the house is back to consider a bill that would reopen the homeland security department through february 28, but not include border while funding -- border wall funding. at 9:00 a.m. eastern. a.m., the senate returns with votes scheduled for 2:30 on whether to move forward with the government funding bill that includes the president border wall proposal, or proceed one -- with one that is similar to a house passed measure. later, the u.s. conference of mayors continues with remarks from treasury secretary steve mnuchin and senators jeff berkley and cory booker. up next, live on washington journal, your calls and comments. 8:00 a.m. eastern, we talk

about the impact of the government shutdown with olivia golden, executive director at the center for law and social policy and then the migration policy institute's randy capps on the status of the daca program. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, january 24, 20 19. [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] of the longest government shutdown in history. stateday, the president's of the union address became the latest victim of the shutdown after speaker nancy pelosi told the white house she would not allow the president to address the nation while the shutdown persists. president said he would wait until the government reopens. that is where we will begin on the "washington journal" this morning. let us know your thoughts on the postponement of the state of the union.

democrats, 202-748-8000 is the number. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good thursday morning to you. you can dart calling in now. -- start calling in now. here is the president from twitter late last night. he said around 11:00. as the shutdown was going on, nancy pelosi asked me to give the state of the union. she changed her mind because of the shutdown, suggesting a later date. i am not looking for an alternative venue for the state of the union address because there is no venue that can compete with the history and tradition and -- of the house chamber and i look forward to giving a great state of the union in the near future. nancy pelosi responding half an hour later after -- before

midnight saying mr. president, i hope by saying near future you say you will support the house-passed package end the shutdown the senate will vote on on thursday. please accept of this proposal so we can reopen the government and then negotiate our differences. that was the exchange last night on twitter. here is how the postponement of the state of the union is playing out on news websites. most conservative websites going with something like this. trump: the state of the union won't happen until after the shutdown ends. on the liberal side, the huffington post, trump falls to pelosi. talking points memoon -- then'so pelosi -- bends to pelosi's will. some rules that apply to a president when he or she comes to the house chamber. this from the wall street journal. mr. trump has floor privileges

allowing him to enter the house chamber, but would need permission to speak from the dais. that would come in the form of what is called a concurrent resolution. nancy pelosi mentioned that concurrent resolution. she said yesterday noting her correspondence from january 16. i said we should look together to find a mutually agreeable date when the government has reopened and i hope we can still do that. i am writing to inform you the house of representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the state of the union address in the house chamber until the government has reopened. president trump was on camera yesterday after the white house received that letter. here is some of his reaction to that letter. [video clip] >> the state of the union speech has been canceled by nancy pelosi because she doesn't want to hear the truth. she doesn't want to the american public to hear what is going on

and she is afraid of the truth. the super left democrats, the radical democrats, what is going on in that party is shocking. i know many people that were democrats and they are switching over right now and they are switching over quickly. i hope they know what they are doing for their party. host: we will begin on the postponement of the state of the union, getting your reaction on phone lines. for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will start for -- start with susan on the line for democrats. morning. caller: good morning. i knew this was going to happen. thankfully -- knowing how the government works, she is moving to outmaneuver trump. a big trump only wants

audience. when it didn't happen, he doesn't -- didn't want a show. his awful remarks about democrats are really coming from someone that wants to be dictator. thank goodness for nancy pelosi with her intelligence, her knowing how to handle things in the government and keep things steady in the three branches of government that we need, not just a dictatorship by donald trump. i am very thankful and that is what i wanted to say. host: to dave in michigan, line for republicans. your thoughts this morning. caller: i would like to say what nancy pelosi is doing and chuck schumer is wrong. it is as wrong as it can be. there is absolutely no reason

for a donald trump not to be able to give his president's address. it has always been done this way and why should they stop this unless they are scared? which is basically what it is. i have always voted for who i thought was best for the country no matter who was democrat or republican. host: some history here on the state of the union and it being held in a house chamber. this from the washington post. since president woodrow wilson, republicans and democratic presidents with the house speaker and the vice president sitting behind them in a house chamber usually packed with members and the diplomatic corps, the supreme court, joint chiefs of staff, family member's and gas's, the decision -- and guests -- nancy pelosi's decision seems to be unprecedented.

it was under ronald reagan's presidency the state of the union was last postponed january 8, 1986. reagan was preparing his speech when the challenger exploded. his formal address was proponent -- postponed and reagan appeared in the oval office. statetruman postponed his of the union for four days, ultimately delivering it in writing instead. david in pennsylvania. an independent. good morning. caller: my question is for the listeners. who believes the pleasant is -- president is really only trying to fulfill the promise of a wall? building the wall was half the promise and the other promise was mexico was going to pay for the wall. in his first announcement in 15th, 2016. he said "i will build a great, great wall on our southern

border. i will have mexico pay for the wall." if he told the truth that mexico really wasn't going to start paying for the wall, where would we be? do you think the people who voted for him and got him through the electoral college success, if they told him -- them 6 months ahead of time, you are going to pay for it, the citizens of america will pay for it, do you think they would have elected him? host: you mentioned the president's slogans about the wall. the president with a new slogan tweeting this out yesterday. build a wall and crime will fall. this is the new theme for two years until the wall is finished. it is under construction now, he said. in alexandria, virginia. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. greetings.

i am elated that speaker pelosi the a stand to assert equality of the legislative branch of the u.s. government. it is high time the president had a counterbalance and his actions are checked off and countered -- checked by the legislative branch. last two years, trump has done at his will. i am happy and elated that there is some resistance to the craziness and the insanity that is going on in the white house. thank you. host: that is john in alexandria, virginia. more of your phone calls about the postponement of the state of the union. we folk -- want to focus on the senate votes set to take place

today. it to walk us through those votes and what is in the bills, we are joined by a senior senate staff writer for roll call. washington journal viewers know him well. take us through those two bills and what is in them and what the process is going to be today. morning?ith us this neils inet back to just a second and more of your phone calls on the postponement of the state of the union. james in cedarville wyoming is a republican. go ahead. caller: yes. i have an idea you should explore to open up the government again. it is contained in the u.s. constitution article three, section 2.2. it says in all cases in which a state should be a party, the supreme court should have

original jurisdiction. a sovereign and independent state is a party to a federal case, it is essential they have the right to be heard in the highest court in the land. i think the supreme court, if they were contacted and put forward a case, the whole country is suffering from this. they need a remedy and i think this was the remedy to open up the discussion. maybe the supreme court can arbitrate. they sure -- they certainly should adjudicate this problem and i think that is the best way to go. there is a third branch of government. host: when you say they should adjudicate, you think this should become a legal case as opposed to an negotiation between two sides over what the legislation should be? caller: yes. i think the government, especially the president and mcconnell have violated their oaths of office.

