m the bible that says separated from adam, he said the balance of the people. host: what does that mean about the actions yesterday? caller: they said he made racist comments and stuff. it's more like that. everybody is supposed to be separated. host: let's go to lynchburg, virginia. mccarthy did the

right thing to remove stephen king from -- am i on? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: to remove him from a committee and also the republicans are not even speaking up about it, you had to put it in the news. president trump said he is an even listening to it. he is a racist just like the rest of them. all of them used to be democrats and they moved to the republican party. that's why you have all the blacks voting for democrats. was: one of the republicans -- commenting was senator mitch mcconnell saying i have no tolerance for such positions and those who espouse these views are not supporters of american ideals and freedoms. represent of king's statements are unworthy and unwelcome of his position. he doesn't understand why "white

supremacy" is offensive, he should find another line of work. those were statements made yesterday. on our independent line from independence, missouri, hello. caller: hello. good morning, everybody. i am glad to see mccarthy stand up on his legs. i hope he doesn't fall back down to the reptile level soon. we have situations in this country and this is one example. we need people to show more courage in their convictions. there are a bunch of republicans being silent right now with all the problems we have. thanks for taking my remarks. illinois, democrats line. good morning, you are next. caller: okay. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes. i am totally against his

remarks. yes, we do have freedom of speech, we have to consider what we say and how we say things. the racial epidemic has become more and more out there. a lot of people are really doing it now with our new president. honestly, we need to watch the things we say. we are all entitled to opinions. host: do you think it was appropriate to have the representative's committee assignments taken from him? caller: yes, i do. host: why is that? caller: with that kind of attitude and that kind of public display, if he is feeling like that, he will not be fair to anyone. host: that was a caller from illinois. don't forget when you are waiting online to talk to us if you could turn down your

television to keep the feedback from happening. republican line from oregon, charlotte is next up. hello. caller: ghi. i have 2 -- hi. i have two comments. i think we are making too much of what people say. when maxine waters was telling everybody to go and attack the republicans and stuff, the democrats said nothing and i think we are just getting -- making too much out of words anymore. host: what was too much about steve king's comments? caller: it is just words. when i was a little girl, i learned sticks and stones may break my bones, but words won't hurt me. they are words and we are getting all jacked out of shape over something so simple. another comment on

this, go ahead. caller: i would like to know how the gofundme fund is doing. host: we will go to share in indiana -- cher in indiana. caller: good morning. i would like to say i am in full support of steve king having his committee assignments stripped in light of these comments he made in the recent new york times article. this is nothing new for represented of king. he has a long and sordid history of making racist remarks to the press and america. he has noted connections with far right and neo-nazi parties in europe. i think it is a long time coming for this and i am glad to see the republican leadership have the spine to finally penalize him for his racist pandering. host: let's go to a couple of tweets. this is liz cheney saying these comments are abhorrent and racist and should have no place

in our national discourse. asked how the terms white nationalists and white supremacy become offensive. another tweet from jim clyburn, democrat from that estate is saying i denounce the words of represented of steve king and i do so invoking the words of another king, dr. martin luther king jr. who, if he had been allowed to live, who would be celebrating his 90th birthday tomorrow. tim scott, senator of south carolina, strong statement by the house gop -- this from yesterday and some of the reactions from legislators on this decision by the house minority leader kevin mccarthy to remove committee assignments from represent of steve king over statements made to the new york times about white supremacy and other topics. that is what we will take on for the next 15 minutes or so of this conversation. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002.

david in dallas, texas, democrats line. hello. go ahead. comer: i wanted to say why none of these minority agencies don't stand up and say something about all of this racial stuff going on? these black of minority organizations don't say and seeing thet civil side of the system do the black community they way they want to do because there is no one speaking out. it is just like this. it is nothing new, we see it every day. case as opposed to these high profile movie moguls, they publicize that and will not publicize something else. it's more than just a civil issue. it is an institutional thing as

well, from what i see. that is my comment. host: bob from massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. isler: my comment for this all of america, i am afraid. i am white and there is not a racist bone in my body, but i believe we are running down a road where unless everybody kills all the white people, there will not be any good outcome. is that what we want? host: how does that apply to the statements by steve king and the decision by the house minority leader ship. taken: his comments are way out of context. you cannot say anything nowadays without being some form of a racist or anything. no one can say anything. no one can get along with anyone anymore. we are running down a road of

wanting to kill each other and nobody wants to back away from it. i am scared to death. host: estelle in texas, republican line. you are on. caller: i agree with them taking his committees away from him. there is no room for language like that in america any longer. i wish people would stop being so angry and throwing the racist tone around. it's not doing anybody any good. there are not that many racists in america for as many accusations as are being made. i am tired of it. i cannot go to a bookstore and pick up a white or black book anymore from not being accused of being a racist. host: what about the comments from representative king himself and others that his comments were taken out of context? caller: i don't think they were taking out of context and i think they are disgusting.

host: from tennessee, democrats line, we will hear next from larry from memphis. hello. caller: i think steve king is a racist and this isn't the first thing -- he has been making these remarks for years and the republican party is not speaking out on this. catered to racists and talked about black people and brown people. neo-nazis, ku klux klan, all of these people associate with republicans and i think the republican party catered to racists. look at the governor of florida. the mark hill comments. look down in georgia. everywhere you go, they discriminate against black people. he wanted to get a pickup truck and round up the mexicans and get them out of the country.

host: that is larry in tennessee. those are activities from yesterday. we still have the shutdown and one of the events taking place today and tomorrow on the senate side featuring william barr, he is the nominee from president trump to become the next attorney general. he starts the first of his two days of confirmation hearings. if you want to follow along and see what happens, several ways you can do so. at 9:30, you can go to c-span 3 and follow on c-span.org and find out what the senators will say to him and what he will say to the senators on our radio app. go to c-span.org for more information. .ue in maryland, hello caller: i just want to chime in. i am an independent and i totally disagree with what they have done to congressman steve king. when you have representative

keith ellison, who has a very strong black nationalist past and president barack obama who had 20 years with the reverend jeremiah wright, who was a black nationalist and allowed his children to be breached black nationalism, he also went to a church in washington, d.c. that had a black nationalist preacher. i don't understand this double standard. steve king was taken out of context and anybody that doesn't think this is about his views on illegal aliens is fulling themselves -- fooling themselves. this will happen to every senator looking out for american jobs and standing up for this wall in the rule of wall -- rule of law and not allowing illegal aliens to completely take over this country and destroy america. host: that is sue in maryland giving her thoughts on the decision by the house minority

eater ship to remove committee assignments from steve king. off of twitter,, this is off of our twitter feed. he says steve king has a record of making such comments. the question is why western iowa keep selecting him. steve king's district is not really part of iowa, it is part of nebraska. those are the ways you can make comments on our twitter feed. facebook, you can post to their, too. from maryland, laurel, maryland, democrats line. hello. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: find thanks. go ahead, please. caller: when you hold a highly -- a public figure, very highly of people. you should be very mindful of what you say. whether he is racist or made a silly comment, you should be mindful of what you say. one example is smoking

cigarettes is legal, it doesn't mean everybody should exercise that habit. freedom of speech is okay, it doesn't mean you have to say everything that comes in your mind. we all need to learn not to say certain things. that is one of the attitudes people should have. host: his removal from committee assignments, was that appropriate, do you think? caller: i think it is appropriate because as a public figure, you are highly influential of people. when they say certain things, people do them. if he makes comments like that, people might think it is okay. that is how it trickles down and everybody starts acting certain ways. i think it is a good thing he was removed. host: how it is playing out in

washington is one thing. how it plays out in iowa is another. on the phone right now to give a sense of how iowans are reacting, rob of the des moines register serves as their political editor. good morning to you. thank you fort: joining us. how is this playing out amongst iowans? guest: in the fourth district, this is something i think a lot of voters, especially republican not -- has not made as big of an impact as it does for republicans at the national level. a lot of district voters are used to representative steve king saying caustic things and already made up their mind about whether they support him or not because of that or in spite of that. i think we've -- we saw this play out right before the 2018 midterms when the washington ast reported he had met with

far right austrian group and we have seen it years before when he has made other controversial comments. it is something a lot of islands care about and acknowledge, but especially from republican voters i heard from, a lot of them are still focused on his voting record more than the controversial comments he has made. bet: now that he is going to a legislator without committee assignments, does that play out as far as people's support for him, particularly as he runs for reelection? guest: i think that is something we will have to see in the coming day. however, there are already two primary challengers who have already announced and i am sure more thinking about it in the fourth district to have already planned on taking him on. comingng him on in the

year for deciding the future of the fourth district in light of these comments and also previous comments that have made people upset on the national level and sometimes other parts of iowa and i think this will have an effect on the primary race in terms of saying even having someone assigned committees in the future as a representative of the district. host: did we hear any reaction from the governor of the state or influential state leaders about representative king? guest: there have been a lot of comments including from senators chuck grassley and tony ernst in the past few days about his recent comments. senator chuck grassley responded yesterday saying he was not surprised by republican house leaders's decision to remove him from the committee's.

across the board, most iowa republicans i have heard from have responded saying they condone -- condemn white supremacy and white nationalism. you: robin opsahl, what are paying attention to the next few days because of these events? what do you think people should focus on? guest: i think how king chooses to respond to the new events in terms of committee assignments is something that we will be looking at, especially for his removal from the house g committee -- house ag committee. we are hoping to look at and talk to some of the fourth district voters who, a lot of times have very strong political opinions and goals in committees that king was on or with other things that might look different

now after these recent events. we are hoping to follow up on that and hear from his constituency about what this means. host: you can see the work of our guest, robin opsahl of the des moines register especially as you talk to these representatives. you can go to the website. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: this is edward in virginia, independent line. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: my comment. i approve of them removing him from the committee because i think it is time lawmakers start doing things right and stop supporting racist groups. host: democrats line, michael from villa park, illinois. you are on. caller: i would just like to say

a couple of lines ago a guy said naacp doesn't -- respond. they don't have to respond to those situations because they .now how people are it should not really matter what they do. they should go about their business because it is going to happen all the time. i think steve king on the -- don't giveim this guy a platform. he is getting a platform to do this silliness. if a person is going to be prejudiced, you don't have to vote for him. host: we will take one more call

from john in san pablo, california. republican line. caller: i believe he was taken out of context. you read the first and last of his statement, not the salient part. interview -- we discussed the changing use of language in political discourse. we discussed the worn-out label "racist" and my observation other slanderous labels have been assigned to conservatives on the left to inject it into our current political dialogue , fascist, as nazi white nationalists, white --remacist, host: we displayed those comments while we were referencing that. your point to all that? caller: another thought begins. western civilization, how did that language become offensive.

