f alexandria cortez of new york and her approach to tax policy. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on taste and twitter. -- is next. [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] ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, january 28, 2019 three days post shut down 18 days before the government runs out of money again. the senate is in at 3:00 p.m. we will talk about the state of border negotiations later today. kamala harris formally entered her race for the white house. with most of the major democratic candidates at this moment being women, we will ask

if you think female candidates are treated fairly. phone lines split up differently. if you are a woman, 202-748-8000 . if you are a man, 202-748-8001 is the number. you can catch up with us on social media @cspanwj. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is -- on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. you can start calling in now. our question is our female candidates treated fairly? this headline this morning from yesterday's event in oakland, california. campaignrris' announcement. she frames her campaign as a rebuke to trump. harris the fourth member of congress following elizabeth warren of massachusetts, pearson gillibrand of new york, tulsa gabbard of hawaii all declared for the presidential race.

[video clip] today --d before you [cheers and applause] i stand before you today clear eyed about the fight ahead and what has to be done. fidelityh in god, with the country, and with the fighting spirit i got from my , i stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the united states. more fromill show you that campaign event as our morning goes along. we are asking you to call for your thoughts on this question,

our female candidates treated fairly in today's political environment? 202-748-8000 for women. 202-748-8001 for men. vincent is up first, tulsa, oklahoma, good morning. caller: hello, i would like to say that nancy pelosi is pretty much in charge of a lot of things, i will say treated fairly. host: why do you say treated fairly? caller: she is running the government and getting her wishes. host: that is vincent in oklahoma. this is mike in wilmington, north carolina. good morning. caller: i have no problem with women or men, it's always the person. singling anybody out because of their sex makes no difference. foruld not vote for harris dog because of the way she

treated the supreme court justice, brett kavanaugh. i think it was despicable. as whole democratic delegation on the judiciary committee i think is despicable. moralowed a lack of distance he -- moral decency. 1 specifically what --host: specifically what were you concerned about with in that exchange with brett kavanaugh? somer: she brought up facts that were really not facts, some things that were not true. all of them did. just the exchange. you could tell she had no respect for him at all. how can she have respect for herself if she doesn't have respect for other people? host: from north carolina to savannah, georgia. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well.

go ahead. caller: i think she is a good lady and she is a good candidate for the next president of the united states. we have never had a woman president before and i think she would make a good president. host: do you think female candidates are treated fairly? caller: no, they are not. my name is lucia. host: in what way are they not treated fairly? caller: people always put them down. they always put women down. i don't know why they put us down. mostly men because a man came from a woman. i don't know why they want to put a woman down like that. woman is good. host: this is marsha in portland, oregon. our female candidates treated fairly in today's political environment? caller: hello, thank you for

taking my call. is my television muted? host: you tell me, marsha. go ahead with your comment. caller: i don't think the issue is here nor there. i think if you are a candidate and your goal is to become president, you don't look at your outside superficial qualities like gender, color, anything like that, you don't even -- it just doesn't matter to you. your focus should be on winning. . host: which candidate right now do you think has that focus? terms: well, i think in -- i am prettys impressed with kamala harris. host: why is that? focused.he seems

she seems like she's got the right energy. she is kind of an it girl, kind of like an obama-type person. it seems like she has grown up maybe overng her -- the last couple of months i would see people say kamala, she is like that one cory booker guy, they are asking so silly and this and that and the other and i have never seen such a confidence. it's almost like she woke up and what i am supposed to do. host: define an it girl? caller: well, she has got it. kind of like obama. you are so-called black, but not too black.

she is half, east indian, her mother is an oncologist, her father is a university professor. she is beautiful. she is articulate. she is kind of -- has kind of got that it quality. host: do you think those qualities you just went through, do you think men are looking at through those lenses, too? caller: i do. i think obama won partially because of his swag and he was so good and all that. because if youad have the look, that is going to help you, too. if your agenda is a little weak -- looking back i realize obama really didn't have an agenda. what was that, hope?

that is not an agenda looking back. i think his good looks and his charisma and she has got charisma in these things and that can help her a lot. it is going to be tough to go up against an incumbent president. host: that is marsha in oregon. our question this morning, do you think female candidates are treated fairly? 202-748-8000 if you are a woman. 202-748-8001 if you are a man. you can join us on social media. we have a poll on this topic. currently some 2000 of you have voted. 61% saying female candidates are not treated fairly. 39% saying yes. here's a few tweets. david writing of course they are not treated fairly, wasn't that made obvious in 2016. francesca saying gender, gender, what about qualifications, and

merits? charles saying women candidates tend tobe qualified -- extraneous qualities. what happened to merritt-based? just a few of the comments on facebook. you can give us a call like walter did from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am doing well. caller: women are not treated fairly. i heard two gentlemen presenting an argument that if america is a christian nation, the leader has to be a man. america is a secular country. a woman or anyone can do the job, you know? it does not have to be limited to one gender. host: did you want to add

anything else? caller: i like elizabeth warren and i like kamala harris. they could not do any worse than trump is doing. host: on elizabeth warren, a write up on the front page of the new york times. warren hopes motors are up for nerd talk -- voters are up for nerd talk. her passion for policy minutia has been her way of standing out in an increasingly crowded democratic field, stabbing -- establishing herself as a -- someone who's expensive ideas and detail oriented speaking style are her bid for a good first impression. other democrats are focused on , warren themes of unity is making a personal and political waiter that audiences care more about policy savvy than captivating oration.

today's front page of the new york times if you want to read that story. do you think female candidates are treated fairly? question to ask whether they are treated fairly or not. women, men, they have to be able to qualify -- be qualified to be president. harris, i to kamala saw on c-span at one time homeland security secretary kelly -- i don't know if it was his confirmation hearing or a senate hearing and he had been at the russian embassy in washington, d.c. and kamala harris asked did you do anything besides sitting there and having drinks with those russians? he looked at her with his eyes in an octave way and that kavanaugh hearing, she spoke such a demeaning way to then

judge kavanaugh and now justice kavanaugh. if someone were to speak to kamala harris that way, they would be racist or a male chauvinist and yesterday i saw on book tv, kamala harris was being interviewed and she said to victory -- secretary, get jamie dimon on the phone and i took my earrings off and started shouting at him. this is the qualifications of someone who wants to become president? shouting at men? i think they are treated fairly. i am a democrat, but i would never vote for kamala harris. host: you mentioned some of appearances we have aired on c-span all available in our video library. 123 videos right now. her first appearance was a 2006 forum when she was district attorney for san francisco of california. 50 videos in 2017 in the video

library. raleigh,ur calls, and north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good, go ahead. caller: i think some people are treated fairly and others are treated differently and special. hillary clinton was treated very special by the fbi the way she .ot that special treatment the previous low iq of people who called in with the it factor ,nd good-looking and articulate that is an actor or somebody like that. some actors like ronald reagan can get it done. they are talented and very blessed, just as mr. donald trump is. elizabeth warren, she talked about that article you read with the expansive ideas. i think she is very expansive

when she put herself down as an indian and got the special treatment she got at one of those ivy league -- schools she taught at. there have been some good candidates. chisholm.hirley qualifications, it is great. i think they can get special treatment like hillary did with the fbi. host: hillary clinton was at a forum earlier this month for women leaders in new york and talked about some of the women leaders in that room and the qualifications she saw in those leaders. [video clip] >> there has been a lot of talk recently about whether our country is ready for women leaders. that really takes me back. today, i want to thank all of you for your persistence. i know many of you and can

attest as to how smart, determined, effective, and dare i say, likable you all are. host: taking your calls on the washington journal. are female candidates treated fairly when it comes to politics? some recent op-ed's on this issue, especially a term that one of our viewers on facebook brought up, this term likability when it comes to female candidates. this from a column in the guardian from earlier this month about elizabeth warren. the issue with elizabeth warren isn't ability, it is sexism. the claim a woman candidate is not likable enough is saying -- code for saying she defied our shared cultural -- culture, authority is male. this column from the washington toxicer with the headline woke-ness.

column by saying the science on this is settled, the likability question is constantly asked about men of all ideological persuasions. it matters to a lot of voters and that is why it should be asked of women, too. enough of this likability the denialism. kathleen from salem, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: no, i don't think they are treated equally. elizabeth warren, for example. been walks has through the calls -- coals by a lot of men. look at the supreme court when they had the hearings and i am going back as far as the earlier one.

women are just brought to the coals. host: what is an example of that? caller: just in general, not even talking presidential. i think people are always -- even if you are going into a corporate business and -- let's say for an interview, a lot of will you have -- people judge you based on your appearance within two minutes and i think that happens with women. hillary clinton, she changed her hair, she look like she got up on the wrong side of the bed, it happens and i think it happens more with women then with men. as far as senator warren. i would love to see her stay as a senator because i think she is smart. that is where you make the laws. i would rather see her than

president. wish shelinton, i would have gotten in. what can i say? host: who would you like to see as president in 2020? caller: i have not seen someone i would really like to see yet, to tell you the truth. i don't think anything out there is worth voting for right now. we will see, 20/20 is a long way off as far as i am concerned. host: you mentioned hillary this frome more time, the new york daily news over the weekend, hillary clinton reportedly may run for president again in 2020. --culation continuing reportedly weighing a third run for the oval office despite past failures. clinton elling people she is not closing the eye door -- hillary clinton telling people she is not closing the door to the idea.

