you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the public policy and events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought you by your cable or satellite provider. president trump will give his state of the union address next on tuesday, february 5, a week later than originally scheduled. the speech was postponed during the government shutdown. watch live coverage of the residence big and to the joint session of congress tuesday, february 5 at 8:00 p.m. eastern. c-span. next, "washington journal" is live with your calls and comments will stop at 7:30 a.m. democratice congressman of michigan on theirn congressman new task force unclean drinking water. then democratic congressman tom

suozzi joins us to talk about the border security talks and then the u.s. missile defense review. "washington journal"" 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] ♪ the heads of the fbi, cia, and national security director testified today on threats for the united states. you can see that hearing at 9:30 on c-span 3. this is the "washington journal" for january 29. it was the head of the office --nal budget made some news yesterday reporting $3 million will be lost due to the five-week federal shutdown. tell us your thoughts on that figure and the potential impact

on the economy especially in light of the conclusion of the shutdown. you can call us on one of three lines. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. an independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to tweet at us, you can do so @cspanwj and about 200 plus people posting on our facebook page. you can do that as well at facebook.com/cspan. keith hall is the head of the congressional budget office and made the initial estimate yesterday. it was written about in the wall street journal and other papers saying probably the reason for the $3 billion permanent loss is the shutdown dampened economic activity because roughly 380,000 furloughed workers not contributing to the gross domestic product and the delay of the federal spending on goods and services and the reduction in aggregate demand. also adding the ceo -- economy

is expected to make up the loss of ground in the coming quarter when the gdp estimate is projected to be higher than it otherwise would have been. ofut $3 billion or 0.2% projected own you'll gross to met -- annual gross domestic product will never be recovered. it was keith hall appearing before reporters, the head of the cbo. here is part of his estimates. [video clip] toas interest rates continue rise toward levels more typical than today's, federal spending on interest would increase, surpassing the entire amount of defense spending by 2025. because federal borrowing reduces national savings over time, the nation's capital stock would ultimately be smaller and productivity and total wages would be lower than would be the case if the debt were smaller. lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and

spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. . in closing i will emphasize a debt is on an unsustainable course. lawmakers will have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies. making revenues larger than they would be under current law, making spending for large benefit programs smaller than would be under current law or adopting some version of those approaches. host: more of those comments will come from the head of the cbo today as he appears on the house side and senate side. you can find information on c-span. of the initial cost to the economy, $11 billion. $8 billion will be made up, a $3 billion deficit. it is 202-748-8000 for

democrats. republicans, 202-748-8002 -- 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. on our twitter feed, you can post @cspanwj. some comments on our facebook feed as well. this is from facebook saying forget the congressional budget office adding the comment just build the wall. steven from facebook says we are at a prosperous time. we should be paying down our debt. kim says we would have paid for half the wall because of this. $3e harrington saying billion, less than half of 1% of the federal budget. those are the responses off facebook and there was a response from the white house economic council of advisors, larry kudlow appeared at the white house to talk about the figures and was asked what he thought about those initial estimates. here is what he had to say. with frequently disagree

cbo. they are doing the best job they can. i won't acknowledge any of that right now. in a $20 trillion economy, it's awfully hard to make even the best guesstimate of those kinds of small fractions of numbers. let's see how it rolls out. we will get a gdp report in about a week from q4. it will take longer than the first quarter. i think you have a bunch of temporary factors and now that the government has reopened, the switch goes right back on. there is certainly no permanent damage to the economy. with the greatest respect to my friends at cbo who often disagree with us and don't acknowledge the importance of our tax cuts, no, i don't really agree. host: those are comments on the

$3 billion permanently lost because of the shutdown. bill starts us, virginia beach, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. just a couple quick comments. is thelt of the shutdown fault of congress. should be dealing with our problems with health care and medicare and medicaid. the national debt and immigration and stop bickering like a bunch of kids. host: when it comes to the national debt, what do you think of this $3 billion lost? caller: it is par for the course. it is nothing new, it is something we hear every day. there will be something else in the near future. host: this was specifically over

the shutdown, though. caller: i don't have any reason to disagree with a number -- i don't have any facts to make any comments one way or the other. i have to believe what i am told. int: frank is next connecticut. independent line. $3 billion that was lost, hard to figure out, that is number one and what happens now when the people get maybe a lump sum of money? maybe they will be spending it on goods they did not really need and they are getting paid when they did not work. that is one part that hurts and the other thing is how full list congress thatour they wasted $3 billion they could have used for judges or relief on the border or the

wall. what should happen now is if there is ever a shut down again, they ought to make a law where congress does not get paid during the shutdown and they don't get paid retroactively like some government workers are, they don't get paid at all. you won't have a shut down again. you have to sting them in their pocketbooks like they sting the people working. i feel we should not pay congress if there is a shut down. put a law in to that effect. host: on the market watch website, there is an opt dead -- op-ed when it comes to shutdowns, congress must be made to bear the cost of what occurred. the shutdown reduced the level and 0.2% inby 0.1% the first quarter. the calendar year 2019, cbo estimates that projected level

lower -- 0.02% lower. obtainses that could not federal permits or financing for projects may have opted to postpone investments and hiring. if there was good news from the prevent future government shutdowns whose effect is to penalize federal workers and their families, disrupt vital services and interfere with the conduct of private business. senators rob portman of ohio, the republican and mark warner both introduced a bill that would introduce -- make shutdowns a thing of the past. the bill would keep the government funded at existing levels if congress fails to pass the necessary appropriations bills on october 1. 20ding would decline by 1%

days and an additional 1% for every 90 days without a funding agreement in place. next from los angeles. caller: can you hear me clearly? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: this $3 billion doesn't matter at all. it is a very small amount of money. this whole shutdown thing is a complete distraction from the only political story in this country that matters, which is report and-- mueller the affect that investigation will have in our politics. host: why do you think the $3 billion figure is insignificant? caller: it is a nonstory. our government wastes this amount of money in less than three seconds. nobody is going to care about this. this whole shutdown said -- thing is a distraction. host: ronald is next from las

vegas calling on our line for republicans. ronald, good morning. caller: the shutdown was necessary and the reason i say that is because the congress should have taken care of this 50 years ago, 40 years ago. we need to get these laws changed and furthermore, we definitely have to have a border wall of some type. saysi, all the news media president cave, that is not the case. this president is going to get that wall and it is not because he wants the wall to win. he promised it and realizes it is important we have it. host: what do you think about the permanent loss of $3 billion over this shutdown? caller: it is nothing.