wasn'tst sentence applicable to when he said white nationalists, white supremacist. he was listing a litany and went saying when thought did that become offensive? host: okay. that is john in california. we have a couple of guest coming up shortly on this program. up next, representatives scott perry will give his perspective on the government shutdown, border security, and issues on reopen the government -- reopening the government. later, we hear from gil kerlikowske on the current state of border security. that and more coming up on "washington journal." ♪

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's television cable companies and we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. on patricia miller -->> sunday on q&a, patricia miller on her book. >> william campbell preston breckinridge and the number of middle names he has should signify he was in the southern elite and he had been a

confederate colonel, i very well respected cavalry men in the confederate calvary and at the time of the lawsuit, he has in his fifth term. matt empowers was a poor girl from kentucky with literary aspirations who was hungry for an education. she was this hungry young woman who ran into breckinridge at a time she was desperate to make herself something in the world and get an education. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative kustoff is a republican from pennsylvania and serves on the homeland security foreign affairs committee here to talk about the government shutdown and related matters. good morning to you. as far as the efforts to reopen the federal government. where are we? guest: it is frustrating for rank-and-file members because we are not involved in the discussion. this is between the leadership

of the legislature and the house and senate minority -- minority and majority side and the executive branch of the president. it seems the house keeps coming up with different measures whether it is from the minority or majority, both republicans and democrats and remove that through and the president keeps offering different things, throwing things out there that maybe we would include this or discuss that and we don't see a lot of activity out of the senate and that is frustrating to me and frustrating when you feel like you are negotiating with yourself. i think something will have to be done to break the impasse. both sides see their position as they cannot walk into that middle space and something has to be put under the -- onto the table to allow both sides to see a victory and walk into that middle space. host: were you a supporter of the shutdown? guest: nobody wants a shutdown,

especially when you have people working that are not being paid. private businesses, you cannot do that. why should the federal government be able to have their folks working without being paid? unfortunately, and washington, the only thing that seems to move big issues is tension and controversy and this is a big issue many people have desired some change on and this is what it, unfortunately takes some time to get the -- move the ball down the field. host: did you support the president using a shutdown to get what he wants on border security? securitysupport border being addressed. i prefer it not be done this way. i think congress should have stepped up last session when republicans were in charge of the house. we got 193 votes on a bill i think advanced the interest of the american people on border security and i went to the speaker and said we are 20 votes away, we ought to get everybody

in a room and figured the edges and get it to the senate. back up.not take it no one supports a shutdown that i know of as a means to get things done. it is an unfortunate reality of leverage. host: our guest with us and if you want to ask questions it is 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you are a federal employee and want to give input, 202-748-8003. what do you think of the term national emergency being applied to this? guest: national emergency has been applied 58 or 60 times after the 1970's. a lot of people see this as a national emergency and to a certain -- certain extent, i agree. i am not thrilled with the fact the executive what take it under his purview completely and deal with it, but if we have some thing happening and cannot get congress to find some way to deal with it, do we say the

problem doesn't exist? while it is not the best range of options, i think it is an option and i certainly think the president has the authority based on the law as i read it. i think there will be challenges regarding the funding. that seems to be the question because the border is the purview of homeland security and using military money to do construction will be a question i think it probably have to be decided of course if the president does declare. there is a situation where we have to find some solution, we cannot continue to ignore. we heard overnight another caravan is leaving honduras, san pedro sulu last night or this morning. this will continue and that is one of the caravans -- we hear from border patrol agents the caravan while it focuses attention on the numbers and where they are coming from -- they deal with that range of infiltration on the border of

illegal immigration -- that amount at least every single week. we cannot just continue with the situation we had. host: you spoke to the idea of compromise to resolve these issues. what is acceptable in your mind as far as what the president might be able to offer? guest: we are waiting for democrat offers. when the president said, let's agree to the spending package that reopens the government -- will you then work with us on border security and she said no, absolutely not. i am not sure what can be offered. i have been loza to vote for spending bills that continue to bankrupt our country and that is what both republicans and democrats have done. if we are going to say we will add border security to that. that is an issue that is pressing and worthy of the suffering, so to speak of overspending you get with that

and we have been willing to do that. the president has changed the numbers he has been willing to accept and i have been willing to go there waiting on an offer from the majority party, nancy pelosi, waiting on that offer to see what she will offer and make an evaluation. i haven't seen an offer yet. host: if that included an offer orresolve the issue for daca asylum-seekers, would that be acceptable? guest: it would depend on the details, but that would deserve a close look or consideration. any offer that is made, you have to consider carefully because this is an issue that needs to be resolved and we have two different parties with two different ideas. we have to be willing to have a discussion and so far there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion. host: our first call comes from st. petersburg, florida. you are on with our guest, representative kustoff of

pennsylvania. caller: why do you guys keep saying the democrats don't want border security? that is a lie. stop saying that. of course democrats want border security. and the other thing, what if obama was doing what president trump is doing, would you support this? you are hypocritical. it is disgusting. guest: let me answer the last question first and then i will go to the first one. i already said the favored is not the emergency declaration. my preferred option would be that congress work this out whether president obama or president trump is the president. i have been clear about that. it's not personal for me and i don't think it is for much members. as far as democrats being for border security, i think they

are, but you cannot vote for the policy and not a fund the policy. if you are for border security, the funding comes next and you cannot go out and say we are for it because we voted for the policy and not fund it. the policy without the funding is bankrupt and empty. with that being said, i know we have differences of opinion on what border security means, but i think what the president and many americans are talking about is we have this couple thousand mile border and looking at places according to border patrol -- the top 10 worst places for entry where we want to put some kind of a barrier so we can better use the human capital we have, border patrol at the other places and make sure people that want to come to the united states legally are channeled through the ports of entry as opposed to crossing where there is difficulty and maintaining surveillance and a presence along that -- vast stretches of open areas.

host: our republican line from new york. hello. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. the democrats just wanted to keep the border open so they can get all these illegals in here and get more votes. they don't want to take over, it's about power. they are a bunch of hypocrites and i think trump should go ahead and build the wall. the hell with them, let them sue him. they will like him more if he doesn't. hillary lost the election and this is all about that. she is never going to be president and that is the name of that game. they are trying to get him back and it will not work. cindy and this caller are indicative of the two sides and there is not a lot of middle ground. while the president did win the election and that was an issue, i agree we have to do something with the southern border and i

support the wall, the barrier, a fence or something where it is needed per border patrol and homeland security. they are the experts and telling us where they's should be done -- this should be done. i don't think the president has the authority to just go and build it and to hell with them, so to speak. this is where congress is supposed to do its work and unfortunately, this is a town about leverage and this is where we are because we are at this impasse. it would be great if we could find something the democrats were interested in as much as republicans or conservatives or people that want to secure that border that way are as interested in to sweeten the deal and i think this is a search for that common ground. what is that thing that brings them to the table and only they know. we keep asking, but they really know. host: the president talked about the caravan coming in from honduras, saying tell jack and

nancy drone flying will not stop them, only a wall will work, only a wall or steel barrier to keep our country safe. one of these ideas is drone technology. what role do they play and could they surpass the need for a physical barrier? guest: they play an important role because it is the eyes and information for the commander, homeland security as a military officer and cavalry officer. this is similar to what we do in the military. just like in the military where airpower cannot hold terrain, it is a force multiplier, it helps you see and helps your advantage. the only thing that holds terrain as is the ash is individuals on the ground or some kind of physical retention. while it is a force multiplier and helps us do better and make decisions faster about where to move resources and assets, it is not going to -- nobody is going to stop for a drone.

nobody is going to stop moving because a drone is watching them. we will know they are there, but somebody has to physically be there to stop them. we have thousands of mile of border and a lot of it is wide open, which is why a barrier is important to make sure it impedes them from crossing without obstruction, but it sends them to points of entry where they can be vetted and we can determine their situation, are they criminal or not or do we have a medical issue important to the united states? evaluate that situation and know who is coming for what purpose and what their estate is. it is not that we don't want immigration. migrate grandmother came here with their shirts off their back from columbia. they came through ellis island and went through the process. a country is not really a country if it doesn't control who comes and goes for what purposes. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania.

democrats line. a barb, hello. caller: good morning. step inthe very next this entire ordeal with immigration -- comprehensive immigration and the border and everything, explain to me. i am retired, i am a former schoolteacher. i watched the senate every day. notdoes mitch mcconnell bring the bill to the floor? how he canerstand dictate the opinions of all the other -- excuse me, senators. i am extremely frustrated. why does mitch mcconnell not simply allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote? i need a clear explanation from you. guest: okay.

we have a frustration with that as well. we passed a bill that had border security funding and it passed closure, but it remains there. we wish he would bring that bill to the floor as well. the other issue is he said he is not bringing anything to the floor that the president will not accept, he will not bring something to the floor without the president's approval and so it requires border security funding at the level the president would sign. that is what he said. i am not running the senate. it is frustration for us because we are working hard in the house with bills being passed. we think there should be hearings and votes in the senate as well. those are the parameters he laid out. host: what would you say to a federal employee affected by the shutdown, especially those in your state? guest: we lament their situation. we were happy to passed a bill

last week that ensures when the shutdown is over they will get back pay, which provides no help in the interim, and we get that, but it provides certainty that once the shutdown is over, they will be paid because in the passed, -- past, it took another vote from congress and signature from the president to make sure they were paid. it is an unfortunate circumstance that comes as coming -- working as a federal employee. it is not appropriate and the federal government should be no different than any other private employer where people are working and you have to pay your people that are working, but this is the circumstance where these things happen. statementsou make about preparedness going into the shutdown? guest: it was a long conversation and it is taken out of context that way, we lament every single employee not being paid, but it is just like working -- i think about a company close to home where the

controller was stealing from the company in about a span of a couple days, the whole company was out of business. all those employees were gone. it is hard to prepare for those things, but it is an eventuality for everybody whether you work in the private sector or the public sector. host: there are members of congress who said they won't take salaries. where do you fall on that? guest: i have had my salary withheld because i stand with -- in solidarity with the folks working and not being paid. host: the house and senate are supposed to take next week off for the martin luther king jr. holiday. will that still take place? mlk day itably on will. i suggest we come back in. the optics are really horrific that you are out. to be clear, members are working in their district during that time. it is not that they are on

vacation. this is a critical time where federal employees are on the job not being paid and we should be here trying to solve that impasse as quickly as possible. any sense of have whether that whole week will take place or partial week? ? guest: i have heard some rumors and we should be here. i have heard some rumors we might be coming back early, right after the holiday itself. i cannot be sure. host: independent line from virginia. ed, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple comments, first about the shutdown and the children that cause the shutdown, the children that occupy the building behind you. let's say this goes three or four weeks, the next time one of the children, be it the one at 1600 pennsylvania avenue or whatever child decides they want

to close the government -- if this is a four week shutdown, we pay our government employees four weeks in advance and say go sit home while we argue over something as simple as building a structure to protect our country. i don't support donald trump read i did not vote for him and did not vote for the other clown that ran either. it seems like we can take one issue. one issue, this border that runs san brownsville, texas, to diego, california and figure out how to do this. caller: we will let our -- host: we will let our guest respond. guest: to a certain extent, i agree. it seems crazy we are negotiating over our security. security is what it is. i guess we are arguing over the subtleties of how we get this done. right now what we seem to be

fussing over is due we continue with the status quo or change something? withide wants to continue the status quo and the other wants to change something. we should be able to work these things out. this didn't just occur today. this has been years in the making of this discord and disagreement and this president has said this is vital enough, critical enough, and emergency enough that he is not going to walk away from the table without some kind of solution set. we need both sides to come to the table and not just him offering what other -- whatever solutions he might offer and try to work toward the middle. it seems to me we are not seeing many offers on the security itself. we are seeing offers to open the government, but we don't see offers on differences in securing the border and that is what the discussion is all about. host: from iowa, democrats line.