they are not supporting the constitution. neither party is really supporting the constitution. they are just arguing a political point. the case could be brought by any number of agencies. the national association of governors or mayors could get together and say this is harming our states and citizens causing economic and humane issues. you don't even have to go through the appellate process. i called the supreme court yesterday and i said it has to go through the appellate process and i read the chapter. host: how often do you call the supreme court? caller: just two or three times, not recently. host: who do you usually talk to? caller: there is no justice. i was trying to talk to one of the clerks and the young man

went on and heard my point and said that would have to go through an appellate process and i am looking at the law and even alexander hamilton said in cases in which a state might happen to be a party, it would be ill-suited -- ill-suited its dignity to be turned over to an end cereal -- two an inferior tribunal. over to an inferior tribunal. lesniewski.o niels we have been talking about -- we we have been talking about -- we mentioned these two bills that would be voted on in the senate. walk us through what is in those two bills. we will keep working on getting niels lesniewski on the phone. anthony, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things. keep that close

and she cannot give into what the president is doing. if she gives into him every time he decides he wants something, there will be a shutdown again. he is using pelosi doesn't want to hear the truth. i don't believe trump knows what the word truth. in the same sentence, doesn't make any sense. i don't know where it will end, but it is pitiful these people have to suffer because a man decides he wants to do what he wants to do, not as the country wants him to do. -- inbeverly is next vermont. a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to ask -- regis philbin has not been mentioned in anything to do with the russian process. he went to russia with the

donald back a few years and they went to invest money and i never heard -- do you have anything on this? i would appreciate. thank you. host: i don't have anything on that. what are your thoughts of the shutdown? day 34 and state of the union? caller: the president's mouth is practically lies. how can anyone make a decision on what is going on? it is just foolish. i never heard a president in my whole life. and i am 82, that sounded so immature as this one. excuse me, but that is my ideas anyway. host: that is beverly in vermont. we will try niels lesniewski one more time in a few minutes. and he's ohio, republican. good morning.

watched c-span practically every day and day after day, it is frustrating. it right.et it is not a shut down, it is a partial shutdown. host: partial government shutdown, nine agencies being affected and some 800,000 workers. an issue we will continue to talk about with our upcoming guests. caller: at least get it right. getial shutdown, can you that? with all due respect. that is point number one. host: what is point number two? caller: day after day you write people suffering from the shutdown or the partial shutdown as it should be. how many times has c-span invited victims of illegal immigration? host: that is certainly an issue

we have talked quite a bit about. what is point number three? caller: point number three as far as paying for the wall, there are multiple ways mexico can pay for the wall. let me explain how. i have asked c-span to invite someone from usaid. at least twice i have done that over the three months. back to back year after year american taxpayers are playing -- are paying millions to all of these countries, guatemala, honduras, el salvador, even mexico. give me one moment and i will pull up the stats for mexico. host: go ahead and finish your comment, we have other folks waiting period caller: in the year 2017, taxpayers paid $289 million mexico. why? in the year 2016, american

taxpayers paid $87 million to mexico, why? withinof this stopped five years, mexico would be paying for the wall. host: more reaction yesterday to the postponement of the state of the union. this perform -- this before the president tweets late last night, but after the letter nancy pelosi sent to the white house saying she would not hold a concurrent resolution to allow the president to speak from the dais. this is kevin mccarthy after that letter. [video clip] >> i thanked the speaker asking not to have the state of the union -- i think the speaker asking not to have the state of the union's politics. we should have respect for both offices. we should hold the state of the union inside the house chambers just as we have done time and before, just as we have done

when there has been a democratic president and republican speaker . this is no time to play politics. this is an opportunity to solve problems and hear from the president. host: an interesting poll in today's washington times on the four house leaders on their favorable and unfavorable ratings among -- a month into the shutdown. this poll from politico of about 2000 registered voters conducted last week. voters have an unfavorable opinion of nancy pelosi. 33% have a favorable opinion. 39% have an unfavorable opinion of mitch mcconnell. at 22% have a favorable opinion. 35% have an unfavorable opinion of chuck schumer. 23% have a favorable opinion and kevin mccarthy, 17% have an unfavorable opinion. 13% have a favorable opinion. 41% say they have never heard of

kevin mccarthy. louisiana, and independent. you are next. caller: good morning. the state of the union is in a terrible situation. women are still fighting for equality, control of their own bardi -- their own potties -- own bodies.heir we don't have any type of universal health care. there have been teachers striking from the east coast to the west coast. push towardis no developing any kind of program around climate change. the long linesin collecting food and money's for rent. the country is being divided

more than i have ever seen in my lifetime and then, to top it all, this president is pushing to overthrow a legitimate is venezuela.ch we are in terrible shape. between rich and poor has increased, is steadily increasing and it is in a terrible shape. host: this is philip in michigan, a democrat. good morning. if george w. bush can send 6000 americans to their death in iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, our president should be able to declare a national emergency he said himself would be easy to do. i don't understand why more people don't encourage him to do

so because i know 800,000 americans who work for the government since -- think it is an emergency to them. host: let me give you one of the arguments that has come up against the president declaring a national emergency, it might set a precedent in that if a democratic president were to get into office down the road, that person might declare a national emergency on something like climate change and bypass congress to find money to fund projects related to climate change or other policy areas. the concern is the slippery slope a national emergency might lead to. what are your thoughts on that? caller: my thoughts are we went over the slope when george bush started all these walk -- wars and started with a $3.5 trillion surplus when clinton left office and left with a $20 trillion

debt. i think it is ridiculous our president. the slippery slope. debt. $20 trillion in we are at war with everybody on the planet and we need to just declare this national emergency, get the wall built and get this over with. host: that is philip in michigan. still taking your calls throughout this first hour. the house is expected at 9:00, so it will be a slightly shorter show. we are talking about the postponement of the state of the union. on tap today, the two senate votes to reopen the government. unclear if either proposal has enough support to actually pass in the senate. description of the two proposals in today's washington post. the first is president trump's latest offer, the one he put on the table over the weekend, $5.7 billion to build a wall on the

border with mexico in exchange for temporary protections for acaigrants including d recipients. that is the first proposal and the second is a democratic plan to open the government without wall funding through february 8, buying time to finish negotiations over border security. there was plenty of discussion about these two proposals ahead of today's vote. here is chuck schumer on the two senate bills. [video clip] >> the first vote on the president's plan includes radical changes to our asylum system and the full funding the president asked for the border wall in exchange for reopening the government. the first vote is completely partisan. in the president's hostage taking position codified into an amendment. it says you must do it our way, $5.7 billion for a wall before

we open the government. the second vote is the opposite end does not demand anything before we reopen the government. it simply reopens the government for three weeks and allows us to continue debating border security. there is nothing partisan about the second boat. if president trump were not opposed to it, there would be nothing controversial about the second boat and just about every republican would vote for it as they did the first time a month ago. the second boat is not a democratic proposal with democratic demands. the first vote is a republican proposal with republican demands. one simply reopens the government. the other says no way, it embodies the president's temper tantrum. host: that was chuck schumer on the floor of the senate. here is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talking about the democrats position when it

comes to these bills. [video clip] >> i have a great deal of respect for my friends across the aisle, but honestly, madam president, this is getting downright silly. downright silly. yesterday the democratic leader announced he was announcing president trump's proposal because "there were no serious negotiations with any democrat. it would appear my friend is offended he was not consulted while this compromise was under construction. let's stop and think about that for a minute. for days, weeks now the american people have seen the democratic leader and speaker of the house make a public strategy out of refusing to negotiate. that has been their positions, that we will not negotiate. they have said it publicly and announced they are not interested in a negotiated solution. -- solution to this impasse.

not interested in meeting the president halfway on immigration policy or anything else, happy to keep the government closed unless or until everyone agrees to move forward in their preferred manner with no concessions and nothing for border security. host: it is unclear if either of those two bills voted on today will get the exterior votes needed to move forward. some analysis in today possible washington post on what it would mean even if neither of these bills gets the support they required. exactly where the senate would go if the votes end in failure is unclear. neither mcconnell's office or schumer's office would stipulate on the next steps. mcconnell had taken a step back from shutdown talks, placing the burden on schumer, pelosi, and president trump. he said his decision to reengage has opened the door to new possibilities. if he remains involved, he has

the potential to alter the dynamic when it comes to negotiation. that is in the washington post. back to your calls on this 34th day of the government shutdown. a day in which we found out late last night the state of the union address will be postponed until after the shutdown ends. beach,in panama city florida. a republican. good morning. are you with us? guest: hello -- caller: hello? host: go ahead, sir. caller: i was wanting to mention the wall. national security is utmost for us. we need to keep out people that are not for our standard of living and our beliefs and every person, every wealthy

and even some of our politicians have walls around their homes. if walls don't work, then why do they have them? our utmost concern and a wall will work. they can come across the sea. they can come in a lot of other ways, but still, a wall is important. host: you say we need to keep out people who aren't for our beliefs? what are our beliefs? caller: our belief is in the founding of this country from our founding fathers that brought the constitution out of the holy bible. the holy bible where moses' father-in-law told him how to rule the people, that is how our bystitution was developed,