first of all. the number they are using this morning, earlier was $11 billion. what people fail to realize is this is critically important. spent $155 billion illegally -- annually on illegals. the wall is not going to do everything, but i can tell you this, everyplace they put a wall, israel, all over the world, the walls have reduced the amount of people flowing into a country substantially -- some stanch only. -- substantially. host: let's go to bob in new york, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. $3 billionfar as the in these people calling it is a

drop in the bucket, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. it will go a long way to feed a lot of people, for social programs we seem to have lost since this president has been here. infar as the government goes shutdown, the republicans could not wait for a democrat to get in charge of congress to blame her. all i hear is nancy pelosi. donald trump is playing fast and loose with the american economy. he does not have the right to go out and blow it anyway he wants. there are better opportunities for that money. that hebelieve at all should be wasting this money and to shut the government down at -- expense of other people at the cost of what? now it is at the cost of american workers. host: from lorraine in california, panama on -- panama

city, democrats line. caller: i think it is a shame that trump has caused the shutdown. .e is the one that shut it down don't see anyone near getting down both -- with both sides. i see him passing the buck and --king a lot they are going to get their checks and spend this money on things they don't need. he doesn't realize they have rent to pay. let's -- the workers that don't .et this money back look at the loss they have and the debt -- the whole they have

been put into. elise from maryland on our independent line. caller: good morning. i believe $3 billion is significant. it is a significant loss for the country. i don't understand why people think it is ok for the government to shut down. i don't know if they realize we are paying the government taxes for a service and for a month we did not get any service for it. i really don't get people who agree with the shutdown. that is my comment. host: republican line from maryland, this is susan. you are next up, go ahead. susan from maryland. hello? caller: yes. host: you are on. caller: i did not hear you call my name. thank you for taking my call. i think the $3 billion is just a

shame. i wonder if that is going to be all it is. as a government worker, i know i am not going to be spending any of the money i get from the days i worked and did not get paid. i am going to be putting it into savings so i have more available to me in case the government shuts down again and i am certainly going to be a lot more frugal. host: what branch of government do you work for? caller: i work for noaa. host: tell me what your first day was like yesterday assuming you went back yesterday? caller: i wasn't able to go back yesterday. i will go back today. host: what are you expecting when you go back? caller: it is owing to be crazy because we are all going to be trying to play catch-up even

though we were working during the time it was shut down, there are many things we were not able to get done because many of our workers were furloughed. many of the people were not able to come into work because they started getting to the point where they could not afford to pay gas to come in and pay for parking. it was ridiculous to hurt people this way. host: do you think we are going to face this again in three weeks or so? caller: i am afraid we are. .hat is my biggest fear i think after listening to about trumpments should be proud of what he did and everything, it seems like she won't blame -- share any of

the blame. they are both to blame. it's ridiculous to use the people to shut the government down and not do what they are supposed to do. host: a federal worker from maryland, that is susan giving her opinion. $3 billion officially lost. probably more will be asked of keith hall on those fronts today. two times he will appear, one earlier in the morning at 11:00 on the house and senate side. the one at 11:00 -- you can watch that on c-span, see that on c-span.org and if you have our radio app, you can listen on the radio app. on the senate side, 2:30 this afternoon is where you can hear that. that is c-span 3, c-span.org, and our radio app. particularly in light of the shutdown. leanne in oregon, democrats line, hi. caller: good morning.

host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, i think the shutdown is nothing but for nancys and hooray pelosi and the democrats for sticking it to him. host: what do you think of this loss of money over the shutdown? caller: i think it is terrible. three dollars is too much. i think she said one dollar, i would not have given him anything. host: the editorial of the reading eagle out of pennsylvania talks about the shutdown. this was published later in the afternoon yesterday. the editors write negotiating good faith and putting the shutdown in the past. both must approach negotiations with open minds. republicans should be prepared to accept less wall funding than the president demanded. other issues should be on the

table including stronger protections and a path to citizenship. streamlining and the immigration courts and tightening rules to ensure employers make sure people are eligible to work in the united states. the reading eagle takes a look at negotiations over the .hutdown this is paul,ome, democrats line. caller: i have three quick things. if these people who say it is only a drop in the bucket, i bet they did not go 35 days without going paid. they would not think it was a drop in the bucket then. the bill trump signed was the same one he told everyone he would sign in december before the shutdown. it was and coulter and rush

limbaugh that shamed him into shutting the government down. not payre going to people, the wrong people did not get paid. there is traffic control, you need to get the fbi -- i just think this guy is an idiot. host: michigan is next, dave. republican line. trump: as far as mr. being an idiot, i can remember when i was 30 years old and mr. trump was 29. mr. trump was lecturing guys 30, -- thes older than him architecture, engineering, everything about it. mr. trump is not an idiot. the $3 billion loss to the economy, i don't believe the cbo

-- their figures have been inaccurate many times. they have always proven to be inaccurate. wait until it all comes out in the wash. host: when you say they have always been inaccurate, where -- what do you base that on? caller: in the end, when everything comes out in the wash and we reevaluate how much money was lost, you will find they were probably quite inaccurate. host: aside from matters of the economy, the threats to the united states, three key figures in the president's team testifying. the head of the cia, the head of the fbi, and the national intelligence director. that hearing is that 9:30. you can watch that on c-span 3. all of our hearings and all the things we have taken in will be available to you. you can see the comments from

the cbo yesterday and the full comments of larry kudlow to this idea of $3 billion permanently lost because of the shutdown and that is what we are getting from you. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can post on our social media sites. from ohio, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. disappointing people are saying the things they are saying. $3 billion is a lot of money. when you hear 1/10 of a percent , that00s of a percent doesn't sound like a lot. these are the same people in 2008 when everyone was out and getting mortgages and the economy crashed. he has been playing with fire. we still have to worry about

tariffs in china. what happened last month in december with the stock market going down? the worst december we ever had. economic things are complex. people think you can do what you want and say what you want and it doesn't matter. look at the stock get. those -- stock market. those people are not buying or selling off because of the feeling when they hear something. a rumor. host: one of the things to tell you about in light of the federal government reopening that means the state of the union is back on. they decided with nancy pelosi sending a letter to president trump inviting him to address congress on february 5. he excepting that invitation yesterday and you can see that as well on our c-span network, c-span.org, c-span radio app tuesday, february 5 with coverage starting at 8:00.

germantown,xt from maryland. republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i think i would like to make a comment on the caller because she said the shutdown is caused by the president. some people don't know how the government works. it is the congress. the president has the mantle to make sure the american people receive -- the government stays open. losing money is not good for the government. we need the money for the wall. people are building fences all over their houses. i think they should give the money to the president to build the wall. host: that is harvey in maryland calling on our republican line. some other news to tell you about, the president's choice to head the justice department,

attorney general nominee william barr giving more written testimony to answers from questions. the senate judiciary panel scheduled to vote tuesday on the nomination of william barr, the full senate could take that vote as early as next week. when it comes to the robert mueller investigation, william barr told senators he would make public as much as possible about that report. several democratic senators question why the entire report other than the investigative material would not be made public. recallid he could not discussions about using executive privilege to prevent the release of the report. tolerate anot effort to withhold such information for any improper purpose.

asked if you would respond to the president's claimed executive privilege to cover up evidence of crime, mr. barr saying, "i would resign." linda in texas, you are next up from fort worth, independent line. $3 billionhink the ought to teach them they should have given president trump the $5.1 billion. i think the reason they didn't is because they don't like texas so they don't want them to have any protection. we are flooded with illegal's. thank you. host: from judy in virginia beach, last call for this segment. go ahead. caller: the loss of the $3 billion is just the beginning. i don't think -- i don't understand why people don't

understand. this is the first time the president has had no control over part of the government. the first thing he decides to do is shut the government down. thes going to be at least next two years democrats are going to have hold of some of the house. this can happen over and over and over again if he doesn't get what he wants, shut the government down. he is already saying he will do .t again in three weeks negotiation means negotiation. that is what he is refusing to do. the loss of money could possibly be the beginning of the loss of money. democrats are not going to sit around and have him have complete control like he has with the last two years. host: that is judy in virginia

beach. one more story, michael cohen, the president's former personal lawyer agreeing to testify before the house saying because of that -- new attorneys he hired for the process, one of cohen's lawyers said in a statement that he is bringing on michael monico and barry -- two amyers to replace guy and who represented him in proceedings and the federal court. cohen has fallen behind. davis disputed that. on monday, it was adam schiff who said michael cohen agreed to appear voluntarily february 8 for nonpublic testimony. he had already been issued a subpoena to appear before the senate intelligence committee and that is expected to take place february 12.