caller: i would like to ask mr. perry if he knows what reagan is famous for saying to gorbachev. guest: mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. sure. the difference is that wall was meant to keep people in because you had an oppressive government. it is wholly different when you are securing your border from things like fentanyl abuse and the counties in pennsylvania, we have two people overdosing a week in two or three counties. we've got the human trafficking issue and the fact that these cartels -- they don't just traffic in drugs, they trafficking humans and the story -- stories we hear about the people who pay, the rape trees and murders and the fact one of the most powerful nations on the planet cannot secure their -- literally

trafficking humans in the 21st century, we should be on the side. mexico is a great country that has many of the same resources america has. it has two notions on either side, a prosperous nation to its north and prosperous nations to it south, it should be in a great position except for crime and cartel. we should help them solve that problem and i think that would help solve our problem. we cannot say we are not going to have control on the border, which in many cases is nothing, just a line on the map people come across and say that is any kind of control of crime, drugs, trafficking and we cannot turn our face to that. host: from leo in illinois, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. this is very important. i have two points to make. our -- the statue

of liberty. we still need better border .ecurity oftrust american soldiers security. why can't we establish a 24 hour border watch system. we can build outposts all along the border and add technologies like security drone cameras, people detecting border crossing contrabands, detection technologies and extra border security personnel. all of these things -- put some tv's there and cd players and microwave ovens and a bath and a shower so they can work three shifts so that solves the problem for both democrats and

republicans. host: thank you, caller. guest: the border package includes physical structures on as 10 worst crossing points described by border security and also provides medical support for migrants coming to the morer, also provides border patrol agents and asylum judges to adjudicate the situation. the circumstance remains we have a couple thousand mile border and we have finite resources like everyone else. we are trying to optimize the resources we have by making sure when people come, they go to the right places. if they seek to come illegally, they will avoid the right place and go where there is a minimum of eyes watching and people there to interdict them. what we are trying to do is maximize our resource by making those off limit places where people are crossing illegally then to goivation is

to the place where you can be adjudicated properly and also to stop the cartels from exploiting these weaknesses in the american border and exploiting the people. they exploit those people. this trip is not an easy trip and the things that happen to a lot of these people, 30% of the women suffer sexual assault. that is from the cartels and the people along this route. those things don't generally happen at the ports of entry, they have been people are crossing illegally. we are trying to maximize the resources we have by encouraging people to go to the right place and discouraging cartels from trafficking humans across these other places. host: what did you make of the decision by house minority leadership to remove committee assignments from stephen king? guest: these statements are troubling and not statements i would make and i think the majority leader is taking the right step. this is not who we are as american people and these

statements are very troubling and there have to be consequences for those things. host: there are two democrats planning a center vote. if that comes to light, how should -- would you vote? guest: mr. king should have his day to explain, but he has to be sensitive to the circumstances and the times and people's feelings. he should have his day, but we will look at the facts and vote accordingly. host: representative scott perry, thanks for your time. referencerd our guest this decision by the house my doherty leadership to have committee assignments removed from steve king, we will return to this question this morning. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. , 202-748-8002.s we take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪

on q&a, authoray and journalist patricia miller at her book "bringing down the kernel on a late 19th century sex scandal involving a congressman is sued by his mistress." >> william campbell preston breckinridge and the number of middle names he has should signify he was in the southern elite and had been aching for -- confederate colonel and respected cavalrymen in the confederate cavalry. at the time of the lawsuit, he is in his fifth term in congress. madalyn powered was a poor girl from kentucky with literary aspirations. she was a hungry young woman who ran into breckinridge at a time when she was desperate to make herself something in the world and get an education. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q hyundai. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds

daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or announcer: washington journal. host: representative steve king responded to the decision of house minority leadership of having committee assignment some of them by saying this, this is a statement he put out on twitter, saying the truth is as follows. one of my quotes in the new york times story has been complete mischaracterize. here's the context that accurately reflect my statement. it was a 56 minute interview and we discussed the changing use of language and political discourse. it is my observation that

slanderous labels used towards conservatives by the left, saying the less have rejected by -- howcal dialogue does the language become offensive? he also clarified by saying when i use the word of that, it was in reference only to western civilization, not any evil ideology, all of which that i'd announced. this is part of the full statement which you could find online at the twitter speed of representative king -- the twitter feed of representative king. if you want to give us a call (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001for republicans --(202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. is facebook and twitter feed

available as well. on the republican line, from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, carl, good morning. caller: good morning. i think there's a double standard when it comes to this race thing. apply to does that representative steve king? democrats, they were the ones that started the kkk. how does that apply to steve king? caller: how is steve king a racist, he's a nationalist, he loves america, like the president loves america. the: minnesota is next, on independent line, mike, hello. should bethink he removed from his job immediately. the rhetoric from washington has gotten so ridiculous that we are supposed to put up with it, and i don't understand. host: that's mike, from

minnesota. the hill on line picks up some of the comments made by another gop lawmaker, representative crist jordan of utah, he called for steve king to resign over the comments he made over white nationalism. he said i wish he would resign, frankly. it would be for the good of the party, and the american people, it's time for us to make a change. the senator from iowa, joni ernst adding her comments this morning, saying i condemn representative steve king's comments on white supremacy. they are offensive and racist and not representative of our state of iowa. greg walden adding this morning, also a republican, saying i am alongside my colleagues to remove mr. king from his committee assignments tonight, i join all americans in condemning his comments and am proud to take action to make clear that we will not tolerate this

blatant disregard for common decency. clarissa, from florida. good morning. i would like to be a part of the discussion. democrat, i have always voted democrat. convey howe to sometimes we have to pull ofether and see that some these people that come across illegally have diseases, and things they could pass on to other children. people -- forave allowing them to come across anyway why don't we have them immunized? to clarissa, in florida, on the democrats line. hello. is in response to scott perry's comments that democrats do not want to find

border security. that is not true. democrats want to fund it, but they will not respond to a shutdown holding so many americans hostage to get it done. host: this is not the topic we are discussing, we are discussing the actions of steve king, do you have any reaction to that? now -- on my tv right allen, from michigan, on the independent line. hello. caller: good morning pedro, good morning c-span, thank you for letting us american voice our opinion -- americans voice our opinion. with steve king i feel like everyone is voicing their , orion about this statement whatever he had made was racist. there are so many things that could have been racist, obama

made a decision with the attorney general that may have been racist. they sold thousands of high-powered reston -- weapons 2 -- host: these are the comments on steve king and the actions of the house minority leadership, what do you think about those? caller: i just disagree that , that it's exactly a racist comment. that's all. host: why he disagreed? caller: he made a state -- host: why do you disagree? caller: he made a statement saying that it was misunderstood, it was not a racist statement, it was a race -- he was a statement -- he tried to explain it, and i just wanted to disagree. host: what did you think of the removal of the committee assignments? i hope it's not going to be enforced.

try asking my government to to work together, there's a lot of fighting going on. thank you. host: david, in texas, on the republican line. caller: hello. how are you? host: i'm fine. caller: i don't think steve king should be removed, i think this is an appeasement on the part of republicans, to prove that they are not racist. and a lot of people are sick of it, they are just trying to relate steve king's comments to trump and it's getting ridiculous. whatever steve king is mentioning western civilization, a lot of people on the left think that western civilization is equivalent to nazi-ism and white supremacy, and that's how they look at it. steve understand what king was saying, that he has to clean it up like this, and every person out there who is white, or even black people who agree

with trump, have to clean up their statements so leftists and liberals can be satisfied, so we can say we are not racist. it's becoming ridiculous. everything that's coming out of question weths, the are having to ask ourselves is what is racism? and i think that's what steve king is trying to say. alabama, on the democrats line, good morning. that gentleman who just book from texas, steve king said something very offensive and racist. when he asked the question where has white supremacy become offensive? it became offensive when the clue cox clan was coming into black people's homes -- clue -- the kkk went into people's home. and it starts from the top. donald trump says he is a white man, for the men that text is that just called in, stop trying

to make us what you want us to be. this is not the first time that steve king has set a racist comment, he started this a long time ago. and they have standby to allow this happen, the only reason they have called him out, pedro please let me finish my comment, is because of the midterm elections. so they can win again in 2020. in alabama.as gwen, the national review highlights the statements of steve king, saying the nine turn republican tried to explain the way the controversy criticized the new york times, saying that he supported an evil and bigoted ideology. he asked how did the offensive language get injected into the political discourse. filedan, of ohio, resolutions to center king, the harshest punishment sort -- short of expulsion for congers

men. james clyburn of south carolina filed a motion that condemned king's comments without censuring him. minority leader kevin mccarthy hisemning his eye one -- colleague, saying he will have a serious conversation on his future role in the republican party also adding, the president has not been following the controversy. rich, in michigan, hello. caller: hello. odd that anyt was representative would speak so negatively about somebody. host: meaning what? caller: pardon me? host: meaning what? bringing up something in our past like talking negatively about humanity.

host: did you think that's what he was trying to achieve with those remarks? caller: i don't understand what he was trying to achieve. but i don't see how a representative would speak in that manner at all. host: to massachusetts, on the republican line, keith, hello. caller: good morning. i did not really hear his comments, it just seems like everything, with democrats it's the same way. allre all racist, racelicans, it seems that relations were doing well until the obama administration. he brought al sharpton into the white house, and it seems to me that there is just as much black panther stuff, and this is that,

and so much racism against white people, i'm not a racist. keith, in's massachusetts. e.g. robinson in his column this morning and the washington post highlights the events concerning mr. king. the headline is why are republicans only now enraged? some of the points he made, referring to the dreamers brought here as children, king had this to say, for everyone who was a valedictorian there are another hundred who are one hunter 30 pounds, and they are hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. he proposes border wall before trump did, also here is what king said last year towards a white ring austrian website. when i made a statement on you cannot start the civilization was some muddy else's babies, he said that -- when the fertility rate is

below, you are a dying civilization, when we abort our babies and import a replacement we are supplanting the culture, our civilization and the idea of replacement is a cornerstone of white ideology -- white supremacy ideology. you can read more of those comments online at the washington post. , from is next pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to stay that the term white supremacist is the opinion me of oxymoron. methe opinion me -- the hit -- is an oxymoron. jesus was born in the middle east, i don't know what repercussions representative king is going to have from being removed from committees. i think you should be more concerned about pleading his

case at the pearly gates to a brown skinned savior. host: we will continue on with them -- wet, for will continue on with comments on the actions of steve king for the next 20 minutes or so. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. and at 9:30 it is the first day of confirmation hearings for william barr, trims and nominee for attorney general. you can see that on c-span3 -- trumps at -- trumps nominee for attorney general. you can see that on c-span3. and other related stories concerning members of congress, this is about senator bernie's assent -- bernie sanders, saying that he is accelerating his efforts to contain the damage of reports of sexism and harassment during his campaign.