10 thousands, 10 thousands. the county, the state, the federal government. those people are chosen by the citizens to serve the citizens, not the citizens to serve them. host: that is harold in florida. this is a george in rockville, maryland. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. this wanted to comment. extra the president a few days or however long the shutdown last to craft the state of the union speech puts him at the advantage. i don't know what nancy is going to do, sit there and squirm i guess for her pettiness. host: how does it give him the advantage? caller: whatever happens between the time the state of the union was supposed to be and however long it is delayed, it is more fuel to the fire.

she just won't be able to respond until the end and at that point, it will be too late. host: you think having a state of a union address during the shutdown would give the president a platform to push for his proposals or his preferred resolution? caller: i don't think it will matter either way. the facts are the facts, people are coming across the border unchecked, the walls are only going to be there to prevent or give border patrol enough time to get to wherever they are coming across and that is all it was meant to do. as far as this mexico paying for the wall. as an independent, i voted for trump and i did not expect mexico to cut a check to pay united states. i expected it to happen economically. host: do you think the president struckd the new deal he

to replace nafta will do that. do you accept that as the economic path to having mexico pay for the wall? caller: i believe if they spent time on it and figured -- i don't think that was part of it originally, but that will be one of the after effects of it. host: that is george in maryland. this is sherry in st. louis, missouri. a democrat. caller: president trump does not know what he is talking about. this wall and stuff, we don't need no wall, he is full of crap. host: what do we need? do you think there is a problem with illegal immigration in this country? we lost sherry. joyce, sacramento republican. caller: i called on the wrong number first of all. good morning. when we speak, we should let our

words mean something and we should stand on our words. when we hear mexico will pay for paywall, then mexico should for the wall and we should not have a shutdown over something that -- it is like today i say something, tomorrow i say something different. where do you stand when you speak? let your word mean something. stand on your own word and then people can have a multitude of consonant -- confidence in what you say. if you, every five minutes, change your word from something different, how can we believe? that is when it becomes a problem and other people suffer because you have not stood on the original thing you said. we want to believe in you and we want to know you believe in what you say, not change your words and make other people suffer.

our country is suffering over i can't make up my mind on what i want. this is not good. have a good day. host: this is the front page of the metro section of the washington post today focusing on a protest that took place on capitol hill yesterday in some of the senate office buildings which sit on the north side of the united states capital. furloughed workers target senators, u.s. capitol police officers arresting 12 protesters for staging a sit in outside mitch mcconnell's office. they describe a frenzied scene where a dozen protesters continued to chant we want to work, where is mitch? it was a climax to an afternoon confrontations. we will talk more about federal workers and also talk more about

low wage americans and impacts of the shutdown on some of the social welfare programs in this country coming up in about 25 minutes with olivia golden, who works with the center for law and social policy. you can join in starting at 8:00. james is next in north hollywood, california. an independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with the caller about four or five calls ago about this issue of how politicians are ruling versus governing in my country. could solve this in about two days. i say this because we have a collaborative government. we have three branches of government and the idea is to this great experiment with the democratic republic where the people are really the government. ourpeople we elect are

our spokespeople. they should not be trying to rule the country. they should be governing the country. that is my first point. my second is what is the great security risk? those in our hemisphere trying to seek asylum? or sympathizing with a russian doctor see that would seek to undermine the structure of our government, our country? our logic is so poor that we cannot see how obviously this man is out to -- i am sorry, i will say what other people are afraid to say, he is undermining our country for whatever purposes he has and i think we should stop giving him a pass on that. instead of holding him accountable for the things he promised, we should hold this man accountable for the things he has done. how he upset the world order. how he upset our american

foreign policy, how he creates disorder and disharmony. that is not sane. host: that is james in california. this is doug in fairfax, south dakota. democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning, john. on the state of the union address, i don't see why they would want one. a shut down government is a broken government. congress had a fix for this a while back. i don't know what trump would be bragging about. on the wall, if they would go to e-verify and make it a national deal where you got penalized $100 the first time and the next time like $500, a progressive penalty or whatever. as for these people coming from honduras, they are trying to better their lives. why don't they file for asylum on the mexican border so they don't make the trip up here and turn around and get turned back

-- get here and get turned around anyway? drink's --ing to drink from's -- i am not going 's kool-aid.mp the people following him down the rabbit hole will find out it is a snake pit when they get down there. host: you are talking about the mexican southern border? you are saying to file for asylum in mexico? caller: on the border. host: should the united states have agents down there and do more in other countries to allow silent -- asylum claims to be filed in other countries? they have got to file somewhere. they should file down there instead of making the trek up here. they build this wall, they will go to different spots and the different spots will be rougher.

i don't understand. plus, they need to change laws. they don't need to build a wall, it is not going to do nothing. host: this is dave in florida, republican. caller: we need the wall. i just recently attended -- i have a grandson who was made a new citizen. he did it legally. what i thought strange is the democratic head of the local hillsborough county where tampa is located, who is a democrat, they are registering new citizens. that just accept the argument that the democrats want open borders so they can get plenty of votes to steal the next election. host: what country did your grandson come from? caller: honduras. i am sorry, guatemala. host: how long did the process take for him to become a citizen? caller: he has been here.

he is 17 now. he has been here since he was 16. i am sorry, he was here 16 years and it took him 2.5 years to get the paperwork straightened out because you also have a bunch of incompetent -- government workers handling the process. he is finally a citizen, thank the lord. .e was here legally i still say anybody that thinks these open borders -- all they are doing is registering democrats so they can steal an election. that's the only way they will get elected and nancy pelosi, there is nobody more immoral than she is. she has a big wall around her house in california. if she is so against wall, why doesn't she tear her wall down? what on your grandson, were the requirements for him? what did he have to do to become

a citizen? caller: he had paperwork he had to fill out. you have to pay -- my daughter and son-in-law ended up paying $2200. you don't get it for free. i think the daca students are getting free college. everything is free for them. here is someone here illegally -- here legally and they have to pay $2200. host: any other requirements? caller: you just have to fill out a lot of paperwork. including myself since i am a grandparent. we had to go before a judge and you have to -- the judge asks you questions and things. it is a long, drawn out process for legals. i can see why they would want host: to just walk across. what did the judge want to know? caller: how you feel about immigration, how you feel about the child. i love that kid just as if -- my

daughter carried him for nine months. i am just proud of him. host: thank you for talking about it this morning. andre in maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am calling to support nancy pelosi. if donald trump is serious about the state of the union, let he -- let him give it from the kremlin where he can take all the neo-nazis and people who support him. -- out of baltimore and in grade school, we used to sing a song about the old defendants. nancy pelosi remembers all that stuff, fort mchenry and all that stuff. she is a natural defendant and she is defending this country against tyranny. that is all i have to say. host: how do you see the shutdown ending?

caller: it is going to be long and drawn out. .rump is known to dig in i think he -- him and his henchmen, they know donald trump and he will let this thing play out and draw out. it is hard to say what will happen. host: is negotiating a bad thing? caller: negotiating is a good thing. like nancy pelosi said, you cannot negotiate if they won't negotiate before the government shuts down -- host: travis in massachusetts, morning. caller: first time caller, thank you for c-span. i am 40 years old last year and basically as long as i have been old enough to understand politics, we have been having this debate about immigration. in the 1980's under reagan. under clinton in the 1990's.