coming up on this program, we will have two members of congress to join us and talk about issues of the day and their efforts on reducing the amount of a dangerous chemical that could induce harmful effects. that is brian fitzpatrick and dan kildee. later in the program, we will hear from democrats from new york, tom suozzi. he is part of something called the problem solvers caucus and we will talk about the shutdown and what he expects will happen in the next couple weeks. those conversations coming up when "washington journal" continues. ♪ ♪ announcer: live super bowl sunday at noon eastern, dave zarin is our guest on book tv's in-depth. the author of many books including "one is my name --

what is my name, fool?" "jim brown: recent, last man standing." [video clip] >> i love sports and that is why we need to fight for sports. if we are going to do so, we need to know our history. we need to know our history of the athletes, the sports writers, and the fans who have stood up to the machine. if for no other reason than knowing this history i think allows us to look at the world and see struggle can affect every aspect of life in this system, even the ivory tower known as sports. live sunday on noon eastern -- at noon eastern on book tv's in-depth on c-span 2. >> new york has five new members in the congressional delegation.

cortez joinscasio- as the youngest member of congress. she defeated joe crowley in a primary election last summer. voters in new york's 22nd district elected anthony brindisi to congress. he previously served seven years in the new york state assembly and before that, he was an attorney. representative antonio delgado was also an attorney prior to his election and also had a brief career as a rapper reduce -- producing one album after harvard law school. max rose was elected to represent the southern district. he previously served in the u.s. army including leading a platoon in afghanistan where he was earning a an ied, purple heart and bronze star. representative josie marelli

joined a house a few weeks ahead of his classmates after winning both his seat in the 116th congress and the election to fill the seat of late congresswoman louise slaughter for the remaining weeks of the 115th congress. he had previously served in new york state assembly. congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: two members of congress joining us in our first segment to talk about various issues. we are joined by dan kildee, democrat from michigan and serves the fifth district and brian fitzpatrick, republican of pennsylvania. he serves the first district. we are going to talk about a specific task force you some top on dangerous chemicals. up on dangerous chemicals. was the likelihood -- what is

the likelihood we face another shutdown? guest 1: i am of the belief we have a process. i hope it is low. we should have gone to that process in september. i have a lot of faith people of goodwill can sit across the table and work out differences. if we can't, we understand that. that doesn't mean we should shut the government down. in talking to members who have been appointed, i have a willingness -- since there's a willingness to get to yes. left to members of congress, i think we can come up with a compromise that works for everyone. host: what makes you think the leadership in the house will go along? guest 1: when you commit to a process, you understand you carve out a strong position at the outset. of leaders are experienced legislators and they know what it takes to get the compromise. they don't like to signal what outset,game is at the

maybe that is hopeful and wishful thinking, but there is no way to go into this process predicting it will fail. i am a little bit disappointed the president seemed to take that tact. members of congress want to get this done. guest 2: i would agree i think it is low as well, the likelihood. staff, they administer physical surveillances and cases that are shut down for 35 days cannot be restarted. these are significant cases. i have been speaking strongly against government shutdowns ever for any reason. i don't think that is any terrain to have policy disputes and it sets the term of

president. any time we have a policy dispute, a government shutdown should be used to hold 800,000 employees and their families hostage for a process that as dan said should be going through regular order. host: there's a effort on the senate side where if something is not funded, it would go to a continuing resolution. if that -- is that something you could sign off on? guest 2: absolutely. i am not aware of any other country that has government shutdowns happen like we do. guest 1: i am working on legislation similar to what has been proposed in the senate that would essentially the weaponized the use of a shutdown. we can have disagreements and we ought to work those out. when we fail to come to an agreement on the budget, we should not penalize -- the details are going to be difficult to work out.

we need to create some incentives so it is not an easy thing to do to forget to do the budget. we need to build incentives so members of congress do their work. i don't think this ever should be on the table. i don't think the shutdown serves any particular purpose and the fact it is there and an available tool i think increases the likelihood that one party or the other might use it. i think the consequences -- $3 billion lost to the economy. with a full shutdown, it would have been devastating. we cannot do this anymore. host: what is a good incentive? guest 1: we are working on those details. some believe we ought to have automatic reductions on spending. others say we should have an automatic increase in spending. one party much -- might like one idea and the other might like the other. i think we have to talk that

through and figure out what works so is there -- so there is not incentive to not get spending bills done. that is the problem. we haven't been able to get back to regular order when it comes to passing appropriations bills in a long time. that is not acceptable. are with usests until 8:15. 202-748-8000 for eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 for mountain and pacific. you can post on our twitter and facebook feeds. there has always been discussion about the level of severity currently on the border. you have heard the president make a case and rebuttal. what do you think about the overall case? how dire is it in your mind? guest 2: i am a big believer in leaving assessments to the experts. there was nothing more frustrating when you had people setting policy and never wired a source. the three entities responsible

for border security, i believe we ought to provide them the funding, but give them discretion based on the sector and terrain, what they need to secure the border. in some cases it might be a physical barrier, and other cases it may be heat sensors, aerial surveillance, some sectors may need additional manpower. i leave it to them. they know what they need. guest 1: i absolutely agree. we need to govern on the basis of fact provided by people with deeper expertise than members of congress have. there's a lot of smart people in congress, but we cannot have expertise on every single subject. we hire professionals to work in the federal government and we ought to listen to what they have to say and act accordingly. in this case, i think myself and many other members of congress on both sides of the aisle have said where we need enhanced physical barriers, let's strengthen those barriers. where we see significant drug

trafficking coming through our ports of entry, let's focus on how we can enhance our ability to detect those drugs. one of the things that has been bothersome to me is the use of this debate and the debate particularly over the wall somehow implying that if we just built the wall we would be able to stop all these harmful drugs from crossing our borders. if it were that simple, we would all sign up right now. we know those dangerous comes through u.s. mail, ports of entry, drug -- trucks, ships. we ought to solve the problem listening to the people involved in taking on those bad guys every single day. host: the problems both of you have come together on isa drug found inhemical communities. why is it important to both of you? guest 1: it's a family of chemicals that has been used in different applications.

used in firefighting film is how it first came to my attention, but also manufacturing and plating and tanning, we have a shoe company in michigan, using this chemical that is highly had aant to heat and has real utility and manufacturing and it's really good putting out fires. the problem is we discovered in the last decades it is really dangerous, dangerous to human health. it's danger is measured in the parts per trillion. the current health advisory which many of us is far too high trillion is the high level -- the low level that should be allowable. it could be even single grids -- single digits for children -- single digits per trillion. we have a responsibility to get it out of the environment and prevent its further introduction to the environment and deal with health implications for service members exposed to it on

military bases. pfas.the acronym is guest 2: it is a family of compounds. is atially what they are chemical predominately used in firefighting films although it does have commercial uses. it is in pizza boxes and teflon. the way many of our communities were impacted by this was military bases have very large sophisticated fire companies to put out fires, a lot of testing is done and they were using this foam in the 1970's -- the 1970's all the way up until the current day. the foams that contain these compounds can put a fire out in three seconds when water with take 30 seconds. that very same substance that makes it effective makes it highly durable at high

temperatures which means it is highly durable in water streams and blood streams. when these chemicals were reduced and used in the 1970's and 1980's and 1990's, the military installations were not aware of the dangers. manufacturers mayor may not have been aware and that is what we want to find out. everybody feels differently. i think ultimately they bear the responsibility because this will be a significant cleanup effort. the most direct remediation would be point of consumption remediation. soile broader scope, remediation because these plumes travel in all different directions and can migrate far from the original point of contamination and you have a lot of people in private wells are very concerned right now. host: there is a story in detroit news that there is an estimated thousands of people

experiencing these chemicals. who should pay for it? with 1: we ought to start the federal government, particularly where we have used them in firefighting foam on military bases, hundreds of sites where this has been used. when it was initially introduced, there was not the awareness of its danger, we understand that. once we became aware and we as a federal government are now aware of its danger, we have an obligation to clean it up. my first introduction to this issue came because i have a community at the very northern tip of my district where the -- wordsmithith air force base. we have a contamination that useded from where it was into the groundwater and into the drinking water wells for families living there.