he is seeking assurances a better practices if he runs again in 2020. the meeting will focus on the treatment of women going forward, those close to mr. sanders said that the campaign arm began reaching out to former staff members to help make travel arrangements the story there have been reports of accounts of harassment and his cremation from former workers in the 2016 campaign. mr. sanders has twice apologized publicly for women who were mistreated and promised to do better if he runs again. that's in the new york times this morning. of steve king, on the independent line, anthony, you're up next. caller: i think it's ridiculous that into thousand 19 we are still having conversations about what is racism and what is not. the previous caller from alabama

spoke with some true passion. people have been through a lot of stuff in this country. i'm not going to give republicans any credit for denouncing that one of their members has said racist remarks. it was not just this one time, he has been saying it time and time again. you had a caller from iowa about a half hour ago, she was saying his constituents were used to that kind of language. i think it's ridiculous and i will not give republicans credit for denouncing represented king. host: one of those republicans denouncing represented king was mitch mcconnell on the senate side, saying he had no tolerance for such positions and those espousing these views are not supporters of america or ideals of freedom. statementsive kings are unwelcome and unworthy in an elected position. , froms from lonnie florida, on their public in line. caller: what i have to say is

this, the republican party needs to stand together, and quit attacking each other, and go after the democrats and have them clean up their act. the black panthers were in georgia during the election time with their guns out and nobody said anything about them. host: -- though specifically -- caller: i'm sick of them going after each other and set of going after democrats, who are making the country a max. host: so you're talking about the minority leadership specifically, what they did to steve king. caller: they need to stand by him and not attack him. host: why do you think that? caller: because its freedom of speech, every democrat has the right to say what they want to say but this man has the right to say what he wants to say. , in texas city, texas, on the democrats line. hello. caller: representative king has been doing this for a lot of years. every two years he gets

reelected. i think a lot of this falls in on the people electing him, knowing what he is about. he should have been controlled a long time ago. host: there are follow-up stories from the 25th day of the shutdown, this is looking at what is going on in airports. yesterday, about one out of every 13 screeners nationwide failed to report to work. ago,compared to 30 years according to the spokesperson for the transportation security and ministration, trying to appease the workers, and the addingtrator of the tsa, on saturday that he approved $500 bonuses for workers and had arranged for them to be paid on any work they perform on the first day of the shutdown, which has lasted 24 days from the time of this writing, longer than any previous shutdown of the federal government.

the story adding that miami international airport is already closing one of its concourses in the afternoon and diverting flights to other concourses. is next onky, willie our independent line. morning,ello, good thank you. this is short and sweet. i don't really understand the theerence in what politician said, and what james with say it loud, i am black and proud. i don't think there's anything wrong with being proud of yourself. reactionwhat was your to the taking away of committee assignments? caller: i'm sorry? host: what was your reaction to taking away committee assignments from representative king? caller: i don't think it's a good idea.

can't find anybody that doesn't have something to cry about. this is more crybaby. i'm sorry, i'm a little nervous, i have to go. host: james is next, in georgia, on the republican line. caller: i think this is an inauspicious beginning for mccarthyism later. , he madee's a dope comments about hillary clinton's investigations, and if you actually look at representative kings comment, it was not advocating white supremacy. of course. but everyone is taking it out of context. republican, fellow he's over in the house, and not in the senate, he should keep his pie hole shot, and all of the republicans jumping on,

right into the democrats wheelhouse. that republicans are being racist. king'su read congressman comments about illegal immigration a while ago, that's exactly why he has been gone after like he is. this is trent white all over again, the man is obviously not a racist, but he's being attacked for being one because he's in a powerful position and he's outspoken. south, i'mere in the 65 he five years old, -- years old. all of the bigotry and racism is created by democrats. and now they want to white -- wipe the filthy scene of their own history onto republicans for political advantage. they are accusing him of being what they used to be. host: that's james, in georgia, he spoke about minority leader kevin mccarthy, here are the statements he made, saying

beneath the bigamy of the party of lincoln and the united states of america, his comments call into question as to whether he would treat all americans equally without regard for race and ethnicity. house republicans are in this together -- are clear that we are in this together. we hope and pray that this action will lead to greater reflection and ultimately change on his part. ferris, in los angeles, hello. in let's go to kenneth, denver, colorado, on the independent line. caller: my statement towards king's that he is following trump's game plan. trump is even set himself, he's a nationalist, he's a racist, disproven it many -- he has proven it many times. king is just following his game plan, as the republican party. the republican party is so worried about immigration

because there is more of us than there is of them, and they are worried that soon they will be the minority. which they already are. gete are they going to their food picked from? we will continue on in just a bit, we want to prosper second to talk about events later on concerning president trump's nominee for attorney general, william barr. joining us on the phone for a quick preview of that is todd ruger of roll call, good morning. >> thank you for having me on. host: can you give us a sense of william barr, who he is, and why the president has chosen him? a lawyerlliam barr is near retirement by his own admission, in fact she is partially retired, he has a long career here in washington. he had a stint in the cia, he

was in the white house in 1982 and 1983. including two years as attorney general under george h w bush. he's looking for a job that he has already held. he has been a private-sector sector attorney for a while. herepresents big businesses, is now 68 years old, it is 27 years after he has had his first confirmation hearing to be attorney general. he is well-known in conservative circles. dianne feinstein from california, the top democrat on the committee said that he is a known quantity. he says that he sees a country that is deeply divided, and he things he can do a job of protecting rule of law at the justice department. he was seeking the nomination and now he has it. host: so leading up to the confirmation hearing, several stories mention him in light of the current investigation with robert mueller, can you connect those dots? was a 27 years ago

different time then today. he will be asked a lot about updating his views, specifically the big question that everyone is looking at his robert mueller . if confirmed as attorney general, he would take oversight of that special counsel probe he things,dsey graham some that's what lindsey graham said, that this was not a witchhunt as president trump has called it. he said that he and mueller had been friends for 30 years, their wives are in bible study together, he called it vitally important that the mueller probe finishes. he said it was very important get resultsgress from that probe. he said the country needs a credible resolution of these issues and allegations. democrats will question him on that and look for solid commitments, or may be from him to recuse himself from the probe because of a memo he wrote last year criticizing it. to emphasize that they want the

report made public. host: for democrats that will be questioning him, how sharply do think the line of questioning will be? guest: i expect this to cover a lot of ground outside of the mueller thing. but they are going to press him , that hefic statements will not want to make. for example, i think senator blumenthal is going to press him to recuse himself if he does not disavow what he wrote in the memo last year. and that memo criticized the special counsel probe for looking at an obstruction of justice charge based on firing james comey. if he does not disavow that or say that he would recuse himself him the probe, senator blumenthal would oppose him. but the republicans have the advantage in the senate, so he will be looking to not make a misstep today. host: as far as people who want

to see it, if they watch on c-span three on days one and two, what's to be expected over the course of these days? guest: today you will have an introduction from orrin hatch, and then william barr will make a statement, 22 members of the committee each get time to ask whatever they want to ask about. and a second round will happen when attorney general jeff sessions had his confirmation hearing it went all day until 8:00 p.m.. you will see 12 to 10 republican advantage on the committee, the democrats will be pressing him on everything from civil rights enforcement, voting rights, his views on policing, immigration, and republicans will be playing defensively and pointing out how experienced he is. he did hold this exact position in his past. host: todd ruger will be following this, he is their legal affairs a staff writer for roll call. guest: thank you for having me on. host: back to your calls

concerning representative steve , on their texas public in line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine thank you. caller: i am in disagreement with removing him from his job that he was elected to do. they should not remove him. the republican party should stop fighting against him. host: why do you think they should not have removed him from committee assignments? believe that his statement was taken out of context on purpose, to cause division in the republican party. host: meaning what? what do you mean by that? it was taken out of context? to cause division?

to cause fighting. not a racist. if you're not a racist, you're not a racist. my dad always says if you're not guilty you don't need to peek. -- to speak. and the thing he said about immigrants and abortion is true. host: lisa will be our last call, from maryland. caller: please don't dismiss my call, there have been a lot of things said. i think many republicans conflate prejudice and racism. ,acism is part of a system prejudice could be i don't want to spend personal time with people outside of my race because whatever reason. racism is systematic, like i don't want your kids to go to school with me, or i'm not going to give you a job. my issue with representative king is no different than donald trump, who only ran for election

and was able to win because he or writing the obama birth issue. that's the only way he was elected. king should be stripped of his committee post and fired, because he should not be representative of the republican party. i'm not a republican, i'm a democrat, but he has been using racist rhetoric to incite folks for years. represented of king is beyond his time, and for the gentleman who called out james brown, say it loud, i am black and i am proud? in a nation where black people have been tried to be squashed, we need an anthem. laurelhat's lisa, from maryland, or last call on this topic. joining us next, we will hear the thoughts of the former customs and border action commissioner gil kerlikowske. and we have a chance to learn about william barr and his

confirmation hearing starting today. c-span3 is where you can see that, and carrie johnson will join us to talk about mr. barr and what he brings to the table as he testifies. those discussions coming up on washington journal. ♪ day, -- on q and , abringing down the colonel late 19th century sex scandal involving a kentucky congressman sued by his former mistress. >> william campbell, with a number of middle names, he had been the southern elite, a respected calvary men in the confederate calvary. at the time of the lawsuit he is in his fifth term in congress, and his mistress was, by contrast, nobody. a poor girl from kentucky with literary aspirations who was hungry for an education. she was a hungry young woman who ran into him at a time when she

was desperate to make yourself something in the world and get an education. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. ♪ history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court. and public policy events and washington, d.c. end around the country. yourn is brought to you by cable and satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: gil kerlikowske served under the unmonitored -- serve the obama administration has commissioner for customs and border protection. he joins us now for a discussion on border security and illegal immigration. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you.