wasecently as last week she telling people given all the news from the indictments and roger stone indictment she talked to several people saying i am not closing the door on this. not reporting from cnn, the story in the daily news about those comments. vivian in spotsylvania, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. women are not treated fairly, especially black women. i think about republicans making a big issue about michelle having a sleeveless dress on. pnia wears a long stra dress. they spent years demonizing hillary clinton. look what they are doing to nancy pelosi. i bet none could name one thing she has done wrong. i bet they could name 100 things

that trump has done wrong and bankruptcy is one of them and not paying his employees. i don't understand why c-span allows these people to come on -- brettlies and say kavanaugh is no saint. look how he talks. look at what he has done. he was not a saint. is that a talking point they get from fox news? and rush limbaugh? republicans are nothing but con artists. they have dumbed down there base. in raleigh,y is north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. kamala harris has got a good chance of winning and one word is young people. women are not treated the same. they are talking about how she

talked to brett kavanaugh. trump called people sob's. trump has cheated on his wife. trump has said really rude thanks to people, but women cannot stand up for themselves. they said she yelled at him. she yelled at him. women are not allowed to talk loud to men? of course they are not treated equally. she could not get up and have a pass and call people names, make fun of mentally challenged people, she could not do that. women billht the clinton had been with 21 of the debate. why would he do that to her? host: we showed articles about this debate over likability, whether it should apply to candidates, whether it applies to female candidates more. what are your thoughts on that? caller: of course it does. of course it does. women are really problem

solvers, but we have not been given a chance. host: what is an example of that where you have seen it apply to women more than men? caller: which way? what are you talking about? host: this likability issue? caller: likability? all of them. abouthat trump said carly, look at that face. her personality may not have been purred what do you mean look at that face -- may not have been -- what do you mean look at that face? people should not do it, it is wrong. it is the problem-solving we should be caring about. men and i am not going to down do not solveen problems, they create them. you look at every conflict in the world, everything that is crazy, men have been the head of it. host: that is dorothy in north carolina. last week, one of her first

press events for her campaign, senator kiersten gillibrand asked about this question of likability and her first question from reporters after her opening comments. caller: i think a lot of you --[video clip] >> i think a lot of people see you as pretty likable. given the person in the white house and most people agree he is not the most likable guy in the world. selling point -- maybe the country wants someone like that now and what do you tell the people? >> i believe that what people want in our state and around the country is someone who will fight for them and someone who not only understands what their problems actually are, but we'll do what it takes to solve that problem. you have to be willing to have the courage and the compassion and fearless determination to

take on those battles and they need to know you understand them. i will continue to fight for new yorkers as i have always done. i believe the urgency of this moment now is you have to take on president trump and what he is doing. i believe he is ripping apart the moral fabric of this country and you have to restore that decency and leadership in the world. coming up on 7:30 on the east coast. our question for you this morning, our female candidates treated fairly in today's political environment? hitting your comments on facebook, twitter, and the phones. women can call in at 202-748-8000. men at 202-748-8001. harry in georgia, good morning. speak: yes, sir, nice to to you. i appreciate you so much and i

cannot remember telling you my name. i would say every man knows what womann is and that the runs the world. if he doesn't respect the fact that the woman is telling you what to do -- if you don't understand the woman is the person who takes responsibility for everything, you are missing the point. that is all i have to say. host: a concrete example in today's political environment, in a campaign you have seen? caller: in today's political environment, i had voted for hillary clinton. i think she had the best policy of any candidate out there.

harris, iire kamala don't know a lot about her. i admire elizabeth warren, i know a lot more about her and .hat she has done in her career democrat. roosevelt of course, republicans would hate somebody like me. the creation of the middle class .s what drives the economy the economy is driven by a broad middle class and we have this -- disseminated that middle-class. and throughroyed it destroyedcs, we have

the middle class. it is time somebody came back and repaired that and i think elizabeth warren is one that would do that. host: you said a minute ago you don't know much about kamala harris. here is more from kamala harris at her campaign announcement for why she is running for the presidency. [video clip] >> i am running to fight for an america where you only have to work one job to pay the bills. [applause] and where hard work is rewarded and any worker can join a union. [applause] declare once and for all that health care care is a fundamental right.

and we will deliver that right .ith medicare for all i am running to declare education is a fundamental right . we will guarantee that right debt free college . i am running to guarantee working and middle-class families and overdue pay .ncrease we will deliver the largest working and middle-class tax cut to $500 aation, up month to help america's families meet and we will pay

for it. we will pay for it by reversing this administration's giveaway to the top big corporations on .he top 1% running to fight for an america where our democracy and its institutions are protected against all enemies foreign and domestic. which is why i will defend this nation against all threats to .ur cybersecurity we will secure our elections and our critical infrastructure to protect our democracy. our servicer members and veterans so no one

who has served this country has to wait in line for weeks and months to get what they are owed when they return home on first day. i am running to fight for an where no mother or father has to teach their young him,hat people may stop arrest him, chase him, or kill him because of his race. host: it is justin washington, e "washington journal," with this discussion about female candidates in politics. are they treated fairly? 202-748-8000 for women. 202-748-8001 for men.

having this discussion on the day after kamala harris made her presidential announcement. in washington and around the country, the day federal workers are headed back to their first monday since the shutdown. a few headlines on that from the front page of usa today. time to go back to work. federal employees get three secure works and backpay. federal employees will be paid in full for the shutdown's donation -- duration. workers may face several weeks or months when it comes to rebooting that government and agencies working to see if they can get that backpay to federal employees as quickly as possible. one story from the washington times about the reopening of the government talks about this rebooting process and how might that might take for --

parks reopening on a rolling schedule. some of the parks are expected to get back to full operations more quickly than others. are parts of the government taking more time to open up the smithsonian museum, planta reopened to the -- plan to reopen to the public tomorrow. until then, employees will check all the audio visual and interactive exhibits to make sure everything is working properly and curators will make a final check. also restocking food shipments that went without during the shutdown. full foodservice might not be immediate the available. we will talk more about it in our next segment of the washington journal. we will be joined by jason dick, sarah farris of politico to talk about the 18-day window we have

until another government shutdown might happen again if a deal is not reached on homeland security spending. back to your calls on this question about female candidates and whether they are treated fairly. betty in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling you about the candidate. she might be a nice person, but i am 86 years old and i believe a man is the head of a woman and we should never have a woman president. thank you very much. host: when did you start believing that? talk about the development of that thinking. caller: my thinking? i have been married for 50 some years and the man is the head of the woman. the woman is the head of the household. i never believe a woman should be president of the united states. host: what did you think about 2016?

hillary clinton's campaign? caller: i did not vote for hillary either. i did not ever do it. i sure did not. i would not vote for her or no other woman to be president of the united states. host: that is betty in florida and this is connie in florida. caller: hi. thank you for c-span. i have to say i am so glad that woman is 86 and on her way out. we don't need any more people believing that. caller: let's not wish -- host: let's not wish death on other callers. caller: i am not wishing death on her. let's just hope she does not vote. what i want to say is i feel like women candidates are treated unfairly. elected bythey get

their own constituents and get into congress, two clear examples where mitch mcconnell tried to shut elizabeth warren sheith the "nevertheless, persisted" comment. very old people, grassley and mcconnell who try to shut her up when she was questioning -- i don't know if it was kavanaugh or the guy before him. i believe women are held to a different standard and likability is one of them. women who talk for slightly and have a mind and are intelligent enough to speak about issues are seen as a threat to a lot of the male patriarchy. i am not saying all men are like that. -- voted for women and support women candidates.

the men in the power structure --not take well host: deborah writes in opinionated, strong, self asserted, smart, savvy. actionabout a woman, and of derogatory remarks that will be amplified for new cycles focusing on what she wore deserves backlash. this is jody saying i wanted to know a candidate's policy and what their ideas are. being a man or woman is the last thing i consider. for a lot of americans, that is the first thing. jeffrey saying women are pandered to by 99% of the media. many of the reporters demonizing men were women. men and women will rip each other apart equally. amy in orange park, florida. go ahead. caller: hi.

i think it doesn't really matter if you are a man or a woman it's their.ho wants you in kiersten gillibrand, we know who wants her in theire. i read the first place she went was wall street to get her anointing from the people in wall street and kamala harris is also in the pocket of people in wall street. when she was the state attorney in california, there were people that were illegally foreclosed on in their homes and they lost their homes. harris did not prosecute that mortgage company and the man who owns a mortgage company -- i believe he is the secretary of the treasury. he has a cabinet position under donald trump, steve mnuchin and

he is there because kamala harris did not prosecute him. -- bernie her talking sanders, his platform with medicare for all and free college -- how is she going to do that for people when she cannot even prosecute people who causes them to lose their homes? host: you talked about kiersten gillibrand before you moved onto kamala harris. kiersten gillibrand making the announcement of her exploratory committee for the presidency for for is expected to be a bid the presidency. on the late show with stephen colbert, here she is talking about why she wants to run for president. [video clip] >> i am going to run for president of the united states because as a young mom, i will fight for other people's kids as

hard as i will fight for my own, which is why i believe health care should be a right and not a privilege. believe we should have better public schools for our kids because it should not matter what block people grow up on. i believe anybody that wants to work hard enough to get the job training they need to earn their way into the middle class, you are never going to accomplish any of these things if you don't take on the systems of power that make all of that impossible, which is taking on institutional racism, the corruption and greed in washington, taking on the special interests that write legislation in the dead of night. i know that i have the compassion, the courage, and the fearless determination to get that done. host: taking your calls on the

washington journal. our female candidates treated equally in today's political climate? alan, you are up next. caller: hello and good morning to everyone. i am trying to decipher what i want to say specifically. i am a man of color and i have no problem with women in any instance as far as running for president or anything. i have two daughters myself and i am always inspiring them. they don't embrace the fact they are going to go through certain things. i am a person of color. i know there will be white men certaineive me as a way. especially white women. certain things, you have to embrace. men are going to whistle at you and -- is it fair?

to embrace it and change it and make a difference. politician do a that running for an office like the presidency? caller: she talks about the current events she wants to change. she doesn't use these things and men like myself will respect her because it is going to happen, you change it by focusing on i can handle it -- it is going to happen and let me embrace it. like when women talk about .ealing with money of stayinga matter focused and don't be victimized. i am not saying it is not wrong, but don't have that victimization. you know it is going to happen, people are prejudiced. is it wrong? yes. beta strong person and still be

successful and above it no matter what people think. host: where is the time you saw that victimization? where in -- where is an example when that happened on the campaign trail and what was the reaction to at. -- do it. look for example last year at hillary clinton when trump was walking around and they were debating and he said certain things and everybody was like, this was never set about a woman or the lady in competition with -- i believe with -- i believe she was a ceo and talked about her looks and everybody -- that is what -- especially older white men do. they are chivalrous, selfish pigs at times, but that generation. it's not going to change. the only way it is going to change -- it will evolve, but

the only way it evolves is if you don't use it as being a victim. embrace a man when he says nice. that is going to happen to a female. she will have to look good to the eye. that is where men and most other women -- you have women who like women. it is going to happen. look atrace that people your looks. look good, no what -- woman yout is as a want to be, do it. host: this is jerry in new jersey, good morning. i crack up listening to the callers. first of all, i want democrats to continue what they are doing and the media and you. when you constantly talk about either it is black people running for women running or

identity -- all identity politics, but not the policy. i want you to continue it because the funny thing is when a republican runs, republican woman, i want to see these democrats support her the way they support these democrats. nobody is more critical of women than other women. i have never in my life, look at melania trump, she gets trilled. that is women doing it. men don't say too much about her. the women crucify her. i worked for women and they were the toughest people. i would much rather work for a man then a woman. they are the worst to work for. you want to talk about critical, jealousy, please. there is so much for women, there is two much. host: you talk about this idea of identity politics.