step one, get those people off well water and get them municipal water and now we have to clean it up and get it out of the ground so it does not do further damage. i think it is the clear responsibility of the united states government to do that. brian and i have been pushing for more federal resources to go into our own responsibility. after that, there may be private uses that require federal involvement because the responsible party maybe no longer exists or cannot be located and brian touched on this, where there is clear responsibility or an existing commercial entity, may be a chemical company that knew the danger and continued to sell it into the marketplace, i know state attorneys general have been pursuing these cases to get compensation from those corporations. i think that is a reasonable thing for us to do. we will have to attack it on a

number of fronts. it starts with the federal government stepping up. host: we have calls lined up for both of you. jane in kansas, go ahead. you are on with our guests. guest 2: good morning -- caller: good morning, pedro, nice tie. representative kildee what exactly has been done to clean up the water. guest 1: the question has to do with drinking water in flint area sadly for me, not only do we havepfas in flint, one the former buick facility, buick city and at our airport. we have also had now for half a decade drinking water contamination through lead exposure as a result of highly corrosive water eroding the distribution system and leaching

lead into the drinking water. thankfully congress stepped in in 2016 and provided resources. we are fixing the pipes, replacing the service lines and improving the water distribution system, providing health support to the families that have been impacted. the flint story is a good example of what happens when a community has its water source contaminated. there is an immediate impact, you have got to clean up the problem, there is a health impact that is longer-term. people affected need help support in order to overcome the challenges presented as a result of being exposed, whether it is led or pfas, or whatever and then there is a longer-term economic impact. the flint story should serve as a warning and i know it is one of the reasons we are so anxious to move on this issue. we don't want other communities to go through what my hometown has gone through. host: what areas of pennsylvania

most affected? guest 2: there are three representatives, myself, brendan boyle who have all been working together because it is sort of the intersection of our districts. warmest are, horsham, warwick, that area of bucks county, montgomery county and pennsylvania suburbs. there is a predominant use of firefighting psalms that contain -- firefighting films that contain these substances and foams. it is her concern for citizens and resident -- residents and veterans that may have deployed back home. there is an educational component to this as well. host: is there science that tells us what the results are or what could be? guest 2: we have highly suspicious data, cancer clots or -- cancer clusters in these

regions. make a is trying to determination. in one case it is an advisory level that you are compelled to comply with and the other is mandatory contaminant levels. when that mandatory level is set and the epa hopefully reset -- re-designates, that is when criminal liability can kick in because there is a line in the sand people have to comply with. guest 1: this issue of health impact is important. there are significant health impacts, but we don't know the full story. one of the things we were able to work together to do was get funding in the defense authorization act funding for control.rs for disease servicemembers and their families that have been exposed to pfas to get a better sense of the health implications. when we know that, we will have a better idea what our obligations are to treat illnesses that may have been traceable to pfas contamination.

guest 2: the epa set an advisory of 70 parts per trillion and a study later came out that put that number in the teens and then you have a patchwork of municipalities around the country that have a non-detect or zero detect standard. what we are trying to do is set a national standard, identify substancety of the and what that level should be, what is safe. host: let's hear from jeff in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. my question concerns the government shutdown. over december and january when maybe -- many people were laid off, there was a junket that put -- took puerto rico. how did this help eliminate the government shutdown? obviously none of us

believe the optics of that were very good. it was not a federal government trip, it was a private trip organized by members of congress and a political action committee organizer. the goal was to go to puerto rico and see what was happening in puerto rico. there was good reason to be there, but i think we would all have to acknowledge this long planned trip may have been best to be rescheduled when we were in the middle of a shut down and i think some of the people involved have acknowledged that. host: just to clarify, you did not go. guest 1: i did not. host: jade in baltimore. caller: good morning. i had a question about the incentives for avoiding the government shutdown. instead of doing automatic increases or automatic reductions, would it be possible to tie that to policymakers' salaries.

they are not doing their job of meeting in the middle and passing policies, so why can't we withhold their salaries instead of government workers'? guest 2: high could not agree more. the very first bill i introduced as a freshman and this first day of the second session is no budget, no pay. there is no other organization or entity in this country where this problem exists other than congress. i firmly believe that no member of congress should get paid unless we pass a budget. it is the most fundamental responsibility we have to fund the federal government. out with the air traffic controllers and tsa screeners at the airport a few days ago and with the border patrol officers that work in our district that have been transferred back and forth retired, many of them. this is a huge problem and a few

toe members of congress' pay government shutdowns, there will be a strong incentive for members of congress to do their job. guest 1: i cannot disagree with the job -- the goal prayed i think we have to watch for unintended consequences. left to congress alone, we could have had a budget. it was the president of the united states that signaled to the senate republican leader that he would not sign the bill that congress essentially had already agreed to. my view is congress should have acted and sent that bill down the street to the president and let him veto it. it is possible with the incentives brian refers to their might have been more motivation for congress not to simply adhere to the warning the president has offered, but to call his bluff, maybe and send the bill down the street. my view is whatever we need to do to the weaponize the use of a

shutdown, which really penalizes everybody but congress, penalizes the american people, 800,000 workers, throws our economy at risk, cost our economy $3 billion, that $3 billion is jobs for americans. that is the way you measure $3 billion loss to the economy. anything we can do to take this weapon off the table so no congress, democrat or republican , no president, democrat republican or independent whatever can used to threat of shutting down the government to get something they are not 200ing to submit to a 30-year-old process of reconciling differences that mostly has worked pretty well. guest 2: it ironic over a battle of $5.7 billion in border wall funding we lost $3 billion because of the shutdown. host: let's hear from fred in maryland. know howe don't really many undocumented aliens we have in this country because they are

undocumented and nancy pelosi claim thatchumer most of the illegal drugs coming into this country are coming in the port of entry and my question is how would they know since the illegal drugs are undocumented also? guest 1: the way we know is we talk to law enforcement professionals that tell us where the drugs are coming in and we have to rely on expertise at some point in time. when i speak to our drug enforcement personnel or brian served in law enforcement, he understands this, they have a good idea where the drugs are coming from. that doesn't mean they have the resources to stop them. i understand the gentleman's point. on the specific issue of drug interdiction, the professionals have a decent idea where the drugs are coming from and simply lack either the legal tools or resources to get at them. aest 2: the gentleman raises

good point. that has been an era in communication. the data we are getting is based on interdiction's. if more drugs are being interdicted at border crossings and sectors, that is based on the fact that there was success on a law enforcement standpoint. that data doesn't reflect drugs that were not detected or crossed the border without being interdicted. host: there is something called the safe water drinking act, could that help in resolving this issue? guest 1: one of the things we are both pushing for is an enforceable national standard for pfas. right now we have this health advisory at 70 parts per trillion. in order to use any of the current mechanisms for safe drinking water enforcement, we have to have a standard to enforce against. what we have been asking for and is tos not acted on this

require based on science, we don't prescribe to the professionals what the science ought to dictate, but based on good science the federal government ought to establish a national standard that is enforceable so we prevent pfas from being in drinking water without any way for the federal government to step in and say -- we have to stop this and deal with it. goal 2: this is the exact of our task force. every member of congress was advocating on behalf of the unique problems in their district and dan and i came up with an idea where we wanted a collective voice speaking together from all the members of congress who may be effected for different reasons, but similar issues on water contamination to talk about the two pieces of the puzzle, one is enabling legislation and number two is funding. on the legislative front, we will wait to see what the epa decides to do.