i don't understand why our politicians today cannot find common ground over an issue that has been going on 40, 50 years we have been trying to solve this problem. host: what do you think is the path forward? what do you think is fair? what do you think is a good deal? caller: i am an independent and i think technology can work along the border. the u.s. government could take whatever means necessary as far as technology. there does not have to be a wall. a physical barrier implies to people, find a way to get around me, in my opinion. thanks for my comment. host: one more question before you go. you say you are a first time caller. why is it this issue that made you call in? caller: basically because i am not a trump supporter and i think he is holding the government workers and frankly,

the people of america that voted him in, hostage. i think there may be some change as far as the independents that voted trump in. host: thanks for the call this morning. about 15 minutes left in this segment of the "washington journal" to have this discussion on day 34 of the government shutdown. check c-span listings for our ongoing coverage of the u.s. conference of mayors happening this week in washington, d.c., plenty of sessions and coverage throughout today and throughout the weekend for that conference bringing together mayors from around the country. at the opening press conference yesterday, brian barrett, the republican vice president of the conference spoke about the government shutdown and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. abraham lincoln said that.

he of all people understand it the -- understood the challenges of divided government and a restless nation. the conference's and tired meeting is focused on the responsibilities of tomorrow. republicans, democrats, and independents talking about creative ideas and solutions, engaging in civil conversation. building relationships and partnerships and taking actions that benefit all of our residents. instead of getting mired in frustration and dysfunction, america's mayors are working collaborative hope -- to findatively at home solutions to complex issues. we have much more in common than not. we all want the same great outcomes for residents and for can't -- and for this country. host: stay with c-span throughout the weekend for ongoing coverage of the u.s. conference of mayors. we want to hear from you, the morning after the state of the

union officially postponed amid the ongoing government shutdown. mark in pennsylvania, republican. go ahead. caller: i am so disgusted with this whole thing. nancy pelosi thinks she was elected president when she was elected speaker of the house. when people call in and say the president lied and said mexico was going to pay for it read he said long before the election theco would pay for it on sean hannity show. they also don't understand how the government works. he cannot appropriate money by himself read even if mexico gave him the check, congress would still have to appropriate and democrats don't want to spend a dollar on the wall. they could tax remittance payments, they could tax at the border, or through trade negotiations, which he did. when democrats say the border wall doesn't work, they are 100%

correct. everything they paid for up to this point isn't correcting. we see it every single night on the news. donald trump spent months getting prototypes dealt and had it tested by special forces. they won't let him build that. they specifically stated he is not allowed to build anything out of concrete. if they are concerned it will not work, why don't they let him build it and when it doesn't work, they have an election platform to say it didn't work and you wasted our money and our time and you don't deserve to be president. the real reason is they know it will work. host: that is mark in pennsylvania and this is kevin in michigan. good morning. caller: thank you for having my -- having me on. first time caller, longtime listener. the root cause of the shutdown i really believe is the fact congress did not create a budget. remember, we call it a shut down, it's basically a reopening and only a reopening because

congress did not appropriate a budget. when the budget failed and we ran out of money because there was no budget, the president has to keep signing continuing resolutions. that the failure of congress, not a tool of the president. he did not raise his hand and say i am shutting down the government. host: last year, there are 12 annual appropriations bills that fund the government and congress was able to pass five of those bills. it is the bills that were not passed that has resulted in the shutdown. 9 federal agencies not having appropriations, but there were appropriations passed and agreed to and signed by the president for things like the military, veterans affairs, the legislative branch, the buildout of funds congress and its operations. congress was able to get five of those 12 bills done. caller: that is great. the bills that continue to move forward are really continuations. it's really the root cause is

there is no budget. on a yearly basis, you and i budget ourselves. we get a budget done. for all of the noise going on in congress, you would think once a year they could get a budget done so we would not have to pass continued resolutions. we would have a budget and we would live to the budget and if we did not, we would hold people accountable. host: should that budget be balanced? caller: i believe it should be balanced. you and i have to live to a balanced budget. tell me what congressman, pelosi or any republicans or democrats get accountable when they do not live to a balanced budget? no, they point to the next person. it is never an individual. i really think the situation is we did not have a budget and therefore we have to pass continued resolutions and therefore we have problems like the shutdown of the government because people are not signing up reopening it, spending more

money. that is really the root cause i am worried about. btclock.org, real-time tracking the government's finances shows the federal tax revenue in the last year, 3,000,000,000,003 hundred 28,000,000,006 hundred $32 million -- the federal spending in the last you are saying under a balanced budget we should cut out more than three quarters of a trillion dollars in spending from the federal government each year? caller: what i am saying is is -- if all we take in is the $3 trillion. this has been going on year after year, everybody spends more than we take in. if we are in water and there is reason for it, that is where the debt clock comes in. if we spend what we take in or

budget to spend what we take in, then the things that are the overspend because we budgeted for the critical things, the overspend like the pork bellies or the fat that goes into the spending, which there is a lot of and i don't care what anybody tells me. i have been in government and washington a lot of times. we do have a lot of spending that goes on scene. host: what did you do in washington, kevin? caller: i was part of a lobby group, aiken and grump -- aiken and gump. i spent a lot of time on the hill in different arenas. host: how do you feel about lobbyists? caller: i think lobbyists have an important role. some of them go a little overboard depending on who is paying them and what they are therefore. in general, they perform an important role. they bring language and thoughts, dealings, and desires to a lot of people. i know our congress -- our house of representatives and senators

don't have the legs to run out and touch everybody. they have to go to large gatherings and lobbyists bring large families to them. it is their job to sort it, congress in the house and senate have to sort the information that comes in and balance it, tough job, but i still think lobbyists are just an avenue of information. host: thanks for calling in for the first time to read hope you enjoyed it and hope you call in again. about five or six minutes left in this opening segment. the house coming in at 9:00 a.m. this morning and we will go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage. some news items yesterday about a couple house committees wanted to touch on this in today's wall street journal and most other major papers. michael cohen yesterday moved to postpone his scheduled february 7 testimony before the house testimony -- house oversight

committee. a spokesman for him said the testimony would be postponed due to ongoing threats on his family from president trump and mr. giuliani. this is a time when he had to put his family and their safety first adding that he would testify at "a later date or cone congress men elijah cummings and said they expected mr. cohen to testify before their panels. democrats have subpoena power, the wall street journal points out. spiegel of michael cohen, president trump tweeting about michael cohen this morning about five or six minutes ago. so interesting michael cohen who sadly will not be testifying before congress is using the lawyer of crooked hillary clinton to represent him.

how did that happen? remember july 4 weekend when crooked went before the fbi and was not sworn in, no tape, nothing the president asked in his tweet this morning. we will keep monitoring the president's twitter page. speaking of the oversight and government reform committee, house democrats are opening an investigation into the trump white house's security clearance practices and what they are calling "grave breaches of procedure that allowed compromised people to access the most sensitive secrets." among the people whose cases the panel plans to scrutinize our former national security advisor michael flynn who recently pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about contact with russian officials, trump's son-in-law and senior advisor garrett did not disclose contacts with foreign officials on his security clearance forms and secretary rob porter accused of spousal abuse.