started?ou think that the focus in the media today and politics? you say in the democratic party, mostly. caller: it has been that way forever. even with obama. it is all they talk about. when you have a democrat politician like hillary clinton who went to black churches and married -- carried whatever in her purse -- it was all about trying to get the black vote. now you have blacks talking about the poor, poor blacks. inrew up in the projects rocklin. i had it bad if not worse than a lot of these people. i have never in my life during my whole working career fell back on that. it was a goal of mine to get out of that crap. i don't want to go there again,

but i never, ever use it. peoplemazing to me how keep falling back instead of going forward. it is sad. host: your criticism of identity politics, you might be interested in reading a recent gq profile of bernie sanders and his criticism of identity politics and the democratic party. here is a bit from that recent gq profile and the democratic party that is increasingly deriving energy and votes from minorities and women. sanders remains a critic of identity politics and a firm believer that race is not as determinative as those of class. use end up not being sympathetic to working people whether they are white or black welatino, my main belief is

need to bring together a coalition of people -- asian americans and native americans around an agenda prepared to take on an extraordinarily ruling class in this country. many of my opponents do not hold that view and they think all we need to do is people who are candidates who are black or white or black or latino or gay -- regardless of what they stand for, the end result is diversity. there was a bigger goal to change society and create an economy and government that works for all people. the unfinished business of bernie sanders is the headline on that. gretchen in new york, you are next. morning.ood i woke up and saw this on tv. -- one of your callers was mentioning -- -- women have

built on each other and don't forget hillary clinton won the .opular vote, 2.8 million i hope she wins in 2020 if she decides to win again. thank you so much. have a great day. i haven't had much sleep and i turned it on, and i have so much to do, but i am going to weigh in. to is howted to refer unfairly -- how unbelievably unfairly women candidates -- they are judged by a different standard. as donald trump set a couple of years ago. myt wednesday on january 23,

-- mike clark has an unbelievable column about the mother of a young boy, jordan in 2014. was killed i am not in a real good light, --t to death by a watt man white man for "loud music." written ishe has about -- a riveting story of justice. testi this is the first time she has even weighed in. she was part of mothers of the movement. this is the first time she weighed in to politics. michael bloomberg brought her up on martin luther king -- by the way, i am white, i was born in

jacksonville and my mother --pired me to be a dedicated democrat when i was an apolitical baby boomer for a long time. -- her enlightenment about gun control and turning her grief into something like this. i am not even going to vote if i see my democratic party ripping up hillary clinton for being a so-called weak candidate. rip eachn do sometimes other up. the famous comedian, richard pryor who can do some unbelievable social commentary in comedy said african-american people can go at each other and he was making kind of a joke

about it. --was they have not been allowed as in other developed countries to theyon many, many things should have already -- why are we so backwards with this? i don't understand it. i decided i am making a mess in my comment. it went -- what i saw what you -- forgetting honoring my mother's memory during the primary -- i have been apolitical again. run,llary will not hillary, please run. you are like a mother of my mother and my's family. we met you and you embraced my mother.

please run again. host: did you -- were you a campaign volunteer? did you work as a staffer? caller: i did not get that. ort: were you a volunteer staffer for the clinton campaign? caller: i worked tirelessly. i was afraid at first to even get involved because i thought this is going to be so painful in my grief recovery. i worked tirelessly in the -- if you are out there, landon, i hope you are still working. he favors robert kennedy quite a bit. i put my heart and soul in it. mcbath.u mentioned lucy i will point you to the c-span video library. at 12 videos already in the

c-span library covering various events where the congresswoman from georgia has appeared checks.g gun background she was at the kickoff event for the announcement of a new bill on universal background checks. it was january 8 when that event took place. house democrats filing that bill to expand the background check system. you can check that event out. all the events where lucy mcbath has been we have covered on c-span. in charleston, south carolina, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning, john. the question confused me a bit. just to respond to the last caller, ma'am, with all due respect, when candidates get on stage with those debates, two women are going to get at each other like rattlesnakes. men do it, women do it, when

they get to washington they will all be friends again. it's part of that 30 game of politics. the fact we are having this conversation frustrates me. don't get mad, ladies. i think you deserve coverage, but i think women will get more coverage because of this situation we are in. have kamala if you harris shelling up at a campaign -- showing up at a campaign rally at the same time as lindsey graham, most reporters will be at the kamala harris rally, not lindsey graham. that is okay. don't get mad at me for saying that, that is the nature of political games. the downside of all of this is for men, they have to tread very carefully. they are on thin ice.

if you disagree with an obama, see, -- policy, you were branded a racist. if you disagree with a policy from kamala harris, you will be branded as a sexist pig. we just have to move on and deal with it the best we can. caller: edgar in live oak, cal -- host: edgar in live oak, california. caller: thank you for letting me on. basically, all i needed to say is i don't think women are necessarily treated unfairly. it's more that they need to get out more into running in political candidacy. z is in congress and there are many other women that joined her. i don't think it is necessarily they are treated unfairly. especially this movement going

of seeing this movement women going into the congress and coming out as candidates in our political running. i remember the caller before said it is about likable features and something i can compare that to is when jfk and nixon ran. when nixon went on television, you saw he was nervous and sweating and everybody thought jfk was confident in his speaking. i am not speaking for anybody or -- that i am working for. i believe kamala harris is a great candidate coming from the state of california is where i come. she has that confidence, that power, that movement. as far as women being treated

unfairly, you see women constantly go out -- i don't believe they are treated unfairly, but it is just part of the political game. femalene of the 2020 candidates we haven't talked too much about is also -- tulsa gabbard talked about by the wall street journal editorial board today. 0heir column is her 202 contribution. the editorial board gives her background. elected to the house at 21, she steadily climbed the clinical ranks. she doing the hawaii national guard, served in iraq. she says her time has made her more hesitant. she is best or worst known for bringing --

she says she does not regret the meeting and defended the regime. they say a bernie sanders 2016 supporter, she now follows progressive orthodoxy on most progressive issues, a proponent of the green new deal she has introduced legislation mandating fromof u.s. energy come sustainable sources. it, in the to read wall street journal. mary in connecticut, you are up next. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the lady who said she believed there should never be a woman over the head of a man is straight out of the bible from almighty god prayed i watched snippets of kamala harris give her speech about what she would

do. i live in southern california from the 1960's to the mid- 1980's. san diego was one of the most beautiful cities in the country at the time. we moved every two years. the008 -- by the way, in 1970's junior colleges were free in california if you were a resident. now they have a 13.3% income tax. my visit to san diego was in 2008 and it was absolutely filthy. the beaches were disappearing because they did not have money to restore them as they did for decades. the rating went into the dumpster giving a live benefit to the public employees than taking care of the city. bring this to the conversation we're having about female candidates? caller: if they have not placed

that there you would have had hundreds of people on interstate five. there was a picture flying over the south. over to bumper traffic. host: got your point. good morning. i am appreciative of the lady from connecticut. i want to remind everyone, we as women did not invent, discover, or design anything on planet earth. it all comes from the mail. cars, planes, phone, technology, health care, the judicial system, everything the pharmacy, grocery store, the shirt on your back, the hair, the makeup, shoes, everything has come out of the mail. -- male. on theup the females

pedestal, we are not treated fairly and we are treated in a special way that the males are no longer. it has really gotten out of control. that you people saying have to have intelligence, you have to have marriage, you have to have experience, you have to know it you're doing, you cannot just be a female and that have a position of power. it is very frightening, the time we're in right now. be clear, do you think women should run for political office? believe thatnot most women, including hillary clinton who could not use her gmail account correctly, instead of using the server of the united states government, it is flooring. you cannot imagine someone could be so ignorant in this day and time. i really question the direction we are going and how frightening it is with all these women coming out with feelings and

feelings, no, it is not about feelings. host: do you think the female candidate has intelligence you're looking for to be president in 2020 or anytime down the road? caller: absolutely not. there is no one. they do not see and respect them mail for what he has achieved or accomplished. host: up next, we will talk about the week ahead in washington and the state of negotiations over border security, we will be joined by jason dick of rollcall and sarah ferris of politico. later, we will talk about a tax proposal with peter coy.

we will be right back. ♪ bus recently traveled to tennessee asking folks what does it mean to be american. >> for me, being american is being able to break the status quo, not to one ideal, i can form my own opinions and believes on what i do and challenge. >> from iran, from japan, from all over the country. members from all over the world. america for a chance at freedom. being an american means creating

a welcoming community for people of all backgrounds. >> being an american is all about freedom. on where you attend worship on sunday mornings, where you have your careerd what will be and what your strengths will be. how you choose to treat your neighbors, how you want to plug into the world and the .ountry i'm thankful for those who came before us and offered us this wonderful freedom. i'm proud to be part of it. >> being an american is based on you, the ability for your own ,atural rights, being able which one, it what you want to eat. being an american is basically having the quality to promote --rself and >> to me, being an american means i have the ability, and

freedom to live the life i want to live without regret or second-guessing. to be ant means to me american is basically the free flow of ideas, the debate of ideas. all have different opinions, that we all come to an aside what is best for america. the free-flowing ideas and the creativity that comes with it, to manifest and develop what makes us the greatest nation on earth. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> 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, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. post-shutdownys and 80 days until the government could run out of money again, we take a look at the week ahead washington. we do that with jason dick of rollcall and congressional reporter sarah ferris. the clock is ticking on the sea are keeping the government open for three week spirit what is scheduled to happen in washington to move the negotiations along? guest: i bet there was a lot of scrambling on the weekend on behalf of democratic leaders because they had already teed up a series of votes on spending bills that they do not need to vote on any more. the conference committee working on the new deal trying to get something and get -- together, that will kick off very soon.