would you give your assessment of the current state of the southern border? particularly the poorest nests -- porousness of the border. guest: the borders more secure than it ever has been, that is the result of the increases of boots on the ground, border patrol, technology, you only have to look at the amount of paso,in cities like el laredo, mcallen, and san diego, they have some of the lowest crime rates of any of our cities in the country. there are a lot of places in the midwest that would love to have crime rates as low as those cities that border mexico. host: when the president makes the call for more border instructions, concrete or steel, how do you receive that? is he making a legitimate call? have 700 miles of fencing now along the 2000 miles of border with mexico. much of that started with the

program called the fence act under george w. bush. that continues to be repaired, replaced, increased, and there are places where additional barriers could be used. but i think the game changer has been a couple of things. one is technology, the use of predator beams that can do surveillance, integrated six towers, and a host of other things, along with the significant increase in the number of border patrol agents. it's close to 18,000 border patrol agents that are now on the southwest border. there is a story this morning that the defense department is saying they are extending their mission along the southern border through september. how do they integrate with other forces on the border when it comes to order security? guest: the integration with the military has existed for a while. president obama, it existed with the national guard being deployed.

this is the first integration of active-duty military troops, but quite frankly, i think that's a mistake. people did not join the military to go down to the border and string barbed wire. fighters.d to be war the use of the national guard and others worked out well, it was back office logistics support for surveillance, air support, et cetera. that could be helpful as well. but there are a lot of boots on the ground now. host: gil kerlikowske, our guest, if you want to ask him some questions, we have set aside lines differently this morning. if you live in the eastern and central time zones it's (202) 748-8000, if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones it's (202) 748-8001, and if you are a resident of a border state it is (202) 748-8002.

you can also make comments on our twitter feed. when it comes to the structures, does it matter? steel, concrete, if the new structures go up? and what are the limitations of those materials? they are all limitations, and it depends on what kind of construction based upon the border. it's interesting, if you have seen one part of the border with mexico you have seen one part of the border. you have a very urban area like san diego, you have mountains and deserts which are very impassable, even without a barrier. and you have the rio grande ,iver, which changes direction it could be ankle-deep, it could be a mile wide depending upon the time of year and in the amount of rainfall. it's much more complex than people think. the border patrol has often looked at different types of barriers and put them in place,

and they can be helpful. but the more important thing is why are these families coming and what could be done in those three central american countries to make sure that people want to stay there? which is what we did with mexico under the merit initiative. mexico was a huge number of -- has a huge number of people, 1.2 million almost all from mexico into thousand. the numbers now are less than 400,000, they have been down to 300 and something thousand. if you look at mexico their economy is better, their security is better, their educational opportunities are better, and lo and behold, people are not as interested in trying to make a dangerous track illegally into the united states. int: there are a few graphs the new york times, one speaks to the issue that you speak of, illegal immigration at a near 50

year low. another saying that when it comes to families crossing the border, those are in record numbers, what do you think is the reason for that? guest: the record numbers of the families really shows that the immigration is broken. i don't think there's anyone on either side of the aisle or any pond that does not tell you that immigration is broken -- pungent that will tell you integration is not broken the families that come saying there is a credible fear, and they are seeking asylum. and the backlog for those hearings are many years behind. there's only so much holding capacity. when people are held and then released and told, you're hearing will be in three years, or four years, or five years, it should not come as a surprise to anybody that many of those people do not attend the hearing. the other important part to remember is when those decisions

are made for asylum or entry into the united states, it is a small percentage of people that actually reach that threshold to be granted asylum. living in a dangerous country, is usuallyh threats not enough to trigger thresholds to say welcome to america and you are allowed to stay here. host: what you think the mexican does to help alleviate those numbers from crossing the border? specifically what response ability does mexico take? in the obama administration, the work and the cooperation with mexico was tremendous. system didmmigration a number of checkpoints along the border with guatemala, which is where a number of people were entering. remember, it's the three central salvador,ountries, el honduras, guatemala, that most people are trying to enter from. they did checkpoints.

if you remember those pictures of the train, it was more than one train, there were literally thousands of people hanging on the sides and the tops of the train heading north, and hoping to enter into the united states. mexico put a stop to that. they have holding facilities. mexico has worked hard, whether or not this administration, the trump administration, can pull off mexico holding people while they are waiting for their asylum claims to be heard in the ofted states, could be tremendous benefit. we will see if that happens. calls linede a few up, the first is from peggy, and illinois. you're on with our guest, go ahead. caller: i was wondering, don't cut me off. since all theg, immigration stuff has been --

like the caravan and all that, i lived in illinois -- i have lived in illinois all my life, it seems like there's a lot more people coming to illinois. i don't know how exactly they get into our state. but i think that the border, the places where there is no barbed wire, or fence, or whatever border they want to put up, those are the places that they are coming in through. ,lus there are families here and they have family down there and they can go on vacation and go to different places. in my community, where i live, there is a lot more latino people. i like to say latino people instead of saying mexican people. host: caller, if you would not mind, what would you like our guest to address? manyr: i want to know how

-- does the united states actually know how many illegal people are in our country? host: thank you. mr. kerlikowske? guest: i don't think the united states does know how many people. if you look at the vast majority of people probably in the united states illegally, they came in through a legal process called a visa. the visa is good for about 90 days and then you are to leave. we have good ways of protecting borders, we have good ways of counting the number of people that come in and have legal methods with the visa, we don't have good ways of counting whether they leave the country. we have to look at that. the apprehensions on the border, the amount of technology, the amount of barriers, has really led to a decrease. in 2000ion

apprehensions, and you look at between three and 400,000 depending upon the most recent years, that's a pretty significant decrease. quite frankly, customs and border protection with 60,000 personnel can handle that number quite effectively. mike, in north carolina, you are next up. good morning. caller: good morning. wondering, the illegal immigrants that come into the country, the ones that do get visas and the one that do not -- the ones that do not, how on earth are they getting government assistance? that's a burden on honest , and legal immigrants. and the tax stuff that they are getting. there are poor white people, poor black people, poor people in this country that are entitled to those benefits, not

illegal immigrants. when they come in, if they are on their visas, or still not citizens, they pop out kids, one after the other. i'm probably not the best person to answer, for some but he living in the country, living in the state, living in the city, whether they can access some type of food assessment -- food assistance or other things, i'm probably not the best person to be able to address that. host: mr. kerlikowske, when it comes to the topic of deportation, this was something done under the obama administration in good number, where does that fall with border security? and how is this administration's approach to it? difficulty is when people enter the united states, their claim of asylum is refused , they can be prosecuted, it's a misdemeanor to enter the country illegally and it becomes a

felony if you have done it additional times, they can be prosecuted. but they can also be returned to their three central american countries. ice had a number of charter airplanes in which they were able to do that. the problem has become that you have to negotiate the return of those individuals to those three countries. and that takes diplomacy. often, the people in those governments need to be assured that when you are returning those people that they are going to be returned with some level of notification. if you look at the foundation of -- ms 13, quite a bit of that was a return of people going back to el salvador from los angeles, with little notification to that country that we are sending some dangerous gang members. it would have been helpful to

have more diplomatic measures to make it work better. host: from manchester, brenda. caller: good morning c-span. donald trump wants the flight of the wall as a distraction, democrats also want security. but they want smart border security. -- i don'talk about believe people are coming through the desert with their contraband in their drugs, primarily its ports of entry. in early 2000 was in washington were the only gnome -- nona terrorist- known try to come through lot -- try to come through los angeles. but he was stopped because of an effective customs agent. that's where we need to force our sites, on legal ports of entry. our courts, or airports, are

border crossings -- our border crossings. and i'm really tired of hearing death. it's like we excuse death of its bari a native born citizen. -- a native born citizen. it's very tiring. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. mr. kerlikowske. guest: the caller makes two good points, the vast majority of drugs, the most dangerous drugs, fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamines, come through the ports of entry. they don't come over the desert. people are not bringing them in. in fact, marijuana, which does come across the country between the ports of entry has decreased for the last eight years. we have 10 states were marijuana , and alert andl

well-trained customs official can be very helpful. hijacker that the attempted to enter the united states to do great harm during was stoppedijacker by and alert official in orlando. correct about is the case in washington state where an alert customs official stop somebody who was coming to cause harm, death, and actual destruction because of their work and their training. host: what about the idea that as far as this potential terrorist coming across the border, does the statistics and information bear that to light? has that happened? guest: it is not there to light it all. -- bear to light at all. people of kurdish background when i was there, and the kurdish institution is deemed a terrorist group, but

not to the united states, only because of their threat to turkey. these were people who turned themselves in. what a lot of people do not recognize is that the southern part of the border, on the others the united states, is controlled by often organized crime and cartel. the cartels make money through drug smuggling, human smuggling, the last thing they want is the wrath of the united states, whatever the amount of money, if they were to allow someone to cross the border and come into the united states that wants to do harm. they have a business proposition that they want to maintain, and allowing a terrorist is not a part of that business proposition. for: mr. kerlikowske, clarity, how does activity along the southern border differ from the northern border? isst: the northern border almost twice the length, it has about 2000 to 250 border patrol agents.

there are many parts of that northern border in which there is no wall or fence, there may not even be a particular marking. we have a good working relationship with the united , thes and canada, the rcmp provincial police services that exist along the border, and the canadian border security agencies. we have not seen either the threat or the drug smuggling on the northern border that we have seen on the southern border. kerlikowskeest, gil who served as the border and customs commissioner in the obama administration from 2014 to do thousand 17. david is next, from pennsylvania. caller: thank you. this question is for mr. kerlikowske, i wanted to find out, you are saying some facts

that the american people are worried about. they are hearing differently, they are hearing that it's a crisis and all of that. it seemsng the facts like everything is going down in terms of numbers. , which like to ask companies are in line to profit from a wall from president trump's proposal? i will listen all fair. -- off air. tost: i think when it comes building an acquisition we have built a lot and we continue to repair a lot, those are contracts done through custom and border protection and the department of homeland security. the contracting system makes sure that they do -- they do their very best to make sure that it's a company that can actually perform the work and that it is a company that has offered the lowest bid.

i know that there is a lot of money that has been spent over the years, there will continue to be a lot of money spent either on new construction or repair, and that is something that has been in the works for a long time. host: what's the timeframe from getting approval to building a new section of wall to actual completion? guest: it can be really very , if it's a new area, there's a lot of talk because of the rio grande valley and mcallen, texas, there's a lot of talk of trying to build something there. it's the most difficult spot to try to do that, because you have a river that changes direction, you could have it a mile wide, or ankle-deep, and to be able to build on that land. the other part is that the land is privately held, either agriculture or residential. there are not a lot of texans that have that land in their name that are going to be very happy about the federal

government coming in and saying by the way, we are going to take your land under eminent domain and try to build a wall. host: the next call is from olga , in chicago. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm just talking about how the scare tactics is overdone, with telling people that the caravans are coming here to kill people. rob people. these people are walking thousands of miles with their little children. it's dangerous, and they are doing it for a better life. i'm getting emotional because this is a scare tactic. these people don't come to kill, they are running for their lives. there are more killings among our own people in our country. the killings and schools, churches, those people

have no compassion in this country. i get emotional because i came to this country, my parents were refugees who were escaping communism occupied by our country. i came toars old, and this country when i was 10. it was no different. people at that time, and we came legally, because president truman after the second world war said that they would take refugees from poland and eastern europe, who were all running from russian occupation. there were so many. we struggled. we were hiding in bomb shelters food, nos, with no water, i don't know how we survive. i think the lord was helping us. you for your story. mr. kerlikowske, go ahead. in march ofk office the summer of 2014.