if they do something we don't agree with, we testify and if we are not satisfied with their answers, we develop legislation that will address the problem to our liking. host: given the tendency toward deregulation, is that a concern? guest 2: it is and we will keep a close eye on this because we owe a high responsibility to our constituents at home who expect clean drinking water. this problem is not caused by then. these people moved into these communities and they should not have to brush their teeth with bottled water or worry about a point of conception carbon filtration -- failing and whether or not the water in their house is filled traded or not. drinkingpeople take water for granted and sadly we live in a time where we cannot take it for granted. we want to see the epa do the job it was formed.

if they do not act in a way we think protects public health, we are prepared to act. the reason we put this together, this is a bipartisan task force that represents communities that are diverse and dealing with a similar problem which maybe is an example of how we can get things done around here. brian and i worked together on legislation in the past. people have an impression democrats and republicans fight like cats and dogs and don't get along. that is not true. especially when there is a public health threat where something as fundamental as drinking water is threatened. the idea that partisanship would be addressed into that flies in the face of what we are here for. when there is something serious, we can take it on in a bipartisan fashion. host: you heard from dan kildee and also represented brian fitzpatrick, republican of pennsylvania. this is maria in new jersey.

hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i have two questions. i remember when -- from utah was on your program and pointed out that borderd out patrol was not allowed to pursue illegal aliens onto national parks. i wondered if that change. and i believe he said that the stations for ice are about 50 miles inland, and i essentially -- and essentially we have sanctuary force. a gentleman called in and said we cannot know what we don't know, we don't know how much drugs and human trafficking are going through the national parks all over the country. and my second point is this, how come everybody is in a lather 8.4 billion dollars to inch bill, and this is a big

our ownput barriers on frontier. there has to be pollution between the drug -- collusion between the drug cartels and arms manufacturers and the people in our government and i would like these gentlemen to comment. thank you. will address a couple of those. they asked whether 40 talking enteral federal parkland, they are both federal law enforcement, that's always part of the memorandum of understanding, which i'm sure the national parks would, if need be, allow other federal agents and local law enforcement to enter property, if need be, if a law enforcement scenario dictated that. regarding the i stations being 30 miles inland, i'm not sure what the buffer is, but they clearly can't be right on the border, there has to be a buffer zone. border patrol actually patrols the area between the border and the stations, that is what their response ability is. >> i think on these questions we

have to defer to the folks who practice law enforcement every single day, so they can advise us on what they need. we are in the resource business in the policy business, generally thinking i defer to those folks. the structure we have in place now is the product of a lot of officers tell us what they need and we have an obligation to listen to them. our goal is to make sure they have the resources, which is really the point of the discussion we have been involved with and the point of the work of a conference committee that will hopefully have a resolution. i fully understand the entire point that was being made by the collar. i think the last reference between collusion between arms dealers, drug manufacturers, and the federal government, i don't know if i would go that far. there's a lot of dedicated hard-working people in the federal government.

i think there are a few exceptions to that. host: you serve on both the budget and the ways and means committee's, what does ways and means think about the new leadership, particularly with the passage of tax cuts with republicans and corporate tax cuts, what changed? >> different members have different views. my own view is that i disagreed with the tax bill that was passed in the last congress. i think the benefits were to tilted towards corporations and people at the top. but i will say this, i don't believe, now that we are in the majority, that we should throw it in reverse and repeal everything and that tax bill. there are changes we are going to need to make to ensure that there is a fair distribution and an obligation to support the basic elements of civil society, that means some change. i also believe that part of the need is to take a look at social

security, which has a taxation element. if organ open the door on this question we need to make sure we are strengthening social security, and look at the revenue side of social security. but i am not one who believes we ought to have a wholesale repeal . but i do believe we need some changes to make sure that the obligations are more fairly skewed. you are talking about not only what happened with the shut down but the debt overall. this, problem we have is shut down politics, we all agree on that. with debt, there is debt and their debt. i would be willing to support borrowing if there is an asset associated with that borrowing. in other words, investing in infrastructure. i compare that to the way a family might look at their mortgage. yes, there is debt, but there is debt, but there's an offsetting accident -- asset that will continue to pay us back in the

years to come. what we saw in the last congress was the increase in that debt, essentially putting money on a credit card in order to have immediate cash available, in this case partly to support funding of a tax bill. i don't think that's the kind of dead americans would support. i do believe they would support some careful use of long-term bonding through an infrastructure bank to rebuild roads, bridges, water, sewage systems, and the other elements that we see coming around us. host: do you agree with that estimation? debt iso dance point, does -- to dan's point, debt that is spent to invest is a good thing, public education is an investment in the children's future. the environment is an investment in our health. national security is very important, if you don't fund these things, it will ultimately cost you in the long term. with regard to tax policy and regulatory policy, i'm a big

believer that we need to strive in a bipartisan manner to find the point of equilibrium. what tax rate make sense? what is not so high that it's not crushing economic growth but not so low that it's bleeding government. regulations,on regulations that are not so redundant they are hurting growth, but also having environmental standards that are not putting us in jeopardy. we work together to find that sweet spot that makes the most sense and allows the country to grow at the fastest clip and also maintain the safety and preservation's we need. host: this is calvin, from oregon. hello. caller: oklahoma. host: oklahoma, i'm sorry. caller: good morning. chemicalon is on the -- i'm a vietnam veteran, i served in 1973 to 78. i was aboard a ship, and we used

and chemicals that were on the ship. and also in the drinking water. peopleou explain to the sailorsffected the aboard the ship? and is there any more can find outhat we about this chemical, and have it be properly tested for the ?ffect on the body -- have a pretty clear host: thank you caller, we will let our guests address that. guest: first, thank you for your

service, we do appreciate it. yes, part of what this task force is going to do a set up a website which will get to the point i referenced earlier about communications to advise people who may have been impacted about where they can go to get more information, to get blood tests, it's important that everyone knows that they were exposed whether or not their exposure poses a current or future health risk. the exposure is very important. i will tell you, what we have seen in our district, and i will let dan speak to his experience, is that the risk is more related to water intake. soil contamination entering groundwater, more so than public air exposure. that's not to say that that's not a threat as well. what i would recommend, calvin, is to seek out blood testing, if you cannot afford it, you can certainly reach out to our office and we will try to find a mechanism to handle that for you. that is really the whole point of the task force, to get a 306

to degree view of the problem to make sure we understand all of the threats, and the risks, and how to best remediate that, not only from a soil perspective, but people that were exposed, to make sure that they are getting the proper testing to see what health consequences they may have suffered. and we need more information, the questions you raise are legitimate questions i'm sure every service member who knows they have been exposed, or maybe even family members who know they have been exposed, are asking. there are some conditions through previous research that has been identified as being theected to exposure to chemical. but we don't know the full story, and we have not been able to get to the defense authorization funding budget which is helping -- which is now being executed to get a more complete picture of the full health implications.