they will work on that behind the scenes. housekeepinglot of for democratic leaders, as far as setting them -- getting them together for the next three weeks at home. they're united after a pretty big win for them on friday. host: i want to come back to the conference committee but the spending bill teed up front -- by democrats, one got lost in the struggle by negotiations of the shutdown kicked into high gear on friday. democrats were moving toward an offer for the president. what was that? rolledgoing to see that into what will happen in the next couple of weeks question ?ark -- weeks sayingtheir members were we need to show we are for border security so they started thatng together a proposal

had over $5 billion of border security and it. it is clear there was new technology and some additional staffing at points of entry where illegal drugs are coming in. democrats were excited to have the proposal out there. you could see a bad their own ideas mmx is the party of the wall. the white house started to have some conversations with senate. we will not that the details on if we don't have to yet. it is pretty much in -- shelved until the conference gets going. 18 days until government runs out of money like you said. after the 11 hour, do you think it goes right until the 15th? >> i would be surprised if it does not. it seems the president is staking out his position. chief of staff mick mulvaney

went on the sunday shows yesterday and said of course he could still declare an emergency to get this done. then the president himself talked to the wall street journal and said he did not think highly of the odds. that does not seem to jive with what we are hearing in congress which would really love to talk, the next fiscal year. we're almost in february and still talking about the fiscal year that started in october, it is a little wearying i think for members of congress. back in the old days, february 1 is when the budget, the new budget was submitted. we will still be in the middle of this debate. surprised if it makes any headway early on. acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, here he is sunday. classy go to the democrats and say look, are you telling people the truth? when you look at constituents

back home and say you agree with the president that we have to do something about security in southern border, are you telling a truth or doing some politically expedient? this is a chance for them to let actions speak louder than words. the last time democrats followed nancy pelosi blindly on a path for policy would and that up with obamacare and bailouts and cap a trait and they lost control of the house. is nancy really leaving the democratic party or issue being led by the hard left wing and will the democrats follow her. this is the next step of the negotiation. judged by, he'll be what happens at the end of the process and not what happens next week. back to the conference committee and the structure being set up for the negotiations over border much input andw

how much the leadership gets. guest: this is the process appropriators wanted from the very beginning. when they were working on their bills,meland security this is going to be now the same members that essentially would have negotiated on that months ago, they're putting it together in a series of closed-door meetings. these are those who like to make deals. they have been able to keep the government-funded time and again until leadership gets him away or president trump gets in the way with his demands. specific deadline, the leadership will be hoping that topline they will be the ones to determine at the end of the day whether they can get their party to support additional fencing. -- speaker pelosi

on friday night set as the government was being reopened, reporters asked her do you see yourself putting any more money toward the wall. she said have a not been clear about that, we are not going to do the wall. that said, talking to democrats away from nancy pelosi, they will say we're willing to negotiate on basically anything out of the government is open. they have said for weeks or they do not want to seem like they are not willing to negotiate. the topline of our discussion in the weeks ahead in washington, if you want to join the discussion, demo rats -- republicans -- democrats -- republicans -- reporters that of the like the back of their hands are with us until 9:00 this morning. tomorrow originally was supposed to be to scheduled state of the , delayed until

after the shut them's overpeer the shutdowns overpeer do we know when it will be? guest: the state of the union is in flux. we still do not know when the orte of the union will be what form it will bp or from the president will deliver a details of the state of the union. whether nancy pelosi, she cannot cancel the state of union, she ,an refuse to pass a resolution but we don't know what point we might see a state of the union. certainly the president is sort of poking democrats and democrats opposing the president on this, it makes it more get around and say

oh yes, let's have everyone over for a nice chat. another scheduling item this week was supposed to be the republican retreat to strategize about legislative agendas. what is the state of that? guest: as of last week, that was postponed. the big deal is the trump administration will come to this retreat with house republicans and minority, they will look very hard on what to focus on in the next two years. hearing from president trump himself at the retreat would be a very important thing for house republicans to do. does look like that will be postponed a little bit pear we will see if president trump must to meet with them separately or his -- or if you want the menstruation officials as the has tumbled four, the department of homeland security, to help republicans refine their own message. they have been worried about the shutdown. several have broken rice with republicans so they have to get

everyone on the same page. we will see some sort of -- from the white house down toward capitol hill, but the retreat right now is not on. democrats also do these and for both sides it is a fancy resort and conference center. when is it scheduled for? right around the time of the next deadline in leesburg, virginia. that will be an important time for democrats in early weeks. really be a time they get to decide on agenda items. -- committee is almost of almost set. do about want to impeachment enterprising and immigration bills, there will be a lot of strategizing. let us know you want to talk about. phone minds as usual. bill is an independent in florida, good morning. guests i would like your

to a dress the difference that areg the children in these detention camps and manufactured trauma that they are going through and what the country intends to do about these children, the predicament they are in, and that they will continue to suffer from due to our depraved in difference. i would suggest that america has a retreat for these children to have a break from the from a that they are going through. host: got your point. let me start on the issue border detention. guest: certainly house democrats have expressed they will have in

no shortage oversight hearings and holding the administration's feet to the fire on the spirit i would expect that the homeland security secretary, she is our fairly hostile questioning from democrats when they were the minority. i would expect particularly the house committee would have her in front of them fairly soon. speaking of border oversight as well, a big one hearing that will set the tone a little bit for the coming week is definitely going to be in the house armed services committee on tuesday, that they will look at the reasons for the military being deployed to the border right now. newsmakerswas on with your all's program earlier this weekend. he is a democrat from washington and the chairman of the committee and was the ranking member of an top democrat and he said that is the very first

hearing they will have on they will be talking about justifications administration used for deploying active military for border security down there. a lot of this oversight is kicking in right away. hearing about families coming over the border with children, the numbers are staggering come the increases over the years. this is a message house republicans have picked up the cousin of the children coming over, that is the way a lot of moderates are talking about this issue now. are trying to use that as a way to avoid discussing the wall and have a humanitarian decide -- side of it appeared as the president declares a state of emergency, something he has really put on the table on the last couple of days, congress will discuss the humanitarian crisis they say that the border.

-- 70 --co rubio's marco rubio was on the floor yesterday talking about the clearing a national emergency, this is what he said in response. said youio: you have are opposed to the emergency option but i know in three weeks i know you do not want another shutdown. if that is in the way to keep the government-funded, national emergency, how defiant are you on this option? will you fight the president or not? >> i do not think it is a good idea, i think it is a terrible idea and i hope he doesn't do it. i am not sure they will end up doing that it i know it is an option they looked at but now you're at the mercy of a district court somewhere and ultimately an appellate court. it may not even withstand if you look at the others we have seen. thatther is the precedent is set. it is not a good precedent to set. does not mean i don't border security.

i do. it is the wrong way to achieve it. you could very well wind up on one end and not get anything done. a law passed to fund border security so we know it will happen. this national security option and how much president trump is really considering it. guest: he keeps saying he is serious about it. when people theorize about what is trump's endgame and his negotiation style, it is exhausting to try and figure out. i just take him at his word that he is serious and is seriously considering it. reports that the white house legal counsel has drafted some of these emergency declaration drafts, i mean the shutdown was not even over until there was another shutdown threat from the president in which he said he could declare a national emergency. think it is very much serious or at least it is a part of the

equation they have to consider. host: you mentioned the wall street journal interview of president trump took place yesterday. the lead story in the wall street journal. some quotes from the president, assessing the chances of whether the new conference committee could create a deal before the next government funding lapse. he set personally think is less than 50-50, a lot of good people on the board is what the ofsident said from the page the story today in the wall street journal. less than $5.7 billion in the next round of negotiations, mr. trump said i doubt it, adding that he has to do it right. one more, present chumming it clear he was skeptical of any deal for a wider immigration overhaul. he doubts it, he said, when he was asked of the citizenship for daca recipients, jim mattis, in exchange for border funding. the story getting a lot of attention this morning. from just across the river,

alexandria, virginia, democrat, go ahead. is, well, letment me go with my question. does president trump have a plan written down for the border wall , somewhere that someone can see? when he does get money for the border wall? does he get to raise the money anytime he wants or what? covering the appropriations process for congress, i will let you. guest: what is interesting is the $5 billion request was not outlined in the white house former -- formal budget proposal last year. that is reason senate appropriations did not put out all of that money. they agreed to fund much less than that because they did not know $5 billion is what the

president wanted. in recent weeks, the white house wrote a justification for the budget. i do not believe it is public. lawmakers got to look at the language and see exactly where -- it wanted to go. if congress decides to allocate money for the border wall, it has to be spent. it becomes an obligation of the u.s. government to spend how congress decides. president trump cannot go in and change his mind." up the homeland security secretary and say, i actually want you to spend it this way and that of this way. once it is into a funding bill, it is the letter of the law for the next year. that is why appropriate is will spend time figuring out how they will spend it. seeink we will definitely over five the dollars and border security. always willing to spend the money. the question is how much of that is dashcam president trump message it as a win? >> republican, good morning.

caller: good morning. know, camilla harris, since her parents are foreign-born, she is not -- foreign-born, she is not a natural born citizen. how is she even eligible to be president under the constitution? actually, because camilla harris was born in the united states, she is a natural born citizen. where she is from, so she can become president -- regret is where her parents are from, she can become president. host: the claim that she would not be -- is a pants on fire true -- untruth. some of the comments he made last week. mark is next in englewood, florida, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to ask the question of why isn't anyone holding child or his and administration to criminal charges for kidnapping the united states of america and holding his people hostages? will somebody put a stop to this guy man? broachn 18 days as we the government shutdown comedies it will be right back at another government shutdown? caller: it is very possible. it is probably what will happen. he will probably try to use the emergency thing. if someone would go up against to criminal him charges, like kidnapping and holding the united states that shouldtage, be, i mean, if anyone individually would do that, just somebody taking people hostages

or kidnapping him, they would go to prison for a long time. host: got a point. republican, go ahead. about the wall, i have a son who is in law enforcement and thus far as i'm concerned, we need the wall because he has to deal with all races of people , i do not want to have to worry about his safety or my safety. got your point. on law enforcement and border patrol specifically, and sort of, their inputs in this debate and the impact they are having in this discussion. borderthe union for patrol has been pro-trump all along. the 2015 presidential campaign. they have been willing to put their weight behind whatever president trump has proposed, basically.