that summer, within a week, i was in mcallen, texas. we had 68,000 unaccompanied children. we did not have the resources, the border patrol did an incredible job and i could not be more proud of them. they said those people, they fed the kids, they brought t-shirts and things like that from their own kids to bring them home. the rest of the federal government, frankly, was not as helpful in helping with that until later on. now there are a lot more resources, there's a lot more facilities that have been built in that area. they are in better shape to handle those things. but remember, these are people who are running -- were not running, dodging, weaving, or hiding, these are not people avoiding apprehension, they walk up to the border and turn themselves in. often they are to hydrated --

dehydrated or need medical care. if ther. kerlikowske, shutdown continues what is the potential impact in the ranks of the border patrol? those who serve day by day? guest: i spent the vast majority of my career as a police officer. i think about as a young police officer, with the family, if i were to go for a paycheck without any money in that checking account, it would have been very difficult. it would have been hard to make a mortgage payment, to have benefits, purchase groceries, i think of these young border patrol agents with families that they're trying to take care of. and they are working, and not getting paid. i think that is a huge mistake. their union talks about that they are supportive of the wall. law enforcement agents are very supportive of their families, their work, their salary, their

benefits, they are really not as interested in the policy dilute -- decisions as some of the union leaders think they are. rick, in annapolis, maryland, you are on with gil kerlikowske. caller: thank you for your service. local democrats are really concerned about these people guatemala, honduras, mexico, because they are fleeing for their lives, they are worried about getting killed, and these liberal democrats that control chicago, detroit, baltimore, d.c., hundreds of blacks are being killed every night in these cities by gangs. do you know what they're doing about it? nothing. they almost went crazy worrying about two mexican kids who were

killed. do you know what these liberals care about with these blacks getting killed every night in their city? nothing. to the point that our guest can comment on, what do you want him to address when it comes to border security or illegal immigration? we don't need more illegal immigrants coming into this country, taking the jobs of poor blacks in our cities. guest: that's rick, -- host: that's rick, from annapolis, maryland. he mentioned the deaths of children, did not occur under the obama administration? are there differences as to how those incidents are treated? fortunate,ere very especially that summer of 2014 when i mentioned the 68,000 unaccompanied children. some of whom needed medical care. we were fortunate that no one died. i would tell you that those

border patrol agent's and the death of these two children would be something that i'm sure is devastating to them, and to their commanders. it was of great concern to the current commissioner, kevin mack when you are dealing with this many people who have made a dangerous track, this is why we always try to keep people from making this dangerous trek, not just because they could be assaulted or murdered, but because the environment is so hazardous. i think that they probably did everything they humanly could with as much resource as they could to try to make sure that once they are in their custody they are taking care of. host: this is terry, in north carolina. caller: i have a couple of comments. the border guards, every time i have seen one interviewed, they always say the barriers

definitely do work, but democrats in the administration, spars democrats go, they say it -- as far as democrats go, they say doesn't work. and they talk about drones, that cannot stop anyone from crossing the border. i'm curious of your opinion. thank you. guest: as i've said earlier, we have 700 miles of fencing now, it can be triple fencing, very high, almost impenetrable, but certainly as president trump once said in a graduation speech that if you have a wall in front of you you should go over it, under it, around it, or through it. we have to realize that these are just part of what can be done to help secure the border. there are different types of barriers, different types of technology, and cetera. and the drone cannot stop someone but it alerts a border onrol agent, and weather horseback, atv, et cetera, it

alerts that agent to go make an apprehension. that's the difference we have with technology. jerrod,e more call, from knoxville, tennessee. yes, this is jack, from knoxville. i was calling in about the border agents talking -- border agents with the former collar, president trump went down and looked at the southern border, and each of those border guards was saying that the border -- that the barriers work. i don't understand every time you hear democrats speak about host: apologies, looking forward, what are you watching for concerning the border wall along the southern border? there is not the

overwhelming support to spend billions of dollars on more barriers. i mentioned earlier that drugs come through the ports of entry. they are not entering around the walls or under the walls. i think that is important. technology is something the border patrol agents want and need. they have been very forthcoming in saying there are areas where additional barriers could be. fenceot think given the act under two different administrations that there is any huge opposition to putting additional barriers where they need to be. the type of construction that would be most effective. host: the former protections and border commissions administrator under the obama administration. thank you for your time. guest: thanks. host: the first of two days of

confirmation hearings for william barr. the man president trump has chosen to become the next attorney general. here to talk about what he brings that to the table -- when he brings to the table, carrie johnson of npr here for the cut -- here for the discussion. she will give her thoughts as washington journal continues. >> live, february 3, super bowl sunday on noon eastern, author and sportswriter dave siren is our guest on book tv. author of many books including, what is my name, fool? a people's history of sports. how politics has turned the sports world upside down. and most recent, jim brown, last standing. >> i love sports. that is why we need to fight for sports. we need to take sports back. if we are going to do so, we need to do -- we need to know our history. that is our greatest ammunition.

we need to know the history of athletes and sports writers and the fans who have stood up to the machine if for no other reason, knowing this history allows us to look at the world and see that struggled can affect every life in the system. >> join our conversation with dave siren. noon eastern on february 3 on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country.

c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: here to discuss william barr and what he faces in these two days of confirmation hearings, which start today, is carrie johnson. she is from npr and is there just as correspondent. guest: good morning. things have changed a lot since then in washington and at the justice department. he says he has reluctantly agreed to come back ed help the trump administration and help the justice department regain its footing. this is a crucial time to be the attorney general. we have an ongoing investigation into election interference in 2016. there are going to be a lot of questions about whether he will protect the investigation or protect the president. host: when you talk about the

molar investigation, i will read you two, -- about the robert mueller investigation, i will read you two comments. his theory is modest on the supportable reading of the law. it is credited by the justice department. it would have grave consequences. it would do lasting damage to the presidency and the administration of the executive branch. he said this in december of last year. coming up to this year, this is what he said. i believe it is in the best interest of everyone that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work on my watch. he will be allowed to plead his work. bill barr has said he is not privy to all the facts in the background of the investigation. he will only get the details if he is confirmed as attorney general. he says he wrote a memo

criticizing investigation last year based on conversations with lawyers. it came out in a letter he wrote to lindsey graham. that he had discussed the memo and theories with lawyers for president trump and vice president mike pence. that is going to give rise to a lot of questions about whether he should recuse himself from oversight to the investigation altogether. he has made so -- he has made no such commitment at this point. it will be interesting to see if he does make a commitment like that. host: those hearings again, 9:30. you can watch it on c-span3. if you have questions about him or his past as our guest talked fort, it is (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 for and (202) 748-8002

for independence. this is the most important attorney general confirmation hearing since watergate. under the specter of the watergate investigation, they elicited certain commitments from the attorney general nominees. that the attorney general would not fire a special counsel except for serious improprieties. that the council would be able to do his job to completion. as a result of -- that the result of the investigations would be made public. he will be pressed on all of those issues. host: he is the vice chair of the intelligence committee, mike warner, the senator, he makes this comment. -- it has become clear that the president's choosing anbecome

attorney that will shield him from the investigation. host: there are a lot of questions as to why he wrote that memo to the justice department. william barr says it was unsolicited. he was thinking about doing an op-ed, which he never wound up doing. he was just interested in these issues. the question is whether he made any comments or commitments to people involved in the investigation if he eventually became attorney general. he says he did not. he will be pressed on that in hearings i democrats who want him to recuse himself -- hearings by democrats who want him to recuse himself. host: from his previous time as attorney general or in his legal career, are there any scandals that will be brought up? guest: not personal scandals. he is a partyline conservative

and it established publican. there are questions -- an established republican. there are questions about his approaches to power. he has a broad view of executive authority vested to the president. donald trump is a lot different to the previous president he served, george w. bush. bush.a -- george h w i did a piece about pardons he did for people during the bush administration. people are wondering if president trump met -- trump might recommend he pardon people involved like michael flynn and others caught up in the russian probe. he will have to answer questions like that. host: we have some questions lined up for you. first one, this comes from tyler, texas. you are on with our guest talking about the william barr confirmation hearings. caller: good morning.

barr is for the people and not for donald trump. that he would recuse himself from the investigation. is, if he found out through the hearings -- if we found out through the hearings that he has talked to kushner or trump or pence possible lawyers, -- or trump's, lawyers he could be disqualified as the ag? guest: it is worth noting that the republicans have added to their majority in the senate over the last several months. most republican senators are expected to support bill bar. r. the opening question for this hearing is whether facts will be

established that will inform his decision about whether or not to recuse himself. consultkely to have to with department ethics lawyers about what he did or did not do in terms of communications with lawyers for vice president pence and others. he is not on record for following their advice. matt whitaker sought some advice for ethics lawyers but decided not to take it. that will be a big question for bill barr moving forward. the question for all attorneys general is the following. they work for a president but also have a responsibility to the constitution. how he balances that role will be a key feature. host: republican line, from tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. it has been a hard time getting through sometimes. think william barr ought to

look at the investigation -- i believe the democrats want the investigation to go on and on because of the election. they do not want to solve the problem. to make sure he does his job right. do not believe it is a real -- they spent $30 million for nothing. thank you. guest: president trump did tell reporters he thought the investigation was a big fat hoax. interestingly enough, he has been contradicted by his on fbi director -- by his own fbi director. one other thing to note, bill barr and special counsel robert mueller have known each other nearly 30 years. they served together in the justice department. i am told they are good friends.

they have a lot of respect for each other. i do not think that barr is going to conclude that robert mueller has been engaged in a witchhunt. william barr has said it is a worthy investigation. host: one of the write ups from the papers this morning says says --liam barr made may no suggestion he would recuse himself from the investigation. guest: that is right. there has been no commitment from bill barr that he will recuse himself from the investigation. that he had conversations about the theory of obstruction of for trumpth lawyers and kushner will complicate matters. there may not be a direct conflict, but there may be the appearance of a conflict. that will be up for ethics personnel to decide.

host: jane in ohio, you are on with our guest. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i do not think they should be concerned about that. the president has a right to choose who he wants. i am sick and tired of the democrats dragging it out. they did nothing about the previous president. they did no thorough background check on him before he became president. there is a lot of mystery still about him. he paid $4 million to keep his business sealed. no one knows nothing about him. host: ok caller, thanks. known --ll barr is a is known in many ways. he has a longtime doj guy and a longtime corporate lawyer for many years. his background as well known.