that is happening in the oversight and government reform committee. one of the major investigative committees in congress. bryce has been waiting in arizona, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been an independent for about 15 years because i think the two parties are so corrupt and it is all about ego and power. in to my senator's office and suggested this, they are only arguing now -- really the shutdown is about the funding for the border wall or on security. that is it, right? they are not arguing about any other parts of this appropriation? host: at this point it has come down to wall funding with government -- democrats saying

open the government first and then we will discuss border security and the president wanting $5.7 billion for the wall. caller: okay. why can't they go and say -- suggest let's go to arbitration? they do this in labor relations or whatever. get independent people, independent experts to suggest what is needed on the board. -- border. each side agree they will accept whatever recommendation is given by that within certain meanwhile, open the government one way or the other, but both binding arbitration. host: i wonder if you think that might be congress farming out its constitutional duties to calm up with funding legislation to an outside body? do you think that might be

challenged? caller: no, if they both agree to it. they go to negotiations all the time. i will take anything that would work because obviously they obviously they cannot stand to be in the same room with each other. go to some third party, whether it is binding arbitration, go to a third party and say let's get the experts, let's get the politics out of it. both sides, the democrats have approved border fencing before, just make sure it is not a concrete wall, but say we will agree to border fencing if that is what the experts say. the experts say we don't need any additional fencing, we just need to repair it, you have to agree. that would put pressure on both the groups, but their egos do not allow them to give up anything. that is what i am saying.

this is why our whole politics is messed up. 40% of the voters are independents. we have two independents in congress. until we get more independents in congress and get the parties out of the way, this will not end. it will just get worse. host: pat has been waiting in south carolina. caller: good morning. i have two points to make. i think trump should be allowed to make his speech. that building that she is saying he cannot enter belongs to the people. host: she did not say he cannot enter. the president has floor privileges and can go to the house floor when he wants. she is saying he would not -- they would not agree to a joint resolution to allow him to speak from the dais to address a joint session. host: he -- caller: he should be

able to do that. the building belongs to the american people. it doesn't belong to nancy pelosi. you are talking on the phone and i am talking and i don't know what is going on. host: finish your point, pat. caller: i wish all these news commentators, all these people hollering he said mexico would pay for the wall. let the next response be you can keep your dr.. -- doctor. host: the house coming up next, we will be joined by olivia golden to discuss the impact ongoing government shutdown is having on wage workers and later we will take a look at the status of the daca program. will be joined by randy katz of the migration policy institute. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> new york has five new members and its congressional delegation , all of whom are democrats. alexandria all caps year cortez joins the house as the youngest member of congress at age 29. she defeated longtime representative and then chair of the house democratic caucus, joe crowley in a primary election last summer. voters in new york's 22nd district elected anthony brendiz i to congress. she served in the new york state assembly and before that, he was an attorney in private practice. representative antonio elgato was an attorney but he also had a brief career as a wrapper, releasing one out, couple of years after his graduation from harvard law school. max rose was elected to represent the 11th district which includes a staten island and south brooklyn.

he previously served in the u.s. army leading a platoon in afghanistan where he was wounded by an ied earning a purple heart and bronze star. representative joseph morelli joins the house after winning the seat in the 116th congress and an election to fill the seat of late congresswoman louise slaughter for the remaining weeks of the 115 congress. congressman morelle had served and's new york assembly's 1991 including five years as majority leader. new congress, new leaders, watch it all on c-span. live, february 3, super bowl sunday at noon eastern, author and sports writer dave zyron is our guest. he is the author of many books. he has a people's history of sports in the united states.

his most recent is jim brown, last man standing. >> i love sports and that's what i think we need to fight for sports and actually reclaim them and take sports back. if we are going to do so, we need to know our history. that's our greatest ammunition. we need to know our history of the athletes, the sports writers, and the fans who have stood up to the machine. if, for no other reason, then knowing this history, i think allows us to look at the world and see that struggle can affect every aspect of life in the system, even the ivory tower known as sports. >> join our live three-hour conversation with your calls, emails, tweets and facebook questions live sunday, february 3 at noon eastern on book tv's in depth on c-span two. "> "washington journal continues. olivia golden is back in

our desk and serves as the executive director of the center for law and social policy. remind us what your organization does. guest: it's great to be here, i'm these active director of law and social policy, national antipoverty organization and we are celebrating our 50th anniversary in 2019. we advocate for good policies that will help low income people , people of color and we hold public officials accountable for bad policies. we may be doing some of that today given the shutdown. host: we have talked before about snap, the food stamp program. amidst the there shutdown, the status of that program. what will happen if the shutdown continues for another couple of weeks? is theadline shutdown is very serious and the impact is widespread and it gets worse every day or every week. program,nap

supplemental nutrition assistance program which covers 38 million americans, seniors, children, puts food on the table, the usda and the states have worked really hard to put in place where they pay february benefits early. that averted disaster right now. it has a consequence that people who are trying to put foot on the table with the help of snap often end up not being able to stretch it a whole month and now they have to stretch it six weeks or so at least until march payments. they averted a disaster this time but if we go far enough into february, the states will not be organized for march payments and we will have a major disaster. host: how many americans are on snap and how much does it cost the federal government per month? guest: it's about 38 million people who don't have the

monthly cost which is a norm a of americans that depend on it in their lives at one point or another between jobs or when they are working and their wages are not enough. host: is it the largest social welfare program in the federal government? guest: health care programs are bigger so medicare and social security and medicaid are bigger. it's one of the biggest of the remainder. host: what about housing assistance programs? have they been impacted? guest: housing assistance is another area where the consequences are bad right now and they will get much worse over the coming days. the housing assistance programs ,re affected both at the usda about 250,000 people in rural communities who get help thing wrench through usda and there is the department of housing and urban development which is also shutdown which has large housing

programs to help people pay the rent and have a secure home. far are that so tens of thousands of people have been affected already. their landlords are worried they get their disbursement and they sometimes give people ultimatums. they tell them they would have to pay the whole thing even including the federal assistance. host: is the government stepping in their or is there some recourse? in general, right now, the federal government has been able to step in but by early february or going further, it gets more dire. cases, they still have january money they can use but it's a delay in getting it but they can promise it's coming but

once you get to the point where they can make promises, then the dollarsto fund and take care of it for a while does not work anymore. host: we have heard the stories from viewers who have called him. we want to invite viewers to join the discussion. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, these are the phone lines. temporary assistance for needy families is another program. what is the status of that program at the shutdown? guest: that's a programmer states get dollars from the federal government and the use of both for tax assistance that helps the most vulnerable and these of her child care and other kinds of health -- help for low income families and no dollars have been going out from the federal governments of the states are covering that. it will have an effect on local and state governments and

nonprofit organizations as well as families themselves. tanf is that the house and the senate have passed legislation to extend it so it's on the president's desk. that certainly should be fixed or could be fixed quickly. what's been happening is that states have been paying for it. host: for some states more able to do that? states wereme unable to pick up the tap? guest: i think it's hard to know because the real thing that has to happen is it has to get fixed. we should not have states and cities and individual people covering for the federal government. shutdown,ime tanf was one state was affected more than others but so far there is none that there is a lot of worry going into early february and there was a letter from

bipartisan governors saying states vary in their ability to take care of this and they are worried. tanf what happened when was shutdown? guest: they started to cut people off which was the terrible out come on after enough outcry, they restored it. about paste talking economic support or a family with many kids are childcare or the other crucial help, it's not as though people can get by. host: when did the cut off happened? guest: kid was more recently, in one of the recent shutdowns. i think it was in 2013. when i was assistant secretary or commissioner for children, youth, and families, the shutdown was the longest before this one in the winter of 1995

-- 96. i was an essential employee working without getting paid like so many federal employees today. is theng i remember most casenity agencies, in that they were programs that took care of children and today, they case they were programs that took care of children and today, they are the ones that are domestic violence and childhood programs and they should be thinking about taking care of people but they are thinking about having a line of credit in the bank or will i have to lay off staff because they can't deal with the uncertainty and what would i do if i had to find another place for those living here. some of thedamaging core community organizations we count on. host: executive director for the center of law and social policy. you can look them up on the internet or give us a call and chat with her. west virginia, good morning.