injust need that research order to connect conditions that service members and their families may be experiencing to the contamination, or not, and once we know that, our push, which is going on now, is to make sure that through the defense department, specifically through the v.a., that the supports and service members ought to have for the health conditions -- for the supports that service members ought to have for health conditions are there for them. we want you to be able to leak -- reach out to the local v.a. clinic and get connected with them. and thank you for your service. host: there were several questions on twitter, specifically is the chemical still being used and what is being used as its replacement? >> that's one of the frustrating parts, it wasn't until just last amendment thatn i offered to the faa for reauthorization that we relieved airports of the requirement to

-- the contained firefighting foam containing the chemical. as brian said, it's effective, it was a fire out in three seconds, the alternative they have available to them, could be water, which could take 30 seconds and there's real danger as a result of that. so number one, there's a strong push that we shouldn't use this particular firefighting foam for training purposes, and introduce exposure where there's not a fire that needs to be put out in order to save lives. and if we allow alternatives to be developed, the hope is that some ingenious person will come new applications, new firefighting foam, there is some that has been developed that do not contain this awful contaminant. it is interesting to note that until recently, it was a requirement to use firefighting foam that contains this. it is still in circulation, for

the most part in manufacturing. guest: we recently had a field hearing in our district and posed this question to dod officials and they confirmed that it is still being used on ships for the very reason that fires on ships pose a different kind of threat in open space, which i find incredible, given all the controversy surrounding this chemical. but to dance point -- dan's point, they are communicating to that there is no analogous substance that is as effective. it's a catch 22, to put fires out and potentially save lives at a much quicker rate, but also potentially posing these health consequences, which is why we need the epa to really expedite this assessment with nih and cdc to find out with the health consequences are. host: last call for the segment from woodbridge, virginia, tom. caller: this question is about

the wall issue, i think people forget because they want to blame the president, which is ridiculous, half of the american people voted for the president. just a tiny bit less than half voted for the president because he wanted the wall. thehen congress stands in way of giving half of the american people what they want, it's the congress's fault, it's not the president's fault, because the american people voted for him based on the fact that they wanted the wall. the other thing is, with the shutdown, he talked about 800 thousand people, i work in washington, many of these people were laid off and they appreciated the 35 extra days of paid leave because they're going to get paid. they appreciated the time. i spoke to them personally. there are some that probably are going to be behind on their bills until they get their backpay, but it's ridiculous to make some big huge contrived fiat of this when the reality is

, everybody is going to be fine. host: thanks collar. guest: i would respectfully disagree with your assessment of the shutdown, having lived through one. they are problematic. are shut down permanently, i can tell you and the fbi cases are shut down permanently. i would say the vast majority these people live paycheck-to-paycheck, missing one paycheck is unconscionable and two is unfathomable. many of them did. fortunately the shut down ended right after that second paper, with respect to border security. i believe the overwhelming majority of us want the same thing, operational control of the border. i think were getting hung up on the term wall, for some people it conjures up these images of a brick-and-mortar structure seat see -- frome -- to

sea to shining sea. the officers know what they need on what sectors, and in some cases a physical barrier makes sense, in other cases other things like technology and manpower makes sense. we need to rely on them, they are the experts. even the president has acknowledged that. he has gotten off the term wall, he is using different terminology, saying not all 1900 miles of the border. i think we need to be very mindful of the language we use and understand that the overwhelming majority people do want the same thing, operational control of the border, we just have to be smart about it. this,an and i agree on even the president is no longer asking for what he went out on the campaign trail and said he was going to deliver. i mayn his case, though disagree with him on elements of this, he has been informed by reality.

he has been informed by the knowledge on the ground and in the field that says the campaign promise that he made, that apparently according to the caller attracted a lot of voters, is not realistic or helpful. things, i also respectfully disagree with the characterization of the impact of the shutdown. i also spoke to a lot of federal workers, while there may be a few who said it was ok, the vast majority, meaning every single one of them that i spoke to, was going through a lot of pain. many of them are veterans, many of them sacrificed and continued their mission by serving their government in another way, they did not have enough money to put food on the table for their kids. to pay their rent. to cover their heat. to put gas in their car. that's not a vacation, that's painful. and we should not use that as a tool.

and somehow excuse it by saying this is a 35 day vacation, it was not a vacation. and yes, the president was elected, so were the members of congress. article one of the constitution investing congress the absolute authority to make these decisions about the spending priorities of our government. while the president was elected, and he has his point of view, each of us were elected as well, and we have a constituency we have to account to and be able to sling the decisions we make. sometimes those points of views come in conflict with one another, that's why we have this that was so masterfully devised to recognize those things. brian and i don't agree on everything, but where we do we ought to be able to work together, the same should be true for the white house and the legislature. kildee and brian fitzpatrick, both serve as

cochairs of the task force. thank you both for joining us. what's going on in washington today, two hearings of dealing with the president of the united states and the other with the state of the economy. and reactions to the starbucks president possibly considering for running for the president of the united states. all of that up for grabs in washington. if you want to comment on those (202) 748-8000four democrats, ,202) 748-8001 for republicans an independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls coming up. ♪ 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 cowan -- coverage of congress. the white house. at the supreme court. and public policy events in

washington d c end around the country. c-span is brought to you -- and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. live super bowl sunday at noon, author and sportswriter dave is our guest on in-depth. the author of many books, including what's my name, full? a people's history of the united states, and game over: how politics has turned the sports world upside down. and jim brown, last man standing. >> i love sports, that's why we need to fight for sports, we need to reclaim them and take sports back. if are going to do so we need to know our history, that's the greatest ammunition in this fight. we need to know our history of the athletes, the sports writers, and the fans who have stood up to the machine, if for no other reason than knowing this history allows us to look at the world and see that struggle can affect every aspect

of life in the system, even the solution adorned ivory tower -- adorned ivory tower. noon onus on sunday at c-span two. washington journal continues. host: here are the hearings going on today, a look at the economy is out at 11:00 with the head of the congressional budget office. you can see that on c-span, c-span.org, and our radio app. that conversation continues into the afternoon on the senate side with the u.s. economic outlook. butcan watch on television you can also monitor at c-span.org. the state of the union is now back on february the fifth, our coverage starts at 8:00. there are a lot of avenues where you can monitor that and you can find out more when you go to

c-span.org. the former ceo of starbucks writing an op-ed about his interest in the presidency. a third party choice like me could win in 2020, he writes a permit -- a formidable third choice has the first time to succeed -- the first chance to succeed, it brings new possibility, there are social and fiscal challenges and extreme ideological divisions and political dysfunction threatens to deteriorate the greatest team -- the greatest democracy. how can we solve conflict problems ifcomplex our leaders cannot hold a productive conversation, or keep the federal government open. those are some of those thoughts -- thoughts from howard schultz. some reactions, this is michelle goldberg writing in the new york times.

howard schultz, please don't is the headline. saying that he make much of the fact that 40% of americans identify as independent, but independent is not the same thing as centrist. leanindependents towards one party. thatesearch has shown independents have grown more polarized. presidential candidates are charitable vehicles rebuilding political power, the two-party system, unfortunate as it is, is the inevitable result of the winner take all nature of our elections and cannot be wished away. and also we look at the editorial pages of the wall street journal, it starts off with comments about victor -- mr. schultz by michael bloomberg and the editor goes on to say mr. bloomberg said in 2020, the likelihood that an independent would split the anti-trump vote and end up reelecting the president is a risk that i refuse to run.