there are still not many details of exactly what the law would look like and where it would go. there are a lot of places where there are a lot of legal issues about putting fencing on property that belongs to u.s. citizens. a lot of options there. the president has made clear what he wants in general and the union has been willing to back that. looking at the week ahead in washington and focusing on the ongoing negotiation on border security, i want to go back to the conference committee talked about. 17 members of congress on the conference committee. who are you most interested in watching amid this debate? it was someone you think might be a bit of a surprise? >> i have been talking a lot with david price, a longtime appropriator. i have asked them basically on a daily basis, are you owing fencing toward this, and he is a diplomatic appropriator. that is their breed on capitol hill. he has not ruled out putting

money toward additional fencing. he speaks for a lot of democrats who are willing to put additional money there if they get here a justification or something from dhs that doesn't seem to have a political bias of trumps right-hand person up there. that is one person i will definitely be watching. of the more interesting people in the process, she is not new to it, but a republican from texas, she is the new ranking republican on the house appropriations committee. i think because she is from thes and cut she is new to top slot of republicans on the house appropriations committee, she will be interesting to watch and how she approaches this and how she works with or around the white house. on there the folks conference committee either appropriators or members of leadership? is there any other committee getting input in the process? yes.:

is basically appropriate or zen members of leadership that will be on this. if this negotiation is successful, what will it mean for the committee process, the comes fromf a deal this, this is a place to emerge some debt from? right. they really have no choice here. they have to come up with something or the white house will be hammering them. it is not just democrats but republicans and congress also taking flack from a president when they cannot come up with the legislation he wants. both parties are under fire here. the president could tweet at them at any point about not producing or not meeting enough or not being public enough about what they're are planning. they will be under intense scrutiny -- screwed and tea. is this a time where regular order could succeed? possibly. it is important to point out we are at the most irregular of

times. i do think the people at the conference committee, whether it is the top democrat on negotiations or both an appropriate or and member of leadership, the person people go to to find out what is actually theseon capitol hill, people you would want in the room to try and figure out what such ag on, but it is strange situation to find ourselves in, that they have your work cut out for them. host: back to your calls on the phone, carol is an independent. it morning. appropriations, in 1986, there was money appropriated and if i'm not it was supposed to have been a secure border at the time. every other time this has been voted on, and funds have been appropriated, it was supposed to

.ave ran a secure border now, how do we find out where that money that has been appropriated, if it went to where it was supposed to be a probe rated and used for, my, is, if any of the democrats put the to nancy pelosi freedom caucus did to paul ryan, and overstep him and go ahead and throw it on the floor, whether she wants it on the floor or not. i will let you start with a question about past standing on the border security. tost: of course, there has be a follow-through. these are multiyear, multiyear programs, the money has to be continually revisited. it is something congress has not been willing to do. the secure fencing at a few

thousand six, it was a politically viable issue at the time. over the next few years, 2000 eight, a new president came in and democrats changed their priorities. all the money from the secure fencing act of two than six did not come through. is -- chuck schumer and seminar leader both voted for that and it has become a big talking point for republicans on capitol hill. on the emergence of something like a freedom caucus but on the left? guest: i do not see it. people love to talk about alexandria ocasio-cortez. she had a couple of interesting votes patient voted against one of the funding bills last week but it does not seem like it does not seem like there is anything as hard-edged as the freedom caucus. one huge difference, and this is

no sign of disrespect for paul ryan, but nancy pelosi had a of dealing with the differences in her caucuses in finding a way to get a win. i would expect especially coming out of her own successful negotiations, she would still have her own powers at her disposal. host: republican, good morning. caller: i would like to know from your guests come with the appropriation committees, like to know how they are influenced as far as funding and spending goes, how they are influenced by the lobbyists and everything, you know? people need to wake up and realize part of border security includes putting up fessing -- fencing but also includes technology and everything.

they all work hand-in-hand, ok? i came from a construction industry, ok? it is beyond my comprehension. i thought e-verify was a law to check congress these people that come in, ok? come to find out, e-verify is optional, ok? worker on a job that i thought he was, i thought he was legal but come to find out, when i saw him a couple he is down the road, and another job site, he used a different name. first on the influence very .luid

there is deftly a lot of pressure from each party's political commentators. we have seen a lot of influence on the conservative side, talk show hosts rush limbaugh and ann coulter have it the president terms of giving up on the border wall. there will be republicans thing attention to what the commentators are saying and how much money they will try to get for the fencing. democrats have groups like the aclu fighting very hard not to give of a single dollar for order fencing. principalt as a issuance of the you cannot be willing to simply meet in the billion, terms of $2.5 five somewhere in the middle, there are people on both sides saying you cannot give up one dollar. that will be something to watch in the next couple of weeks. coulteru mentioned and specifically describing the president as a wimp on twitter after he ended the shutdown will late last week, the president was asked about her, and wall

street journal interview. he said i hear she has become very hostile. maybe i didn't return her phone call or something. host: on e-verify, does this somehow get included on the larger immigration deal? this is one of the more interesting issues that does not get talked about enough. is notcaller noted, it something that is a uniform practice across united states. you polled the hardliners, they would all take e-verify over the wall any day of the week. motivator fort people to come to the united states. just, employment. employersa number of

who are certainly willing to take advantage of someone that they don't necessarily have to pay the full benefit for, who will work cheaper. e-verify would address a lot of those. that was the original intent years ago, when they started to talk about this. host: what is the roadblock on capitol hill then? i don't want to disparage anybody's opinion on it, but it would be quite costly. you would see probably an immediate hit in places like construction, hotels, any number of industries that typically employ people who are not here illegally. there is a huge hit that they would take if they all of a sudden had to transition wheatley to a workforce. people do not like to talk about this that much on capitol hill but it is out there. host: taking your calls this morning, houston, texas, good morning. caller: how are you all?

host: doing well, go ahead. caller: my brother is an engineer. that, it would be technology put there and have all these people with border control there, and that would make them pay more taxes. and everything else. now they have to build that while and it will take a while to build that wall. out of both of those, if you put there, they will pay more tax, bring more money in. now, again with trump. now he want to build this wall, take so much money, you still got a have security. there, mye security husband was a well decorated

vietnam veteran p you could not get by him because he was a sharpshooter. this is what they need. bring more money into the united states. host: got it. for structure project, the building of the wall and including technology as well. is anyone making that point? agot: we heard many months that they were really trying to make the case for this, the very beginning of the trump administration's term. bills early on, they were trying to say this would be a major infrastructure project and may be putting it into an infrastructure bill. i have not heard it recently but i think the issue would be very salient with a lot of people who are out in these districts, either in texas or california were some of the projects at been built. i do not think members of capitol hill are hearing that much. democrats want their own jobs

project to they want their own infrastructure project. they have very different ideas for that. i do not think that will get very far but i wouldn't be surprised if i heard bit of a comeback. host: independent, good morning. caller: hey, what are you guys going to do when none of what you're saying really matters. yourivil war and all applications and jibber jabber and your sweeping dialogue, none of it matters question mark -- matters? host: why do you think the is heading toward civil war? caller: are you asking me just journalistically? search your thoughts. things are out of hand. applications and just talking, it is just nothing. is there a news outlet that you truck -- trust? where do you go for your news? caller: online. the media is dead. host: where online?

caller: anywhere. you start googling, pick a subject. is so much confirmed -- information. the internet just spews the information. some right and some wrong. up on thist to pick we found out last week that here in washington dc on the street between the capital and the white house, the museum will close at the end of the year. what do you think that means and the larger discussion about the state of the news industry and journalism? guest: it is a little scary. and it serves more as -- of a symbol than the app -- actual epicenter of it. very valuable real estate, the foundation that his hadthe museum all

trouble with sure all the bills were paid in the building. to me, it is not surprised in the johns hopkins university would make it offer -- make an offer and they want that space parents certainly, there is not a day where we do not hear about another outlet that suffered some job losses. quite a few. buzz feet and the having can today, i mean my hometown newspaper in phoenix laid off their pulitzer whichwinning cartoonist, is more symbolic than anything. he has been around for four decade. is a part ofvoice it where they announced he did -- they didn't have any use for that there, it states industry is in trouble palin is crazy is journalism as a business is not a bad one. it's just that if you expect if you are a hedge fund who owns a newspaper and you expect 30-40%

profits, it is probably not going to happen. if you are in it for the business and the mission and to make a little money, you could probably do that. but where we are going is sort of unclear. it is a little discouraging to ,ee something like the job pets it is kind of tough. but i hope the things bounce back. the cause that was just on come you pressed among where he got the news. he is obviously partially getting it from c-span which is a good sign. he is still engaged. i understand how frustrating it can be to follow politics right now because we do that for a living. it is frustrating. but stay engaged in the process and the people who reflect what is going on in the process will help make sense of that. did you want to jump in on the journalist discussion? is a frustrating time to file the news in washington and even if you are following long-term outlets with political

reporters who have been here for even talking to reporters on capitol hill, we have never seen this before. it is obviously the longest shutdown but also the time where we do not see a leader of a of things, the kinds with the investigations coming a difficult time to have a political discussion and to try and absorb all of the news. in the hobby way that used to be easy for the average american public to do. host: one day we absorb the news in this day and age is to twitter. tweeting about the news, the 2020 election, the president three minutes ago tweeting howard schultz does not have the guts to run for president. watched them on 60 minutes last night and i agree with him he is not the smartest person. besides, america already has that. i only hope starbucks is still paying me their rent in trump tower. me this is ams to

fairly classic way to beat someone to actually run. think most of the consider howard schultz if he ran as an independent would probably take more votes away from democrats than republicans and this would benefit the president particularly in the general election, if he was able to consolidate his own base. dareems to me it is a host: teresa is waiting in new york, a republican. used to be a democrat i changed to republican. i am ashamed of these democrats and what they are doing to our country. i agree with the guy a couple of that thels earlier

democrats are doing nothing but starting a war within the country and if our president trump, i would tell nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, you're fired -- you're fire! d! we have a 17 person conference committee making a deal here. look to see what nancy pelosi is saying. they will look to her for general guidance before they sit down and say, yes, this is a deal we will put our stamp on and go ahead with it. speaker nancy pelosi is not a memberocratic congress and she has really collect -- grab the spotlight and has been able to decisively get members on her side and she kept the party united throughout this. it was starting to fray at the

very end. a lot of moderate democrats were getting nervous and starting to talk publicly about maybe they thought democrats would just come to a deal, but it is a big reversal for the last several years were senate minority leader chuck schumer with the most important democrat in washington at a time where republicans controlled the house and senate and the way that the senate knew to sign onto any piece of legislation. we're seeing a shift in power from chuck schumer to nancy pelosi, and the two of them have been doing joint press conferences, they have been appearing together and want to show complete unity. and not an inch of daylight between them. nancy pelosi as we saw friday night, we -- she had a ceremony, to have a big show of getting it signed in the house of resolution, chuck schumer is not there. we see president chef not willing to go in the way he has against chuck schumer, called he doesng chuck, and

not have a name for nancy pelosi. it is something he truly does , a dealmaker, decades of experience and really keeps her members in line. same question but when it comes to majority leader mcconnell and kevin mccarthy. guest: it is an interesting dynamic because they have something that, mc can actually set the agenda in the senate here chuck schumer i think one of the reasons he opens himself up to criticism by the president 's he doesn't have as much influenced by the senate. he can organize a filibuster but mitch mcconnell really sets the agenda. an interesting case because he has a good relationship with the president. the four groups, house democrats and republicans, senate republicans, the house republicans have the least

amount of influence of all. they cannot stop legislation or delay it like senate democrats can. but they can certainly attract a crowd. they can push the president in ways he likes to hear. he certainly likes the rhetoric that can come out of a rowdy minority caucus. one thing that shows how diminish the house republicans are, and this is kevin mccarthy's challenge, is in the previous two years, we had joint retreats with senate and house republicans. they were planning a majority agenda with the president of the united states. so the president went in virginia,ia and west and kind of like the state of the union, we do not know when it will be on if it will. it will be the house republicans because senate republicans have their own way of doing things now and it doesn't involve

coordinating with the minority at least legislation. politically, it is a different topic here in mitch mcconnell does not need to coordinate much. he let things work themselves out like a splinter almost. it only felt that slow. why something chuck schumer has more power than he does. he was right there. and right next to nancy pelosi, whereas mitch mcconnell was just like, i'm going to let you guys figure this out. host: north carolina, independent, thank you for waiting. caller: yes. i have got a question. why are we not using the drug money and stuff? here,ould say, let's see