caller: good morning. i want to know how many illegals are getting food stamps and welfare assistance? the key thing to know about those in the united states and undocumented is that they are not eligible for any of this help. american citizen children are and we know that's a good thing. foodow great deal about assistance in health care and stable housing helps children grow up and contribute in all kinds of important ways. what i would headline about the shutdown is this is not about policy choices. the programs like the snap program, was reauthorized, congress decided with the big bipartisan vote to improve it and keep the snap program part of it the way it was with some

additional funding. the present had a big signing ceremony in december so these are programs that have a very strong base of support and the reason they are not operating is not that there is anything wrong with them, it's that we have the programsation holding and millions of americans different dispute. the issue is not about the programs, if anything, it's helping us see how central they are in our lives. host: springfield, virginia is next, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of thoughts. president kennedy is my cousin. i don't think is just the wall, i would call this the wall and the xl pipeline. the steel is coming from the everest corporation in canada and that has ties to russia and i also feel that people should have more discussion through the

government accounting office administration office that there is a process when you go to bid for construction projects. it's my understanding that the process of getting the best bids for security or for this or that , that the process is not happen that this is being done and this is what we will do and that's it. host: we will focus on some of the social benefit programs from callers on that topic. dave in maryland, go ahead. certainly want to say that by all means, i'm a firm believer in social programs and even as a young boy, my family used to deliver fuel oil through energy assistance programs and they used to ride along with truck drivers and i could clearly see the benefits that

those type of assistance programs have with struggling families. speakersuggest to the the comment that was made earlier to suggest that these programs are operating just fine . i would challenge that wholeheartedly because if they were operating just fine, then we wouldn't have as many people on the programs. happen what tends to with certain types of programs whether it's energy assistance or snap, the policies that are used to facilitate the actual execution of the programs do not do enough to facilitate motivation with any of these families to get themselves off the program. are the work requirements

enough motivation question mark caller: i wouldn't say that's the motivation. i would encourage that one thing i saw a recently with respect to womanut down, there was a and i don't remember what state she was living in but she was a federal employee and the news had to turn they off or heat but when she spoke, she said she had to turn down her heat. withg direct experience the energy assistance program, i will say that in today's technology, the government clearly could put a controlled thermostat in these home so that people do in fact get heat but maybe they wouldn't necessarily need to consume the energy to heat their apartment or their noneence to be 74 degrees the middle of winter time. guest: let me link of those questions to the shutdown.

i will get back to your thoughts about the public programs. remember that right now, the suffering and damage goes far beyond the hundreds of thousands of people affected because they are not putting food on the table and i need help with housing and being able to afford an apartment in a high rent area. it's also 800,000 federal workers. moreands and thousands contractors in low-paying jobs like janitorial services or housekeeping and food services, people whose businesses depend on those federal workers, childcare centers in the federal buildings, grocery stores, restaurants, the nonprofit organizations that are trying to help -- people who are homeless or women who have fled violence. their employees and local government and state governments so my overall headline would be

that the impact is very broad. us thating, it reminds are a us were many of us paycheck or two away from needing help. there has been research coming out about that, 40% of americans with $400 or less in savings and if you read about and hear about the impact on people who are either essential federal employees working like the tsa workers with no paychecks, they will miss their second one i think friday, that's not sustainable. people need to put food on the table and similarly, is not you lost your paycheck entirely as what happens with contracted workers. here isthe key message that any one of us might snap tomorrow. there is a lot of research on

the subject you talk about. it shows that people who are getting help from food assistance or medical assistance , many of them arch older and and many of them are caregivers of young children and many are seniors, people with disabilities and a large share of them are workers. low wages economy, work often will not pay the wages needed. i think what we are seeing from the shutdown is how much all of us need that effective support of those programs. host: wisconsin is next, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. a quick correction from a previous caller -- it's the accountability office, not the accounting office. point was very well said by your speaker. that's the overwhelming amount of unnecessary government that

we have. i have been in the private industry mainly in construction for the last 40 years of my life. andybody has technology everybody changes with the times but the government keeps getting bigger, more loaded with more why doand more reach -- we keep expanding the government with this new technology that we have that affects everybody? your speaker just said about all the ramifications and about how many people are being affected by the government shutdown from the low income to the food to this and that. good grief. we don't need this much government. we have great technology and wonderful management and people are smarter than we have ever been an healthier, why is the government getting this big? give me one or two places where you see that technology

able to trim government? how about where we work more effectively and efficiently . is that a reasonable answer? guest: if i hear that right, i think what you are saying is we don't need to worry about airline safety and the federal role in that because we don't need to fly as much. those are arguments you can have and they have big economic effects. one of the big effects we see from government shutdown is how are on federal resources all kinds of things we don't realize like the safety of food and our ability to fly, the whole range of activities including help for people who fall on hard times and including -- i was going to give a few the shutdown in native communities.

there is a dependence through treaty obligations and places that have other employment on jobs. also on public services. affect is about a lot of the core ways that as a country, the things we have taken for granted that are part of how we live our lives. there are big economic effects when you disrupt that. also about the previous caller said how programs might not be run well and i think the big headline here is that when you make -- when the federal government shuts down arbitrarily, for no reason -- it's not as though we had a hurricane that made it impossible for the government to operate. it's a man-made crisis. what that does is take people's time away from making things work better.

state governments were paying overtime and using people for hours to be able to work around a man-made crisis to be able to get out there benefits early and they averted disaster but they could've use that time to upgrade their technology as a caller said or provide additional training programs or help in some other way. this is not about any expansion of government. both the house and the senate in december passed legislation to continue all of these areas, agriculture, supporting farmers, address programs that domestic violence and the justice department and the rest of them and then after that happened, the president decided he was going to use all of this as a negotiating chip on a border wall. about theis has been

programs. as i mentioned, snap was just reauthorize as an effective program because that's what the research and experience tells us. host: linda is in florida, good morning. caller: i'm wondering why nobody is talking about introducing legislation to end the government shutdown. jobs,y cannot do their government continues to run at its current level of funding and they can't adjourn until they do their job. they can't shut down the government and packed their bags and take off for two weeks of christmas and give a bunch of excuses about why they can't sit down at the table and do their jobs. donald changed his mind. you knew when you took this job that your job description was go to washington and deal with donald trump. the people who are responsible for this have endured no

consequences. congress has not endured any consequences and somebody said they should not be paid. that's not good enough. they get paid and they stay and do their jobs and they cannot leave in congress cannot adjourn until they do their job. from a policy point of view, the first thing to do is reopen the government. the government should be reopened. that should not be held hostage and should open up. the question you are raising which is our their legislative strategies to prevent closing or support andcore jobs for millions of working americans hostage? there are several people exploring those possibilities. i'm not an expert in the details of those but i think the first step is to reopen the government

and make sure people have a paycheck and programs continue and there is stability. host: have you been to the pop up food kitchen run by the chef on 7th street in d.c.? guest: i haven't but i'm glad you caught her calling out the value of different people including chef andre taking voluntary action. of course, it's really sad to have to do that not because of a disaster. the last time it was about a hurricane but it's because of a man-made, artificial crisis. host: i wonder about resources of nonprofits and what this will do to their ability to respond to crises the rest of the year and down the road. guest: that's a great question because one of the consequences aroundprofits and city the country with a coast guard base are public employees, the

consequences are that people are really stretched at the same time the resources they depend on are not coming in. some of those effects are long which is why we have the end the shut down and fix with been damaged. an example would be if you have a domestic violence shelter that is not sure their federal grant is coming in the next few weeks, they may be risking losing staff who can find a job summer else and you have to fix that and build up the ability to meet the next crisis. host: magnolia, illinois is next. i think the shutdown is knock on effect nobody. i think the low-wage workers will not get affected. host: why do you think that? caller: they have a good job. they are well-paid. are you talking about federal employees? caller: yeah.