we cannot afford to run it now. the editor says that the assumption is that an independent would divide the he notut why could votel to those who conservatively but are put off by the style. the ultimate appeal would depend on how he campaigned in which issues he stressed, and the race with the pens on how far left democrats would go with their nominee, as centrist may co-op the likely focused on the economy and the federal debt. those are some conversations taking place in washington, and other things as well. things byd other calling in. --(202) 748-8003 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. caller: is mr. kildee still on?

host: no i'm sorry they left. caller: i wanted to talk to him but that's ok. the border wall, i wanted to make a statement on it. i'm a democrat, but i think we ought to give trump what he wants for the border wall to get this issue out of the way so we can focus back on the molar investigation -- mueller investigation and see what really happened. host: why do you think that takes away -- what he think a discussion about the border does that? why will moving away from discussions about the border refocus on the mueller investigation? caller: then we can get away from the distraction of the wall , which i think we should let the border agents and authorities till the congress what they need -- tell the congress what they need. they should give the congress a

list of what they think they need, how much of the money they think they need, and congress should allocate that money. , in: let's hear from don ohio. caller: hello. topic -- i want to talk about mr. schulz, and splitting the democratic party. line, ihe republican think one of the problems, and i've tried to stay away from the limitations because constitutionality of it. but it seems funny to me, we elect presidents, they are allowed to stay eight years, i understand why after fdr. but we have congressmen and senators who have been there for decades, and i believe, at my age, from what i have seen, many elected officials, their main

mission is to stay in washington. i believe the founding fathers, i realize i could not have envisioned all the technological changes that would take place, but they did not envision people wanting to stay in washington for their lifetime. they expected a congressman to represent the people, after a couple of years, go back, earn a living like their constituents do. aboutrs, they talk changing the constitution, one of the first things i would do is go back to where senators are appointed by governors. the governors are then closer to their people and can feel reactions from them. i will let you comment on this, keep up the good work. host: and rose, on the orlando -- on the independent line from orlando, florida. caller: i wanted to comment on the ceo from starbucks, i don't think you should run, all that does for the third party's take away votes. in this case i think it will

take away votes from the democrats. it has been done in the past and it has shown that it just takes away votes, like with perot. i don't think you should do it. host: why would it take away democrats but not republicans? caller: because he's more left-leaning than right-leaning. host: eric, in ohio, you are next. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i was calling about the last segment, i was trying to get through. employee,red federal i was an environmental manager, and i was involved in a lot of the cleanups in california. wondering, if i could just have the information from the two guys on the show earlier, i was involved in pretty much all of the cleanup

from brack, cleaning up military bases. and believe me, i was shocked by some of the things i found. , butust flame retardant's wow. we have to remember, through the years, these buildings on these bases were used for many different processes. wow. i had to research and find out the process of these different things throughout the year, -- the years. they were just involved in some many different types of cleanup. host: what i would advise is representative dan kildee and brian fitzpatrick are the legislators, you can contact their offices and maybe they would want to hear from you or provide information for whatever you are looking for. i would contact those offices directly to find out more.

lloyd is next in indiana on the republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on. call aboutanted to , if the democrats would just wake up, that needs to be done. illegalso many immigrants in this country. and look at the money that we spend. but that's about all i have to say. in thenother 2020 story, wall street journal this morning. this takes a look at the candidacy of elizabeth warren and her interest in the presidency. ackerman,om andrew reporting that as president, miss warren would represent a striking change from the trump

administration's deregulatory approach. they are worried that she would take a more adversarial track in the obama administration, including breaking up the having a modern version of the glass-steagall act. she backs the mandate that workers represent 40% of corporate boards, and holding wall street executives responsible. and if elected she would likely appoint regulators who would push for companies to disclose their spending on political activities as well as complete unfinished curves to compensation for financial firms of the 2010 dodd-frank overhaul. if you want to read more of that story it's in the wall street journal. as far as the shutdown is concerned, what happens once the shutdown is concluded and federal employees go back to work as the topic of this morning that you can find on the federal news network website. a reporter for that network is

joining us. good morning. >> good morning. host: you laid out a lot of things, i'll ask you to summarize your story, starting if you are a federal worker, when will you get paid? guest: the office of management and budget and personnel management has insisted that federal employees get paid as quickly as possible. for most it seems like it will be at least by thursday, if not by friday. it ultimately depends on which payroll provider processes your paycheck. if you know the national finance center processes your check, we thisearing that the 31st, thursday, is when you oversee it. and you should get one lump sum, which is important for people to know. but technically you will receive deductions from two missed paychecks. centerinterior business processes your paycheck it will be a little different, they are saying by the end of this week, if not thursday, a little

earlier. we actually receive two separate payments with deductions taken out separately, and those would be considered 2019 taxable income. it depends on who is actually handling your paycheck and how you will receive it. that seems to be the difference. backpay andlk about you quote something about the standard rate of pay for those who missed work, but are still getting pay, can you expand on that? guest: it essentially means that whatever you would have been paid, if the government had not been closed, if you had been working in your normal capacity, that is the rate you will be paid at when receiving your backpay. a few other things applied. if you were scheduled to work overtime but you didn't because you were furloughed, you will likely be paid for that over time you would have worked if the government shutdown had not happened. same with night pay or holiday pay or some sort of premium pay for certain positions in the federal government. host: you talked about two

sections in your story, both of those dealing directly with retirees, one asking a question about contributions during retirement and the other saying if you retire during a shutdown are you still retired? can you talk about that? hert: if you are not paid during the shutdown, you were not contributing to your retirement. so agencies have to go back in and deduct contributions that you would have otherwise made if you had been working from your retroactive pay. the other piece, we heard from several people in january, this is one of the most popular months to for federal employees. my retirement application, am i actually retired? the answer is yes, whatever date you indicated on your application is the date you are retired. your paperwork may not be processed through your agency and it may not have made it

through opm, but the date that you indicated, especially if it was before the government shutdown, you are retired. host: so if i was retired and i received a pension, was i still getting a pension check? guest: yes, all federal retirees receive pensions during the government shutdown. that's because a trust fund actually pays out those annuity payments, that's not impacted by annual appropriations. there was an instance where the coast guard was fearful that if the shutdown continued, they are in a different situation and they actually pay retirees through a pay appropriation. they were concerned that if the shutdown continued through january they would not be able to make those payments, but ultimately we have resolved that. host: federal employees get a certain amount of leave each year, does the shutdown affect that? guest: it does. ultimately, you will continue to accrue leave if you were furloughed.