2017, i probably did not say the name might but anyway, why can we not quit bickering and fighting, and use the money to secure,e borders more have everything the democrats and the republicans are wanting, for the money they brought in through the drug trade. guest: money is not an issue it comes to building eyewall and anymore sensing. here.not really the issue democrats are willing to put more money toward technology and willing to hire as many customs officials as needed. they're willing to staff up the immigration courts. that is why democrats are refusing to budge an inch per they say putting up a wall is completely the wrong message that the president of the united states should be sending. are a lot of legal issues

involving putting up the wall. that is why there are miles and miles of the border in particular that do not have sensing. also the river runs through the border. it would be a tricky thing to actually put up the fencing. money andof the putting up the fencing, we wouldn't see the debacle we have right now. abouti wanted to ask you the lead editorial in the usa today, the editorial board calling making government shutdowns a thing of the past. some of potential recommendations they make, moved to a two-year cycle to force members of congress to forfeit pay every time the government closes to continue funding agencies when the budget fights happen and continuing resolutions. they get funded or they were until the budgets work out. expecting things to happen this week now?

answer is noort last year, there is a special committee charged with ending shutdowns. basically a whole bunch of people, senate democrats and republicans in a room and they congress had just had to shutdowns within months and they were tired of it. the group got to work and within nine months, they put up a proposal and ended up not doing any of the no budget, no pay. ideas, they extreme have a very narrow set of budget procedural fixes. by the end of the nine months, the committee could not agree on any of it here they ended up voting on their own proposals. the committee to end the government shutdown collapsed. followforget this but i the committee very closely and

known was optimistic about where this would go. effort.ymbolic a lot of them are true believers who really want to fix the budget office. really wanted to have a no budget no pay law, and this is something that really kind of changed everything in the last couple of weeks. i agree. you heard nothing about how great things were going in the summer and the perp rations process was going swimmingly, happy, haleople were rogers always seemed to have a smile on his face, and then crash and burn at the and of the year. withhing i have noticed is a particular rank-and-file republicans starting to file legislation for automatic government funding.

in the event that they do not get some sort of deal. people like a republican from wisconsin and a republican from , these are people who probably are like, really, to have to do this every year? we keep on going the process of having shut down after shutdown after shutdown. theoretically you want to start landing for the future. they cannot even plan retreats for the state of the union now. a conversation for another day, the 2020 fiscal year. republican, go ahead. caller: i have written a few things down so i stay on track. will start by saying i do not have any reliable information to help me or solutions to all the problems. it is something i would like to talk about. number one is borders.

american indians have no borders, what happened to them? we killed the most of them and the rest we drove that -- drove them to pasture. it did not work out well for them to have no borders. the next thing out which talk about his for some information about campaign talks. you heard trump say they would be a wall and mexico would pay for it. it has not happened. during the 2008 campaign, obama troops home in 90 days p that change to 180. he did take troops out of iraq in 2011 on the 21st. yet put them back in 2014. on top of this, he put u.s. military and libya in 2016 and syria in 2014. they raised cain about trump missing the mark with the law but he missed the mark by a mile. obama missed the mark by 100

miles. let's focus on campaign promises and what they mean heading into 2020. guest: i think the meeting has down a bit. particularly with this president, he has made and broken so many promises that i think it has taken people's natural cynicism about promisesns and the they make, we used to joke about two chickens in every pot and a car in every garage sort of thing. people havehat most a natural discounting of what a politician says on the campaign trail. in some cases, the facts on the ground change. border hason on the changed remarkably in the last three years. we have seen an evolving process that is difficult to take stock of peers same thing with the situation on the middle east, afghanistan and libya and so

forth. you want to build a change what your strategy is to make sure people do not get hurt or make sure your own interests are protected. it is tough to divorce campaign promises from actual policy, but i cannot help but think some people just naturally are discounted. host: one or two more calls. republican, kentucky, good morning. go ahead. i would like to start off by saying you do not hear a heckuva lot, trump inherited this problem. we had a border crisis in 1992, 2016,2000, 2006 kate -- there is a crisis today. trump is trying to fix the whole problem. he agrees with the democrats and democrats agree with him, new

technologies, but the rest of it is the same old same old. fences for illegals to so we can, drones take their pictures if they climb over the fences, more security guards. the border guards greet them. they come over and say we want asylum. if they are processed. all of this costs money. workers00,000 federal went to pay periods without pay. i feel bad for those people. what i don't here is numbers year are00 people a

dying from drug overdoses. shutdown, 8500 people died from drug overdoses. nancy, 800,000 people -- 800,000 people went without pay. why don't they talk about the people who were dying and suffering? let's hear from steve in arizona. thank you for c-span. my question is pretty simple. in the past, you had grover norquist. he wanted to shrink government to the side that you could drown in a bathtub. and all thehutdown

goings-on with it be part of the plan to shrink the government? i will take my answer on fear. host: whatever you want to pick up on. it seems to me a lot of the funding questions like when people see that flights aren't taking off at laguardia, it's important for government in their lives. with drug overdoses, it is horrifying. we lost 56,000 people in the vietnam war total. we lost more than that to drug overdoses last year. government has a role in trying to solve some of these problems. this is a thing we see with appropriations. they want to be part of the solution and not just be involved in a policy fights.

guest: the congress has tried to act on the opioid overdoses. it's easier in a lot of ways treatmentng together centers across the country. it's money to have beds in rehab centers. what we have seen on capitol hill and the reason the immigration fight has been so hard to resolve is there hasn't been a solution that policymakers can come together on. there are fundamental differences about how to address it, the influx of people who want to come to the united states and dealing with them once they have been here for decades. the issue for dreamers is so fundamentally a political issue. now it's tied up in the courts. it doesn't look like a resolution anytime soon. something that

addresses the economic mechanics of the border, there won't be something they can agree on. host: we will check with both of you as we move forward in this process. we appreciate your time. up next, it's our more money segment. we will talk about progressive fromur guest is peter coy bloomberg. stay with us. stay with us. we will be right back. noon, sports noon, sports writr is our guest. he is the author of many books, including a history of sports in the united states.

has turned the sports world upside down. his most recent is about jim brown. we need to fight for sports, reclaim them and take sports back. what we need is our history. that is our greatest ammunition. our history of the sports writers and the fans who have stood up to the machine. knowing this history, i think that allows us to look at the world and see that struggle can affect every aspect of life. conversation with him and your calls and emails. that's live sunday at noon on book tv on c-span2. journal continues. host: each week, we take a look

at how your money is at work in the government. we are focusing on tax policy, specifically progressive tax proposals. our guest is the economics editor at bloomberg, peter coy. when is the last time a freshman member of congress got a cover story about tax proposals in your magazine? the magazine has been going since 1929. i think this is the first. it was a history making event for us. host: did you decide to do it this time? guest: i don't make the decisions, the editor of the magazine said there was a lot of buzz. you always worry that a weekly magazine, that we will miss the wave or be late to a story.

the wave wasl like about to break. there was more room to build so we would not be late. there is more interest and her now than there was one we did our cover. host: describe what her tax plan is? guest: she does not have a worked out tax plan. she's not introducing legislation or something like that. she expressed on 60 minutes the idea that top marginal rates could be much higher than they are now. the context was she was talking about her green new deal idea. how she cooper asked would pay for it. archie you going to have to raise taxes? need to payple their fair share. in the past we had taxes as high

as 70%. that became the number, especially the 70% number. that became injected into the national conversation. host: how much of this conversation was happening before she came to congress with the presidential campaign of bernie sanders? was in theie sanders same direction. insane against the rich they are not paying their fair share. if you look at what he was had no hillary clinton increase in the top marginal rate in her plan. 52%, well shy had of the 70% that aoc casually mentioned. this is the term we use, shifting the overton window.

that is the range of acceptable things that are acceptable to talk about because of the plausibility. number, we out the shifted the overton window to the left. plan she talked about this was on late-night television recently. this is an interview with the freshman congressman. >> when we talk about the marginal tax rate, it's not your income. and on your 10 millionth one dollar. after you make $10 million in one year, your dollars after that start to get progressively taxed at a higher rate. ofs the tax interpretation one answer to the question of how much -- what level are we

in excess?ng what kind of society do we want to live in? city,want to live in a for example, where billionaires have their own of personal helipads? >> good to know. >> do we want these people with helipads in the same city and the same society as people who are working 80 hour weeks and can't be their kids. >> this was the norm up until the early 80's. say she is a socialist. dwightepublican eisenhower, we had a 90% marginal tax rate. this segment of the

washington journal, it's the weekly your money segment. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 784-8001. , (202) 748-8002. take us through some of the reactions to that proposal, some of the pros and cons that have been put out there since she's been talking about the 70% rate. guess that people who like low taxes like grover norquist, he goes back to the reagan administration and came up with the taxpayer pledge that says i will not raise taxes at all ever in my life. a lot of republicans of taken that pledge. it's a frontal assault on the mission he has

successfully prosecuted for 30 years. i talked to him. all she's going to do is destroy the democrats chances of winning in the next election. i don't know if that's really true. i'm not taking sides on the issue, looking at the polling data, there is a lot of support for higher tax rates for the rich. if you take literally what she is saying, the 70% rate would not kick in until you've made $10 million, that's a small percentage of the electorate. no, it wouldvoted be a drop in the ocean. the only way to defeat a proposal like that is to vote against it because they think it's unfair or it's bad for the overall economy.