guest: federal employees have a range of salaries. support a family on $35,000 and some are making more than that. of them have mortgages or childcare to pay. we just learned this morning that they will have to pay more on dental and vision insurance. there is a lot of bills and there are contracted workers doing housekeeping and security who are also low-wage workers. i think there is a principle here. one principle here is nobody should be forced to work without getting paid and there is a chunk of federal employees who have been called back to work and are about to miss their second paycheck and they are some -- and they are trying to support their families without money and without reading aloud to get another job and there are people who are furloughed or who are working for a contracting

agency and then there are the in thewho are waiters coffee shop or lunch shop, people in the grocery store, people who work in the childcare center, many of whom are low-wage. morehing that affects broadly. all of those workers who we have been talking about who may be our working in a low-wage job, taking care of somebody through home care or something and need snap to help put food on the table, i think their lives to stabilize. it makes it harder for them to work. what we are doing is destabilizing people's lives. host: edgefield, south carolina, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thent to say that as far as

illegals getting the benefits, it's just not true. i go to the grocery store in a rural area where i live this past sunday for instance. there were two buggies full and they played -- on a paid $17 and some change. a woman comes out from behind , these people know how to work the system. host: how did you know they were illegal immigrants? caller: they couldn't speak english and we've got 20 of them in the county. englishone could speak and they give them snap cards and they get two buggies of groceries for $17 and change and then they get to slips out of pocket and get formula. guest: one of the interesting

things about your concern or fear about the people you met is not widely shared by americans. people have a perspective that immigrants and their families and most americans see the contributions as the most important thing. i would highlight that when you think about the immigrants and their children across the country who are making incredible contributions for our communities, one of the groups that has been particularly talked about during the shutdown our young people, young adults who came here as children, the daca group,. another group is people with temporary protected status who came here often decades ago -- that was are groups of people that often have the legal authority to work. many have been here for decades and they are raising children and supporting their families.

we did a lot of interviewing on the circumstances of these young children may also learned many people are giving back in childcare and schools and health care. these are families who are contributing in important ways and their future is also at risk right now because of the administrations choices to end some of those protections. it's important to think about people's contributions and how crucial they are to the country. host: we will talk more about the daca program in our next segment but we want to thank olivia golden. we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you so much. host: up next, we will be joined by the migration policy institute to discuss the deferred action for childhood arrival program. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> the richard dean story does not end there. november, he was forced out of his office when the government shutdown. second time the government shutdown, he continued helping social security recipients but he was working without pay. on behalf of richard dean and his family and all the other people who are out there, working every day, doing a good job for the american people, i challenge all of the onus never ever shut the federal government down. [applause] on americanend history tv, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, stonehill college offessor on how the state the union has changed since the time of george washington. he scored politically here.

that the lure of politics is big for many presidents. the presidency is designed for party leadership. presidents don't avoid the opportunity to use the address to try to score political points. we are way far away from that formal kind of address that's -- that washington would have delivered or his successors. >> this weekend on c-span3 on american history tv. 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 house events in washington, d.c. and around the country. see's that is brought you by your cable or satellite provider. " continues.journal the daca program back in the news amid the government shutdown, we are joined by randy katz of the migration policy into -- institute to dive into this. it feels like we have been talking about daca for a long time but when did this program actually start? >> is started in 2012 and it was because legislation was in congress several years that was introduced and never passed to give a reprieve from deportation and the ability to work to unauthorized immigrants who came in as children. the idea is that because they came as children, they were not personally responsible for that

active coming to the u.s. illegally. host: what were the eligibility requirements? guest: part of the focus, they have to come in as children and be here before age 16 and have arrived before they turned 16 and part of the focus was on better educated, high productivity people. they had to either still be in school or have a high school degree. they had to have been on the country for five years at that 2007-2012 which is now more like 12 years. of they have the maximum age 30. host: remind us of the political discussion around this program back in 2012 how controversially was at the time. guest: it was controversial but the political discussion kind of went off the rails after a point in time. there were many people in both political parties and across the

spectrum who felt that people who came here as children, people who were well educated did deserve some protection but it was a small group. we estimate of the time maybe may one .5 million people. some people were for it and some people were against it but it was not that controversial. what became controversial was 2014, president obama proposed ending the program. there was a much larger program called dapa and that's when things went off the rail. that's when the lawsuits started that eventually blocked the program. host: who is eligible for that? that was a much broader population. we estimate this could've been as many as 3 million and it could've been over 4 million

that was for parents that had a u.s. born child. nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants that had a u.s. born child. they also had to be in the country for a certain period of time. host: bringing it back to the daca program, how many people at this point have taken advantage of it versus how many people are eligible in your estimate. guest: 900,000 people have applied in the latest estimates are 670,000 people are enrolled in the program now. our estimate is somewhere 1.3 million to maybe 1.5 million people are eligible. right0 out of one points -- out of 1.3 million is fairly high. loved towould

have some of the daca recipients otherwise the phone lines are split up by region. we are having this discussion and a 9:00, the house will be in session. remind viewers with the migration policy does. guest: we are a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in washington, d.c. have an office in brussels. we focus on immigration policy and immigration in the united states and worldwide and focus on europe. host: how long have you been around and how are you funded? we get some federal government funding from the department of homeland security

and some funding from some european governments but is primarily private foundations. deep dive into the daca program is the topic. take us through the timeline of actions by the trump administration on the daca courtm living up to the cases we heard about this week. guest: during the campaign, president trump and many other republicans in congress refer to this as an unconstitutional executive power grab. to pass thisfailed on the president issued, through but, as ave action candidate and as president, trump has referred that some immigrants are more deserving than others because they have more education or more productivity and the daca group fits that definition pretty well. for about a year, there wasn't any action on daca and , because i think some

states said they would sue to stop the program which forced the president's hand and that's when he announced the termination of daca. in this polarized environment, we have some states that were against daca and some that were in favor. they sued the trump administration to keep the program open. they said he did not go through the proper procedure to review the program and it was closed for reasons of bias and basically they prevented closing it at the federal district level so there was an injunction last year on the daca program's termination meaning it was stay open for the time being and the people who have the benefit now or have had it before can reapply. they are not taking any new applicant so we're at that 700,000 level now. week, the supreme court refused to take up the case.

that means it will probably be another year before daca can be terminated at the earliest. host: president trump's offer on reopening the government, your understanding of the impact on the daca program in terms of what's on the table? if we think about it, the supreme court will probably not rule for another year so doc is probably in place for a year or so and the president is offering three years. basically offering an additional two years and after that, it's not certain what would happen. it's basically keeping the program going as it is for three years. it's not opening up to more people and it's not making a permanent and it's not even making it a long-term temporary situation. host: jerry is up first in north carolina. i think you just

answered my question. i was curious about the status of the docket issue in this court -- and the court system. i think that was just answered. i have another question if you don't mind. it's getting off the subject. host: go ahead. caller: last year i think, president trump attempted through an executive order only allow immigrants to apply for asylum if they enter through the ports of entry. that was blocked by the courts. he, would itould not be relatively easy for congress to make a change in that law such that you only would be able to apply for asylum if you entered in the ports of entry? would that go a long way to of the issuest the american people have about illegal immigration? it would place more control on the number of people who are