the hearings will test his views of executive power and proximity to possible commitments to trump. host: one of the columns in washington journal talks about how he was -- guest: that is very interesting because most people agree that inliam sessions was engaged some kinds of impropriety. some kinds of questionable behavior as found by the inspector general. the firing of jim comey, the most recent fbi director, is a little bit of a different story. his conduct was called into question by the inspector general when it came to his comments on the closure of the hillary clinton email investigation. there is no allegation that jim improper in ever of -- in any of his financial dealings. president trump's basic assault on the fbi at the time of the

election is unprecedented. president trump had not only attacked comey. he attacked deputy fbi director andrew mccabe and another of other fbi officials by name. that is very unusual. host: what happens to matt whitaker if william barr is confirmed? guest: that is a great question. i do not know. rod rosenstein has told people that he intends to leave the justice department sometime after bill barr is confirmed. there may be a brief period of overlap. matt whitaker may wind up going back to iowa where he is from. inmay find some other job the administration. he is a favorite of mr. trump. he has developed a good rapport. host: is he leaving because of

different styles? told: rosenstein has associates he intended to stay about two years. the job is one of the hardest in the justice department. these have not been normal times. rod rosenstein has been sitting on a powder cake for his entire tenure -- a powder keg his entire tenure. it will be interesting to see what he decides to do next. host: carrie johnson, the justice correspondent from nb are joining us to talk -- from npr joining us to talk about the attorney general confirmation hearings. the room is filling up. none of the members sitting down yet. reporters and other people ready to watch. how will this differ from the last time we had a hearing? this was under chuck grassley. now it is lindsay graham heading up. guest: lindsey graham is a very vibrant guy.

he has been a vocal defender of the trump administration. he said one of his top priorities will be confirming judges. to that after he gets through the william barr here. and other interesting dynamic to thecommunity, two -- to committee, two women have been added. on the democratic side, we may have as many three presidential -- as many as three presidential candidates on this committee. cory booker, kamala harris, and amy klobuchar. i expect those democrats to have a lot of pressing questions. will -- that was a very special and complicated dynamic because of the allegations of sexual assault against now justice cavanaugh -- justice brett kavanaugh. i think the pricing question for

most democrats is going to be extracting promises from this attorney general nominee. louisville, kentucky, susan, good morning. caller: good morning. i really enjoy your show. my question is, do you think, agrees to mr. barr leave robert mueller alone and do his investigation, do you think he will promise to do this? do you think he will be able to back off and leave mr. mueller to do his job? guest: bill barr is a careful guy. he has been a lawyer for a long time. in his opening statement, which has been partially released, he does not make firm commitments.

transparencynts within his power. he has a guy who believes that the executive, president trump, has a great deal of power. it is an opening question -- an open question as to what he would do if president trump orders to -- orders him to do otherwise. one of the great questions that came up for the hearings during watergate is if they would fire or get rid of the special counsel. i expect to see that again. i also expect to see what kind --information the barr information bill barr would make public. host: he ultimately decides what comes to the report. guest: the regulations call for the attorney general to make that call. the president may have some strong opinions. democrats today in the senate are going to be asking, what happens if donald trump or somebody in the white house

orders you as head of the justice department not to release certain material? what are you going to do about it? his: does that go to statement about executive power? guest: that is all wrapped up in the same thing. the attorney general is in some ways, the lawyer for the people. he also believes the president of the united states whoever that might be is invested in a lot of power even when it comes to the justice department. host: kimberly, good morning from washington, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, pedro. i have two comments. barr is supposed to hold -- supposed to uphold the law regardless of anyone's feelings. that -- how can i put this? why is it that if you are not already in the fold, you are not

allowed to have opinions before you get there? do you know what i mean? i do not get that. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: people are human beings. they have lost about -- we have lots of opinions about things. the question is, some of his comments in memos and beds about the molar investigation -- an op-ed about the robert mueller investigation are about things he might change once he gets more information about the status of the investigation. the factual information and the evidence. a lot of which has not been made public. whether his mind can change or whether he has stuck in his ways , which he has expressed in op-ed's and people inside the justice department. host: we have a viewer off twitter asking, what is the obligation of any ag to make promises to anyone? guest: everyone gets the advice

and consent of the senate. you're not supposed to get the job unless the senate deems you are fit for it. host: bob in kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. confirmation, what i would like to see is him be patriotic like the president of the united states. youtell robert mueller, if want to keep on investigating, that is ok, but i mean, you have -- for a year and a half, so let's do pro bono on this. guest: i point out in the history of the special counsel, mueller probe is one of the swiftest and most production -- swiftest and most

productive in history. the iran contra investigation for instant lot -- lasted years and years and cost a heck of a lot of money. has left aler twice lucrative private law practice to take much less well compensated jobs on behalf of public service and the public interest. the notion that he has an ambulance chaser does not fit with the actual facts of his life and history. does it fall to the job to say, when are you going to produce something? guest: that is often the case inside the justice department inside and out. people are very eager for the investigation to come to a conclusion. campaigny if the 2020 gets into high gear. i am sure robert mueller is aware of that.

statement he has made to senators have suggested, he has well underway. -- he is underway. there are indications that the team wants to wrap up. of its workoff some as it has in the past two lawyers in virginia, new york, and d.c. thanks have been rough. on top of the -- things have been rough. on top of the fact that there has been a shutdown and many are on furlough in a way they do not want to be, we have a president who has been unusual in his attacks on the justice department since the 2016 campaign. a lot of turmoil at the fbi in particular. we have had the attorney general resigned under pressure from president trump after a series of attacks for well over a year.

we have had acting attorney general medic -- acting attorney general matthew whitaker exposing his work on behalf of a company that has been investigated by the federal trade commission. things are not great at the justice department. bill barr may be a steady hand. host: robert from massachusetts. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few points i would like to point out. i think it is a clear indication that president trump has been trying to shut down the robert mueller probe about the russia interference. ,he problem is, with mr. barr we have to know that when robert mueller comes with the result, -- reduce it to a 20

page summary. so the american people can know what is going on. -- this is whypt people must understand. we have layer and layer of thing that shows the compromise of a country or people involved with the russians. this is something we must stick to hard. why the president can meet with putin 101 -- with putin one on one and he cannot meet with robert mueller himself. i do not understand why people are blaming democrats. this is a patriotic thing. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: this is in large part what senate democrats are going to do over the next two days. to try to make clear that even though bill barr is pledging

some transparency, to try to make clear and try to commit to making public as much as possible with the findings. there are some complications. part of the investigation is a counterintelligence investigation. you want to protect sources and method. part of this material has been presented to a grand jury. the watergate scandal, lawmakers were able to get conclusions that special prosecutor leon jaworski that he him -- that he and his team reached. --ocrats wants to be democrats want to be sure they can get their hands on conclusions of the robert mueller team. some people on the left are pressing for impeachment proceedings after the investigation ends. we do not know yet if that is merited or not merited. that will be a question after the investigation ends.

there --speculation -- to find out what robert mueller knows and make it public. the full record of the investigations and what the conclusions are. guest: there has been a years the fight to make public watergate. the chiefe public by judge of the u.s. digit in washington -- u.s. district in washington, d.c. she is the judge overseeing a lot of the robert mueller grand jury work. that may be an indication she would be interested in making some of that public. host: indiana is next. this is jesse. caller: i had a couple of comments to make. recently, the correspondent for abc that is being covering the

robert mueller probe has said that all of his sources indicate that when his reports are released, it is going to be anti-climactic. as if there is not anything to it like a lot of people said. also, i would like to point out, i listen to npr occasionally especially when i want to know what the progressive respect -- progressive perspective is on thanks. as a justice correspondent, you had to know how dangerous it is to weaponize the doj against a political party and how dangerous it is to have people in power -- we are not talking about the agents that do the investigations. the ones that are out there doing the work on the ground. we are talking about the people that make the decisions of who we are going to investigate. what we are going to investigate.

you have to realize how dangerous it is to pursue someone the way they have donald trump. just to find something. host: thanks, caller. we will have to leave it there. guest: i have been in washington nearly 23 years covering republican and democratic administrations. i point out that one of the reasons we have these highly anticipated confirmation hearings is to make sure that senior leaders of the justice department who oversee andecutions are qualified are apolitical. they are not going to be making decisions on a political basis. i also point out that a number of republicans including current fbi director chris ray, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and many others have found a legitimate basis to investigate election interference and to prosecute numbers of the truck

campaign. and, bill bar -- of the trump campaign. , has the highest -- i do not see evidence that the justice department has been weaponized for political reasons against the republican president. host: senator orrin hatch sitting at the table just about to introduce william barr. you can watch the proceedings. here, to preview the events of the two days of confirmation hearings, carrie johnson of npr. we thank you for that. for the remainder of our program, of its funds -- open front. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. i am working to ensure that the deal negotiated by the u.k.

government with the european union is voted on by this parliament. it is a good deal. it protects jobs and security. it delivers in full on the referendum result, which is a key issue. i believe we owe it to people to deliver what they wanted, which is control of money, borders and laws. >> tonight, the british house of --ons votes on rags votes on brexit. wednesday morning, watch coverage of prime ministers question time on c-span2. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, this up in court, and public policy events

in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: you can but dissipate in open funds also -- you can alsocipate in open funds on our social media sites. theiscussed earlier about sioux city journal highlighting the comments of stephen king. -- of steve king. members stripping representative king of all his committee memberships. but -- that is following his recent comments on th white supremacy. if you go to international affairs, it is the wall street journal highlighting recent

meetings between mike pompeo, the secretary of state and members of the saudi leadership meeting separately with the king and crown prince at the royal court. telling reporters afterwards that he raised two difficult issues. the war in yemen and the 2018 killing of the journalist jamal jamal khashoggi. he said he pressed for accountability but avoided blaming prince mohammed. approached the issue of human rights including allegations of acts of torture. street some of the wall journal costs -- wall street journal's take.

democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents, (202) 748-8002. the hearing for william barr starting right now on c-span3. plenty of events here in the united states. also in the data kingdom regarding the future of b -- in the united kingdom regarding the future of brexit. the chief u.k. correspondent. hello. thank you for joining us. can you remind viewers about today's vote and how it fits in with the process of brexit. guest: it has been a long process. the decision to leave the european union took place about two and a half years ago. a little bit more now. since then, theresa may has been slowly moving towards her plan.

she struckent that with other leaders was supposed to come to a vote in december. she called it at the last moment out of fear it was going to be defeated. what she has done in the interim have not -- has not changed the dial. depends somewhat on the scale -- of what she does next. how she couldsee resurrect her plan. she loses less than 100 votes, and perhaps she is able to move ahead. short. getting we are supposed to be leaving the european union on march 29. host: what are the legislators there most concerned about? guest:guest: lots of

disagreement between the private -- guest: lots of disagreement between the prime minister and members of her own party. that -- has insisted leave northern ireland subject to walls on customs. that the -- laws on customs. should the e.u. not be able to strike a trade deal. which is the transition -- 2021 is when the transition period expires. that is the main sticking point. host: is there a sense from the people of the u.k. themselves on how they feel about brexit.

guest: people remain as divided as they were at the time of the referendum. the turnout was high. many people wish the process would come -- being ine question of the e.u., some opinion polls show a small majority of people in favor of staying in the e.u. people are very divided on what kind of brexit we should have. host: if she is expected to lose, is theresa may threatened as far as her future of prime -- her future as prime minister? survived the leadership change within the conservative party. she cannot be challenged for 12

months. she is safe from within her own party for the duration of this year. the opposition leader party say they will file the motion of no-confidence if she loses today's vote. there's no telling when they will do that. the trouble for the labour party is they do not have the votes in parliament to defeat her. to put a no-confidence motion against her. while theresa may has problems rallying her conservative party , onthe northern irish party her own leadership, -- the key -- isis the chief u.k. correspondent for reuters. thank you for your time today.

now, to open funds. we start off this morning with israel. he is in vermont. the republican line. you are on. caller: how are you doing? good morning. when a person is being person -- thethat prosecutor's over never that speed up the process -- host: this is in regard to what? caller: the trump situation. host: you ask that why? is, we the whole thing do not need barr to speed up the process so we can find out what is going on. host: james is next. denver, colorado. independent line. caller: hello. i wanted to make a comment about your show and c-span.