host: can you explain the modern monetary theory? guest: it's the idea in a nutshell that if you owe money in your currency, the u.s. borrows money by issuing treasury bonds in dollars, as long as you do that, you can never go broke. you can never default. you can always pay interest by making new money. any government has the power to make money in its own currency. the only reason ever to worry about deficits or high government spending is it would cause inflation. an inflatione of problem, the government can afford to spend more. that's the argument.

there are some big advocates. economists who believe in this. aoc subscribes to their views. ends up being mostly liberal democrats who believe in modern monetary theory. it's thatheadline, nightmare of the right, new taxes. she is just getting started. peter coy is one of the authors of the story. we are taking your calls. darlene is in henderson, nevada. caller: thank you for taking my call. pay towardor people income tax. the outcome from the income taxes are basically nothing. there is no oversight for public schools and our children are not making it.

if we are paying taxes, the benefit to how we utilize the prison. why can't we have more health care? moret think we need to do as citizens of america. thank you. host: is the solution in your mind more taxes? higher taxes? is it better use of the taxes we have not? caller: it's getting more taxes from people like air current president. that we have a better use for those taxes. we need to have accountability. it doesn't matter if it's health i got a mastectomy. i got no treatment. then they dropped my insurance.

where's the fairness in all of this? people, i lost my mytion eight housing because landlord would not approve my aid. we don't have oversight anymore. host: thank you for sharing your story. would you like to jump in? it's a tough story. in myteresting thing article, this is not directly would thethat, why united states ever raise taxes on the rich? if you believe in modern monetary theory, we don't need to pay forxes spending. cooperwer to anderson kind of didn't really fit with

her own theory. what she could have said when she was on the air, she could've said we don't need to raise taxes to pay for the green new deal. i want to raise taxes anyway because i think the rich are living too well and we should take that money and redistribute it to the poor. she could have said that. what have gotten more response. host: the chart that is in your story on the top marginal tax for money sure your with it. walk us through this chart. point she obvious made when she was on that late-night spot, 70% is not historically a high number. the 90's ingh as the 50's and 60's.

was that a good rate? oft's a topic of a lot debate. one thing that does happen when you put rates that high, you get a lot of tax sheltering. they will get very creative about ways to put money into vehicles that are not taxed as highly. a second question, does it discourage economic activity? you might be less willing to start a business if you thought 90% of the money above a threshold would be taken from you. you might not want to go for an advanced degree that was costly and time-consuming if you thought a lot of the money made would go to taxes. these are open questions. said despite the logical theory that it should

discourage economic activity, there is not evidence that it did. only 50'sy grew well and 60's with high tax rates. host: larry is in indiana. good morning. caller: i want to talk about her. before she got elected to congress, she was a bartender. i can't imagine the stories that went on in that bar talking about economics. she majored in economics. progressive professors. that's the only thing she is spewing. eisenhower's had tax write-offs to bring it down. can't imagine the constituents that elected her.

we will let you respond. we will show the front page of the bloomberg businessweek. the collar is correct that very few people actually paid those high marginal rates. shelters, there are ways to knock down that rate. i was talking about creative accounting. thosef with those shelters, they are higher than they are now. there is not strong evidence are bad or rates good or the low rates are bad or good. frustrating that such an important question after all of these years hasn't been fully resolved. is not a hard science like chemistry.

host: glenda is in texas. good morning. caller: i want to talk about our taxes. 10% to would put everybody in the whole united states, it would solve all the problems. if it was a trash collector and , he would be happy to do that. if it's bill gates making billions, he would be happy to pay his 10%. there should not be any tax shelters and everybody should pay. everybody pay 10%. outfth grader could figure the taxes. all the people in the irs could be on the border getting people

to come through. host: is that a flat tax? the way it does work now is if you are below a certain threshold, you pay zero income tax. the richard you get, the higher your bracket through the mid-30's. have moree wherewithal to pay taxes and they should pay more. ,oor people have a hard life even if you are working class, you still pay payroll tax and so on. medicare, youy, don't pay federal income tax. progressive tax system. the rate goes up as you get richer. it seems to me like a reasonable idea. i'm not so sure that charging

poor and rich people the same rate is equitable. that's a matter of political opinion more than economics. host: good morning. you for our guest today. he stated what i agree with. i want too say that ask people would they rather pay 10% on $40,000 or 40% on $4 million? in termsty clear-cut of the morality of this. society is measured by the way it treats its less fortunate. what he calls the progressive clear-cut than the 10% tax is much more fair.

you can talk about the use of our taxes, you can talk about loopholes, which i think is a fair discussion. to ask your guest to comment on that please. host: that's the question. guest: that's the point i was making. i would rather pay 40% on $4 million then 10% on 40,000. host: john is in las vegas. good morning. remind i would like to 1984,isteners that in they investigated the income tax. goes to run the government. it pays the interest that they

borrow. maybe we should stop borrowing money. maybe we should stop paying income taxes. of schools are paid out property tax. the roads are paid for out of gasoline taxes. stop, none of it goes to run the government. host: you just did ask. i don't like to be argumentative, i don't think that's an accurate description of the way the government works and i don't think it's what the reagan commission found. taxes do run the government. the treasury department are as money from the public, that could be from a pension fund or a hedge fund or a foreign

government, whoever was to buy those bonds. the money that's raised pays for salaries and acquisitions of materials, whatever the government spends money on. that's in addition to the money raised through taxes. bonds, they are to fill the gap between the money that comes in from taxes and the money that goes out in government spending. , ife had no deficit spending equaled revenue, we wouldn't need to issue bonds. we have to pay interest on them. the is a big chunk of federal budget. big budgeting such deficits. that is something to be concerned about. the people who receive those

, the pensionents funds and hedge funds. however much goes to the foreign owners. the money circulates around. it's not like it's disappearing. with aare somebody retirement fund that you own through treasury bonds, you are's receiving money from the government. host: the headline from bloomberg businessweek, a nightmare of the right. aoc is just getting started. the authors one of of that story. here is a tweet avenue we've been discussing.

most people do not understand it. rate ismarginal tax getting a lot of attention. this was an exchange between dell computers and the director of the m.i.t. digital economy. >> my wife and i set up a foundation about 20 years ago. we would've contributed more than the 70% tax rate on my income. i feel much more comfortable with our ability as a private foundation to allocate those funds that i do giving them to the government. i'm not supportive of this. help thehink it would growth of the u.s. economy.

>> can you say more about why? > name of company where it hs helped? >> can you say more about white? >> name and country were that has worked ever? >> the united states. throughut the 1930's the 1960's. 70%,ax rate averaged about sometimes as high as 95%. those were pretty good years for growth. i don't have a strong opinion on the proposal. the devil is in the details. there's a lot of economics that suggests that it's not necessarily going to hurt growth. you: how surprised were that this came up at demos? guest: not at all.

they are constantly looking back over their shoulder at what coming for them. michael dell is a perfect example of that. ken griffin, i don't know if you saw this news, he just bought an apartment in manhattan for $238 million. he blew to smithereens the previous high amount paid for a new york city apartment. sure a lot of his fellow billionaires are saying was this really the right time to do that? it's not a good time to be an extremely wealthy person in america. host: we have time for a few more calls. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of things real quick. number one, i know it's going to

be tough, but the tax system has got to be overhauled. the loopholesose that enable people to hide money. we've got to do this on a fair basis. that's number one. reagan,wo, since ronald we've been trying to do trickle down. it hasn't worked. it's been proven again with mr. trump's tax breaks. they are for the ultra rich. it really hasn't improved the economy that much. ceos are getting tax i've ask. it hasn't reached the trickle-down to the middle class. why do we try something different? why don't we try her idea? i think what the color is

expressing is an attitude that's out with a lot of people these samewho say -- it's the attitude begot donald trump elected. that,ounds crazy to say but in both cases its people that up with the status quo same if something isn't working, i'm willing to try something different. withe don't always come in an economics textbook when they go to the voting booth. they just want change. if they see 70 who promises to bring change, they give it a try. her,s what we see now with to ae are grasping on newcomer the politics. she's a breath of fresh air. i can't really evaluate all of the arguments i'm hearing, but let's see what she can do. host: go ahead. which: my question is

current economic model are people studying? you go to the grocery store, you buy groceries. you buy gasoline. you owe property, you pay a tax. job, youincome from a pay attacks. we are being overtaxed instead of under taxed. issue that gets to the that if you are relatively low by low i mean less than millionaire status. of taxes you pay are things like sales tax. gasoline, food, clothing, so on. that makes a pretty big share of

your total taxation. if you are rich, the sales tax is a meaningless share of your total income. what matters more our taxes that middle income people don't feel on capital gains and dividends. onn they lower the tax rate the capital income, that matters a lot to the rich. it's invisible to the poor and the middle class. host: thanks for waiting. caller: i have two comments. one is the irs can't do the same thing? onethey do it in europe through algorithms. they talk about reagan economics. signed into law tax reduction.

for every dollar they gave in reduction, the got two dollars back in taxes. it's not just reaganomics. plan, notnson's kennedy. on the second point, i know we don't have a lot of time. there has been a lot of work on the question of whether tax cuts pay for themselves. ify would pay for themselves taxes were extremely high and depressed economic activity. we are not at that level. we are way below the rate where a tax cut would pay for itself. we just didn't cut taxes. you end up losing revenue. host: we didn't want to show viewers the cover of last week's bloomberg businessweek.