able to apply for asylum. host: thanks for the question. guest: it's an excellent question because the reality is right now that the flow, particularly the families and shall also many of the adults coming from central america are coming to the border and requesting the asylum so the issue is how to deal with that. one approaches they have to go through the port or they could be deported quickly. the bill in congress now says children who arrive at the border cannot request asylum. be deported quickly without a hearing before an immigration ports of that provision more or less is in the bill as it is. foread, they have to apply asylum from their home country or another country. something similar to that suggestion is in the bill. who study the issue would take issue with that that by limiting asylum that much, there will be people who

are deported act into harms way. has been astion opposed to just blocking it off entirely is to speed up the process. this is so that the people who deserve to get asylum get it and the people who don't get deported and we believe it's possible to do that if the administration were to devote the resources to streamline the application process at the border. it could be done without congressional action. host: scranton, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i have a question regarding supreme court and of to theion was brought supreme court, what would happen? host: any action on daca, you mean? caller: correct. guest: yes, i think we assume that the supreme court will have the final say if there isn't legislation. my understanding and i'm not a legal stop -- scholar is they

don't necessarily have to take up the case. they can always let of lower court ruling stand. they can clearly rule that the president has the authority. was an executive order from the obama administration there's a valid argument that the trump administration has the authority to end the program than another president started. alsolly hand, they could argue that the process by which they did it was not correct. it's been used for the affordable care act and other issues so i could see the supreme court going either way. once the supreme court rules, if they say the program can be terminated, that's the end of the program. on your website, plenty of tools that we often use on "washington journal" to talk about numbers when it comes to immigration. datas the deferred action

tool breaking down daca recipients by state. our less caller was from pennsylvania and the number of daca recipients as of august, 2018 in pennsylvania, about 4800. thosestimate is that meeting the criteria is about 14,000 in the state. tennessee is next. caller: yes, my question is why is there no discussion about illegal immigrants? veterans are starving on the streets. host: do you want to take that? guest: i think we need to have both conversations. at the moment, there are less than 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the country

but there are many veterans on the streets. both populations are somewhat in native assistance. many of the unauthorized egg -- immigrants have jobs and some are not eligible for public assistance so they are not really taking benefits away from other people. mean that this is the most important problem facing the country. honestly, that's one of the challenges in having the federal government shutdown over this because there is a lot of other problems not being addressed while we are being fixated on this issue of immigration. host: maryland is next. caller: good morning, the statusn is, what is the of the deported children? are they eligible to become can i stayre

indefinitely. have a good day. guest: that's a good question, that was the program but i mentioned earlier, the deferred action for parents of americans ,dapa. that program would have offered at least a temporary reprieve from deportation and the ability to work legally to parents of u.s. citizen children. that was blocked by the courts and right now, there is nothing for parents. if you're a immigrant parent, you don't have another way to get a green card and it's very difficult. if you cross the border illegally, your block from getting a green card. they are here and working under withable and working social security numbers and they are doing what they can to make ends meet. our data suggest that most of them are working but they're not obviously working at the same kind of jobs and the same kind of working conditions as someone who has legal status. host: new mexico, good morning.

caller: my comments on daca is like venezuela is fighting for their own country so i don't the illegalhat immigrants don't fight for their own country. i think they have a responsibility to go over there and fight for their own rights and put down the people over there and straight another country. they come over here and try to fight for their rights here but they should go back over there and fight for their own country. to be honest, they are cowards. those who have grown up over here, they are killing people. i think you should really put a background check on them because the blood of their families

comes from drug dealing families. anst: i think that's interesting point about mexico years, in the last 15-20 there is a new government there and there are many activists and lots of change going on in mexico and a lot of people actually have thought for change thathave a new government wants to make mexico more prosperous and desirable even leading up to the current governmental change in mexico. we have seen massive improvement in the economy of mexico and there are still problems with crime and drugs that the caller mentions. that's a big problem in mexico a numbereality is that of mexican immigrants in total in the united states is falling. now going back to mexico in large numbers because there are opportunities there. i think both things are going on

in some people are chosen the u.s. as their home to stay and i believe they have that right. other people have chosen to stay in mexico and others of chosen to return. the situation is pretty balanced right now. is mexico the main country of daca recipients? 500,000, byr, over far the vast majority. host: what's the next closest? guest: salvador, glock imola, and honduras in much smaller numbers. host: time for more phone calls before the house comes in. texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i will be brief -- i'm an african-american 62 years old and i am the direct lineage of the result of my forebears and slaves in this country. we have a situation where the united states government quite

literally is making differences between peoples who come to this country illegally. you made an offhand comment immigrants not taking benefits. health health care in care administration and people who are not documented in this country utilize medicaid. they utilized benefits through their children. heardt telling you what i , i'm telling you what i know for a fact. have access to benefits in this country through the children they have. you also made an offhand remark about using fraudulent social security numbers in order to do work. that's a federal crime.

i'm a law-abiding man and have always been. i have to tell you right now that the federal government allowing people to get into this country and overlooking the numerous illegalities they do every day is corruption and corrosive. i hope you don't take personal offense to it, thank you very much. guest: he is right, the children of on authorized immigrants if they are u.s. citizens are eligible for things like medicaid and food stamps. the reality is, they are u.s. citizens and it's true that unauthorized immigrants have children like other americans. i think that's a symptom of them being well and building futures here. are not illegally here and they will go want to become productive u.s. citizens in the future if we invest in their health care and education. there is a short-term cost to that.

the amount of benefits that these immigrant families used a relatively minor. they are working and paying taxes and it's very positive. there's a balance between the amount of taxes paid by immigrants and the services used by their families. as the work and the rule of law is concerned, yes, technically, it's a crime. it has been a criminal offense since 1996. before that overstaying a visa was not a crime. using a false social security number is a criminal offense. it's a victimless crime. you're talking about people who are paying into social security but because they don't have the proper card, they cannot benefit. they are paying money into the system that they will not be

able to use. i completely agree with the caller that there is a lot of corruption when this happens whouse you have employers will change working conditions and offer lower wages and employ people and maybe not even pay them and take advantage. it's not just am authorized workers, it's all workers. it's not something we want to see in our economy. we don't want to see 8 million people working under the table but i don't believe there is any evidence showing that there is significant criminal activity in this population at a higher rate than the rest of the population. if anything, they are more likely to be working and less likely to be engaged in crime. we would do background checks on everyone in this population. ideally, we would deport all the people who have committed serious criminal violations. i don't agree with supporting people who have traffic

minor drugor maybe violations or something like that. do the background check and of it turns out the do something serious, i would agree they should be deported but the rest of them, if we had a system with a registered and state and work legally, it would clean up a lot of the corruption. maybe one or two calls before the house comes in. california, good morning. caller: i have a unique situation. my grandmother came from the u.k. and became a naturalized citizen. she cannot go to work and could not go to college because our family could not afford it. i have a very unique point to make on this issue. my mother recently died. she never can go to college because my grandmother became a naturalized citizen. this is my point which is very

unique, i'm a graduate of cal poly pomona in california. rose bowl parade. who was president there a japanese interned american. they had people coming there that was spanish as well as oriental. we want to give randy katz our last minute or so before the house comes in on that or expectations for the future of the daca debate in congress. guest: let me to both quickly. education is a big issue and that's one of the biggest costs to society and their up there -- and there are proposals to make college or certain levels of college free and there are proposals to make certain groups

including the dreamers eligible for reduced tuition. that will always be an issue. ideally, college would be more affordable for everyone. as far as the future prognosis, who knows? i think right now that the two sides are far apart. what is proposed in the legislation introduced in the senate is a three-year extension of dock as it is for 690,000 people with some additional 125%ictions like earning of the poverty level so narrowing the program and only keeping in place for three years. what the democrats prefer is not just for the current population that those eligible for the program, one point 3 million, to apply for something permanent and there is a lot of distance to cover between those two options. host: we will see what happens on the floor of the senate today as they have votes and docket is one of those. that will do it for tay