-- i think youys guys are so fake and corrupt. every day, i watch you guys. it is four to five to one democrat callers to republicans. the odds should kick in that it is at least 50%. it is trump this. trump that. every day of the week. theyve a coup d'etat that tried to do against our president. you guys will not do a single story on that. host: todd is next from jefferson city, missouri. make.: i had a comment to one on what the other gentleman said. i think you guys are pretty evened out as far as going against trump or anybody else. trumpot understand how does not get into any more trouble than what he has in with all of the stuff he does. there has got to be a way to

find out. host: on this, the 25th day of the government shutdown. the president highlighting the house speaker nancy pelosi in a tweet sent from his twitter account saying, why is nancy pelosi getting paid? people are working are not. when it comes to 2020 politics, the new york section of the near times this morning, candidates concerning their health. profiling cory booker saying, he is 49 and preparing for an unexpected campaign. a former college football recruit has slimmed down to what may be his best shape in years. getting in better shape ahead of a white house bid is hardly uncommon. jeb bush and chris christie the most recent examples. it also highlights senator

kirsten gillibrand of new york. another candidate focus -- another candidate posting a photo of her birthday workout. a few days earlier, she shared a gym hoistinge weights. dan from hillsboro, oregon. caller: how are you doing? there are lots of topics like with his border thing and stuff. there is networks out there that are promoting this open border thing. and then the steve king think. -- steve king thing. we have heard things coming out of the democrat party that makes me want to get sick. woman you had on

here with npr with the barr deal, she sounds like she is a democrat hack from the start. i have listened to npr a little bit. they are all one-sided on everything that they do. host: reed is next from union, washington. the republican line. caller: i agree with the last caller. i watch the program every day and get a lot of value out of washington journal. there is a lot of identity politics that comes from the left that is so far out of bounds. it is so saturated that it is hard to get to the issues that we need to talk about. an interesting mathematical statistic about this country is that if you look this up on the internet, when the nation was founded in terms of the constitution being found -- being signed, the population was 96% white people from europe. the remaining 4% unfortunately

were slaves. then there were naturalized native americans. we have gone from 96% white to a proportion where the white people are 55% white. i ask all these people on the left, how do these white people -- how does this happen? race, whiteminant people had the reince at the founding, he could've put something in place that stipulated only white people be naturalized citizens. host: that is reed from washington. the washington times has on their page, some of the pulling that took place -- that took -- some of the polling that took place. the primetime plea to americans to support his plan for a border wall fell flat. the government -- the people blame him for the government shutdown. not only did the oval office address failed to boost support

for the wall, but americans also are not giving the president the present -- giving the president the benefit of the doubt. 43% of respondents said they supported the wall compared to 55% who said they were opposed. --nn poll sunday -- acn those numbers show no sniffing movement from december. where that is available from the washington times. from marlene on the independent line. caller: good morning. i do not know where to begin. i want to say something. i have been watching c-span since it was first put on. quite left-leaning compared to what it was. however, you had a gentleman on this morning about immigration. ago, a month or two month i believe it was yale university

that did a study on illegal immigration. forget the 11 million. they said between 22 and 32 million illegal immigrants are in this country and more are coming every day. lethe month of december, we 61,000 people come across our border. that is men, women, children that we now have to support. about $5 billion for a wall, they never mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that the american taxpayer are being taxed to take kidsof all of these haha coming across the border by themselves. host: joyce from kansas is next. the democrat line. caller: thank you, pedro for taking my call. i am calling to let people know that c-span and people note that

this network does not carry c-span3. i am asking people to call them and ask them to carry it. i have not had any luck in getting them to do that. host: ok. again, it is open funds for about 15 minutes or so. for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents. for about: what we know trump, it comes to the long-term effect. they want tof dethrone trump, they're going to be complications that are not going to be nice for the country. if he rounds up people, are

going to be protests worldwide. it is going to be ms. they do not -- it is going to be a mess. they need to let him do his job and get the government going again. he does not need to be tangled up in a soap opera. i heard it said before about one of your analysts. it is a democrat type of communist ploy. if he plays up to it, there will be a lot of trouble. he will round them up. host: when it comes to the shutdown, ready think that falls into what you have said? caller: i think the shutdown should have never been. they have plenty of money. if they can spend $6 trillion on a war, they can handle a measly 5 billion. host: what you think of the use of a shutdown to achieve these goals as far as getting money for a wall? caller: that is a bad move in my book. i wish the people in charge of trump would tell him before he asks because that is a bad move.

you cannot just slap somebody and take away their money and expect to get support. that is going to have complications they do not want. that is a bad move. the federal reserve can cover that in an hour. host: bill is next. bill was from indiana. the democrats line. yes.r: talk about the wall, they do not need to be talking about the wall. they should be talking about [indiscernible] put a paragraph in there that says, anyone who harms harbors -- anyone who illegals, will get six bonds in jail and the illegal will have to get out of the country -- will get six months in jail and

will have to get out of the country. host: that is bill in indiana. in the section of the western talking about boots on the ground when it comes to u.s. soldiers. saying that the next -- the last notable redesign of the army boot took place in 2010. a survey found that more than half of the respondents said they preferred to buy their own boots off of the shelf. prototype testing of new boots will involve 1600 pairs. 400 of each of the four prototypes being sent to the basic training deposed. -- basic training depots. it will be overseen by the research and engineering center. more of that is at the washington times's website.

next call, richmond, virginia. we will hear from helen. caller: hello. i have a comment. the problem with the closing down of or the shutdown of the white -- why are people -- why aren't people calling in these delegates? need to stop playing politics with people's lives. donald trump is not the problem. go ahead and give him what he wants and put these people back to work. thank you. host: the shutdown, when it comes to tsa is affecting airports across the united states. a photo on the wall street morning, the hartsfield jackson airport. this adds that tsa staff called that they would not be showing up to work amid the shutdown. that is one of the impacts of

the current situation when it comes to the shutdown on this 25th day. mike, in nebraska. republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am fine thanks. go ahead. caller: this whole deal about the wall needs to be put to the side for a minute. you have a democrat party with 20 plus candidates going to run. yet, they are talking about how divided the republican house is as far as the senate and the white house. when we had 15 candidates -- 15g 15 years ago and candidates running two years ago and whittled it down to donald trump, they were saying we are screwed up. what are they doing now? host: another photograph to show you. this is from the front page of usa today. a teacher strike in los angeles.

that is impacting 500,000 students. this is a photograph from usa today. that is on their front page. amanda is next. she is in virginia. democrats line. weigh in just had to on the callers. it seems like a smear campaign from the right to have callers call into yellow you -- to yell at you. one of the most valuable things i think c-span could do is to educate people who watch you day in devoid of call facts about bias in media. just how unbelievably focused the right wing sources are in targeting people who are most

susceptible to right wing an accurate messaging. particularly the elderly. as people get older, they lose their ability to discern fact from fiction. their level of fear rises. thank you so much for taking my call. thank you for fighting the good fight. to all of those listening, please google confirmation bias. host: that is amanda from virginia. day one of confirmation hearings for william barr. that is some of the pictures you will see from the room. he is now at the table. introduced by orrin hatch earlier. if you want to watch this, go to c-span3 to watch it play out. you can go to c-span.org. are c-span radio app. -- our c-span radio app. the next call is from mary. mary in sarasota, florida. the republican line. caller: good morning.

i am an elderly person. i certainly know how to get information. one thing about your callers this morning, they are really pointing out what is most important in this border wall crisis. the woman who cited the yale study that there may be 32 million illegal foreign nationals working in our country that taxpayers are subsidizing. i also agree with the gentleman e-verify iss that needed. i think every person that employs an illegal alien ought to have all of their assets confiscated. people are waking up to what a legal foreign nationals -- to what illegal foreign nationals cost the taxpayers. the democrats have misread the situation. we must have secure borders. we must have laws that

confiscate assets for any u.s. citizen that employs an illegal foreigner. host: ok. we will go to ajay in buffalo, new york. independent line. know why would like to trump is holding the united because heage just is not getting what he wants. i think he is a great big crybaby because the democrats are right. what he is asking for is just ridiculous. we do not need a border wall. host: why is that? number one, people come over here to work. then they go back home to their home states.

back in new mexico and that. what trump is doing is wrong by money. up people's host: ok. caller: i have been out of work for a while. i am waiting for my money, which i had not received. i have bills to pay. i am on the verge of losing my vehicle and my house because of him. i think what he is doing is wrong. host: argue art -- are you saying you are directly affected by the shutdown? caller: partially, yes. host: how so? caller: i have a broken back. i have back surgery. assistance -- public assistance. now that he shutdown the statement, in new york and everywhere else, people who are on public assistance, he

once injured workers to go back to work. i have already tried to go back to work. nobody will hire me because i have a broken back. they do not want the responsibility of taking on an injured worker. host: we will go to linda in louisiana. democrats line. caller: hi. i am calling about trump as far as the border in mexico. put the border in mexico, but what about that other border. those people blend in so we do not complain. especially, the northern states. i do not understand them because the people complaining about that, they do not complain about the northern border. drugs and crime and stuff come through the northern border. they have a lot of people up there. i lived up there.

that is coming across the border that is illegal. host: that is linda in louisiana. calling us this morning. a lot to watch during the day. c-span3 is where the confirmation hearings are. we take you to the house ever presented us. -- house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 15, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable peter welch to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2019, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. all time shall be equally allocd