she has some new ideas for you to consider. peter coy takes them up in that piece. we appreciate your time this morning. thank you so much. guest: thank you for having me on. host: up next, some time for open phones, anything you want to talk about on this monday morning. it's 18 days until the government might run out of money again. the phone numbers are on your screens. we will be right back. >> this week on the gary schapiro on the major issues facing the technology industry in the u.s. we know robotics will be here, artificial intelligence, self driving cars, individual

oriented medical treatments. biotech in a way we've never experienced before. all of these are coming. how do you succeed? part of the future is not clear and part of it is totally clear? how do you benefit from that? c-span us tonight on two. >> live super bowl sunday at noon, an author and sports tv'sr is our guest on book in depth. he is the author of many books. his most recent is jim brown, last man standing. >> i think we need to fight for sports. we need to reclaim them and take them back. what we need is we need to know

our history. that is our greatest ammunition in this fight. we need to know the sportswriters and the fans who have stood up to the machine. knowing this history allows us to look at the world and see that struggle can affect every aspect of life, even the ivory tower notice sports. >> joint our live three-hour conversation with your calls and facebook questions live at noon on sunday on in depth on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. minutes, the next 20 we are asking you to call in about any public alice he issue -- policy you want to discuss. forgovernment has funding the short term. the government could shut down

again. this is the president on the front page of the wall street journal. he assessed the chances of whether a not a new group could craft a deal before the next government funding lapse in less than three weeks. more from the president in that interview yesterday, asked if he would accept less than $5.7 billion. the president made it clear he was skeptical about any deal the traded wall money for a wider immigration overhaul. he also said he wouldn't rule

out another shutdown, calling it an option. on thisyour thoughts january 28. eric is in new york on the democrat line. good morning. caller: hello. it's good to speak with you. i have two points. the first one would be with the , the idea of the constitution and how we are sidestepping the possibility of the congress with two thirds of the vote overriding a president veto. there could be a segment with a constitutional expert to explain the history of that.

that would be an excellent segment if that could be followed through with. host: on veto overrides in general? caller: yes. shutdown thathe everybody in the senate should of been on record, there could've been a vote for that to see if we could attempt that instead of the intense frustration day after day of ande stories of the workers stuff like that. we should have made an attempt ofat least try that instead blaming trump or blaming this or that. host: did you follow the votes in the senate? the proposal putting temporary on the docket for the border

wall? that was put on the floor and received less votes than the democratic proposal to reopen the government and have a temporary amount of time? caller: i thought the rules should of been suspended so mr. mcconnell didn't have the singular authority to prevent a vote. with aery impressed group of 16 senators that spoke after those two votes happened to initiate some movement on all that. it seems like a revision of the placesn the senate, it so much power in the majority leader's hands, to not make a try at that. it was such a partyline vote. there was a graphic of the republican senators that voted

for both. it was kind of a crack, there was some indication that it's too bad there were more like that. a time whenback to democrats were in charge of the senate. were you concerned harry reid had too much power and influence in what came to the floor? he seemed to be to status quo for me. i wasn't very comfortable with him. i was excited, although i am in i donated and made calls here and there about her. she is a democrat, but she's a compromiser and votes with the

republicans. so many claim to be bipartisan, but they are really not. those of the people that impressed me. very reid i found was status quo. it's frustrating for the electorate. host: chris is up next in ohio. go ahead. all,r: with the border and there have been a number of people, i get my information from watching c-span. i consider myself more observant. we've had a number of panelists stating how the force is needed in certain fostered we can funnel everyone into ports of entry as opposed to coming in

any other way. funneluld be able to open areas. if you visit with somebody down the cartel people are on a mountain top looking down. agents have ar borderseople coming in, are necessary. bryan is in michigan. ahead. up on thatm picking theme. we have to have a broader discussion and your channel can help.

do we will to remain a sovereign nation or not western mark instead of just focusing on the border. do you think anybody wants to not be a sovereign nation? theer: you don't have conversation. unless you put it out there instead of just focusing on the wall, we should have a broader conversation. we are trying to find a point in between that doesn't exist. host: what is your biggest concern about globalism? concern, weiggest are not good enough yet. we could be a far greater nation right now. in future generations, if you want to get to that point, it's not going to be happening yet. today,n reason i called

i believe we have a lack of education. i do believe that people who come on television, they should have degrees in journalism. unless you have a degree in journalism, you should be on television. you just should not be. host: do you think only people who go to college and get degrees should be on tv? caller: if you're going to put out the news, you should have a degree in print journalism so you understand the theory of journalism. what we have now is a lot of opinion. host: thanks for the call. james is in new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning, john.

enough already with politicians. the real reason is because people have been duped by both political parties. host: you're going a little faster. what do you think? caller: he's 100% correct the tax system, i wish i could read the whole thing. he must be a very intelligent man. could've gotten through to that. we have all of these loopholes for the rich. the rich should pay enough.

america for the tax system we have. oaks,david is in sherman california. go ahead. caller: good morning. comment on the border wall is as a businessperson, if you're going to have border agents, you should give them the right tools. one of the tools they should have is a fence or a wall. that would allow them to be much more productive. thatould use the resources the wall or fence would free up. then you could funnel people through the ports of entry and you can sniff out more of the drugs. everybody says that for the drugs are coming through. as a business person who has

equipment, it's the same concept. no one can tell me that they would not be more efficient if they had a wall or offense. host: you are a business owner? person,i am a retired but yes. host: tell me your thoughts on e-verify. it's a discussion we have had quite a bit. person, did you make use of that system? caller: i think we definitely should use it and i think the people that are not abiding by it should be fined. that's a different conversation. host: do you think business owners wanted? -- want it? aller: i don't know if they

wanted. it's like any other rule. if they don't follow it and it's the law, they should be held and find. they should suffer the consequences. we should have it. host: thank you for the call. linda is in west virginia. caller: i think it's time we started working with mexico and set out points of entry. border, work with mexico to do this thing. centers,f processing they enter mexico. minutes left in washington journal this morning. most of our conversation has been about the immigration and border security debate.

to the 2020d election. women candidates are treated in the political environment, we had that conversation after senator, harris opened her presidential bid. the washington post noticed that she talked about unity. she framed her campaign as a rebuke of president trump. here she is in oakland california. todaytand before you clear eyed about the fight ahead. god, with fidelity to country, with the fighting

>> it i got from my mother stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the united states. host: that was, harris yesterday. you can watch it in its entirety. one other story making some news, taliban officials have come to reaching an official on a key demand for u.s. troop withdrawal. the afghan president has called reach aus talks to speedy peace. this is from the washington post. that it'sents view is an american puppet. he called the talks part of the peace. a deal without afghan involvement would lead to the

kind of disaster that followed the soviet troop withdrawal in 1989. the taliban in u.s. representatives did not formally agreed to a planet which troops would leave the country in exchange for a pledge that afghan territory would not be used by them to harm american interests. that story is in the washington post. good morning. upset: i have been so over this immigration thing. we are not going to fix immigration until the people in congress want immigration fixed. in overlosi has brought $72 million to the democratic party. i want to know where that money came from.

fixhat why she can't immigration? the wall is just a smokescreen. it's just something for the democrats to go after trump. as long as he keeps shutting down the government, he plays right into their hands. who can't in congress balance the budget, their salaries should stop. they should be fined until they can balance the budget. i am tired of our tax money being used by these political people to play their silly games. it's our money. it's not federal money. host: you might be interested in the editorial in the usa today. to make thecongress

shutdown a thing of the past. one of the ways that congress could do that would be to forfeit pay for the time they close government down. that would be one way to encourage them to come to a resolution. they could move into a two-year budget cycle. they could fund agencies at levels when they haggle over the terms of the new budget. we have these impasses in the future. you can read about that in usa today. richard is in missouri. go ahead. about them calling news. back when i was young, you went to the movies to get the news. they had newsreels. newspapers.

it's just the same people that talk all the time. if you want world news, you've almost got to go to rt. host: why do you trust rt? caller: they put out news about other countries. they just talk back and forth about what's going on in washington. the wall is a deal. it's a question of who has the most authority to have it, who gets their way. that's nonsense for a lot of people. people's lives are at stake. host: before you go, one question on the journalism

topic. what insight would you give a budding journalist today? this control by the editors, i watch you all the time. that's the only place i get was going on. democrats and republicans are talking back and forth, i was a republican. i saw the date turned into the old democratic party. i became a democrat. host: that is richard in missouri. brian is in maryland. good morning. go ahead. caller: i have a comment about the wall. i think we should build a wall.

i think trump should get his money for border security. it's having an impact on the not havingnity, people follow through with the rules that everyone else has to follow. i understand people are trying to escape hardships. time, we've got to protect our borders. i also feel like if you're going you shouldamerica, respect american values and you should embrace america. haveould not have to different languages. like --eel host: what our american values?

caller: it means being people,ble for other looking out for other people. it is an unselfish -- americans are unselfish, but at the same time, we are being overrun. we can't help everybody. we're not even taking care of our own nation. how are we going to go to all of these countries? if mexico or south america is so horrible, maybe the troops need to go there and try to figure out what is going on. host: we will end it there. will be back at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> here is a look at some of our life programming today. join us in about an hour when congressional office budget director keith hall will be speaking with reporters. to discuss the economic outlook from 2019 through 2029. live coverage begins at 11:00. later today is a discussion for data privacy legislation and a look at some proposals currently in congress. is hosted by the progressive policy institute. you can watch it live starting at 11:30. it is also available online at c-span.org.

also, a look at the national defense strategy. we will hear from 2 members of the congressionally mandated bipartisan group who released a posture. the forest we will have a live at noon eastern on our companion network, c-span2. this afternoon, the pbs new s our. -- hour. congressmen are expected to talk about reaching across the political aisle to reach consensus. that is at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. --this week on the consu the communicators, the technology industry in the u.s. >> because i see where the future is going -- we know

robotics will be here, drones, so driving cars, individually oriented medical treatments, biotech in a way we have never before, all of these are coming. how do you succeed as a ninja, as someone who is flexible billing part of the future is not clear? before, all of these are coming. how do you benefit from that whether you are government, a business or individual? >> join us tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> this c-span bus recently traveled to tennessee asking folks, what does it mean to be american? >> for me, being able to break the status of. to know that i have the ability conformist to one ideal and form my own opinions and beliefs on something i feel and challenge the controversial. i've had friends from iran,

japan, all over the country. coming here to america for a chance at freedom. being un-american means creating a welcoming community -- an american means creating a welcoming community for people of all backgrounds. >> being an american is all about freedom. freedom about where to worship on sunday morning. freedom on what to choose when the career and strength are going to be. freedom in how you choose to treat your neighbors, how you want to plug into the world and country and make a difference. i'm so thankful for those who came before us and fought for those freedoms. an american is based on you.

going byssions of not what is on social media of being able to express what you want to express. being able to eat what you want to eat and being an american is having the qualities to promote yourself. success rather than negativity. >> to me, it means having the ability to live the life i want to live without regret or second-guessing. >> what it means to me is the prequel of ideas, the debate of ideas that we can all have different opinions, but we'll come to endocyte what is best for america. that discussion of free-flowing ideas and the creativity that comes with that are what makes us the greatest nation on earth. >> voices from the road on c-span.