the nonpaid status is not impacting that. and there was a lot of questions during the shutdown about whether or not excepted employees could take leave during the shutdown, and the office of personnel management essentially gave those employees two options. take leave it they normally would -- as they normally would and be charged after the fact, or enter what was called the default for low status, in that case they would not be charged from their personal leave bank for taking the time off. the big concern was anyone who just did not show up to work and did not communicate those intentions with their supervisors. in that case the agency may have awoldered them a wall, -- , and that could set up for disciplinary consequences. host: there is a potential we could go through another round of shutdowns in three weeks, what does that mean for the agencies as they prepare? guest: it really just means more

uncertainty, federal employees are coming back to work, a lot of them have huge backlogs that they need to get through. thousands of emails to sort through. this will take time. and with the added uncertainty, it's not a particularly pleasant situation. if there is good news from this, the one good news piece is that congress and the president have already authorized that federal employees would receive backpay in a future shutdown. that was included in the bill that president trump signed into law a few weeks back. the good news is that congress and the president don't have to go through the process of deciding whether or not they would get backpay, and of course passing legislation does that. this time, it's covered in the future. host: nicole reports for the federal news network. is this a government entity? guest: no, we report on news and

information for federal employees and managers, we are not associated with the government at all. to talkcole joining us about the resumption of work across washington. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is part of what is going on. people are concerned as washington gets back to work, the federal government starts to reopen and take care of things. this is part of the conversation we are having until 9:00. (202) 748-8000for democrats --for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. let's hear from bob, in pennsylvania. in queue for waiting go ahead. -- thank you for waiting, go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a couple comments about schultz, i'm very impressed hearing him talk about the real issues of what we have, because i think

it's very disappointing that the two groups, all they are doing is playing childish games. it's personality issues, it's not trying to manage the company -- country. on one side you have people who are against ice, and we are back at the transgender bathroom issue again. on the others, the republicans have not done a darn thing to try to get things resolved and get the country working together. i think it's very unfortunate, where are we as far as infrastructure? as far as these really important things. congress is kicked around -- has kicked around immigration without making policy for decades. the one gentleman that called earlier, i agree with him, these people just get in there and it's a lifetime employment for them. they are there to get reelected.

rocky, ins go to virginia, on the democrats line. caller: i apologize for the poor signal. arecalls i hear coming in an example of how the government is a reflection of us. we make convoluted issues out a simple things. a bathroom is a bathroom. you don't have a men's room and a ladies room in your house. you can go to the bathroom without committing a sex act. are we not civilized enough to share a common bathroom? walls, if they work, they work, if they don't, they don't. leave that to the experts and talk to the coast guard. we have the coast guard in afghanistan, but they are to protect our border, and not afghanistan, so why are they there? that was the issue with the listening to the

reporter from the national post talking about how complicated it is to pay these people after a shutdown. it's a simple thing. if you work you get paid and if you didn't you don't. host: cedric is next, from maine. caller: i have a couple comments . first about howard schultz, it would be great if he ran. it would be nice to see an independent running. , i think it'swall obvious that walls work. i'm not sure why democrats are trying to use that argument. this is what we need on the border. host: when it comes to mr. schultz, what impresses you about him? not so far left, , and ato abolish ice socialist. he is more of a centrist. that we arement is

all going to be watching tom brady eat at the rams. , in: this is from dewey indiana, on the republican line. hello. caller: hello. i just wondered, i'm thinking about these jobs where people don't get paid. are those jobs that good that she would wait around? host: why do you ask? that was my question. host: but why do you ask westmark what's behind it? -- if they wouldn't jobs are like that and you're not going to get paid, why wouldn't you get another job? int: that's a dewey, calling from indiana. the washington times takes a look at the tin -- continuing discussions between the united states and north korea. guy taylor writing the front page story saying that an economic package in the works for the country takes the

initiative to spearhead the issue. it has been touted in private working level talks with the north koreans and involves an escrow account to prove to mr. kim that the u.s. and its allies are committed to -- rewarding pyongyang economically if it denuclearize is. the state department has not commented publicly but sources familiar with the plan say it centers on the curing guarantees of billions of dollars from cash contributions from japan, south korea, and the european union. it would go towards north korean infrastructure and development. and there is something in washington concerning venezuela and sanctions. if you want to see more on that go to our website and see bolton speaking yesterday on that issue. if you want to find out more in light of international terms you can go to c-span.org. mark, from hyattsville, maryland, hello. caller: how is it going?

host: fine. --ler: my question would be i have been listening this morning and i have been wondering how people can really think that the folks in washington, d.c., and it's not all of them but the people in power, are doing a good job from the people they are supposed to be representing. this is probably the worst it are complexn, there with the united states and their skulduggery. these are represented electives -- represent election -- these are -- they really have not done a good job if you look over time in the long scheme of things. when you pick sides when you're supposed to be working together to make things better in this world we live in, how can people stand behind that and why his nothing changed? -- and why has nothing change?

they tell themselves all the time and they try to hide it and now it has gotten so bad they do stupid things right out in the open and nobody notices, like shutting people off their pay for two pay periods and throwing your hands up and saying not doing any work and they got paid up. -- paid anyway. so they had a two pay. vacation. host: cecelia, from mississippi, on the democrats line. caller: i'm here to say we are not a third world country or a dictatorial country, and to hold working people hostage that have done nothing wrong -- it seems like we are mimicking those people, instead of setting an .xample for a higher good and i think all of this is distraction because a bomb is not going to help us. i feel like it's orchestrated in the superpowers are the ones that work in a have to prepare

for and watch. emergency money from goings to build a wall is to hurt our military. so never, ever, treat the american people like we are some kind of third world country and for them in lines waiting food. that's just evil. host: that cecelia, in mississippi. facebook is the subject of a story in the wall street journal, particularly when it comes to efforts on political ads posted on its website. saying on monday, facebook described new aspects of how an outside group will review the companies content decisions, including the board's authority to reverse internal decisions about whether to allow or remove certain post. the story goes on to say when it comes to work on elections, they honor the new rules to prevent foreign interference, and

advertisers will have to be authorized to purchase political ads are issue-based ads. they have already created libraries for certain countries, including the u.s. and brazil and the library will rollout to other areas such as the entire e.u. before becoming available globally according to the company. from richard, in florida, you are next up. questions,ave some senator manchin is a democrat, and he has been down to the buttered -- the southern border and he advocates that he would vote for the wall. doesn'tion is why toumer and pelosi go down the borders, talk to the people there who are the experts, and get first-hand information and then come back, and maybe a few representative should go down there and tell pelosi what they

think. it's like the dog wagging the tail. or the wagging tail of the dog. that's all i can say. they need to tell her what they want. host: the viewer mentions chuck schumer, the senator speaking on the floor about the latest issues going forth to finding a compromise on border security. here's part of what he said yesterday. >> because we have set this up as a conference, democratic and republican leadership, house and senate, will be involved, as well as the appropriators and those committees. everyone has skin in the game. so for the next three weeks the golden committee should be to find areas where we agree and work on them together. in the past, when the president has stayed out of it, when the president has given congress room, we have been repeatedly able to forge bipartisan

agreements, including two budget agreements, the russian sanctions, when the president injects maximalist partisan demands into the process, negotiations tend to fall apart. the president should allow the conference committee to proceed with good faith negotiations. i genuinely hope it will produce something that is good for the country and acceptable for both sides. joining usis next, from virginia on the independent line. hello. caller: thank you, thank you for c-span. i wanted to comment on the howard schultz topic. i don't want to dismiss him specifically but the idea of a remodel -- of a moderate running, and i'd rather use that term because at some of the other colors talked about, independent doesn't always mean centrist or moderate, but really since the advent of cable news and social media, politics has become so polarized with us versus them.

i would like to see how it is handled when one of the candidates is not necessarily on one side or the other. with everyone going at -- would everyone go against them? would they take their side? host: do you think a third person spoils it for the republicans or the democrats? caller: it's tough to say, i think it depends on the person. i don't know if it would spoil it per se, one of the other callers was talking about how every person who voted for trump voted for him because of the wall. i think there's a good amount of people who voted for him despite his view on the wall, or against hillary clinton. it is tough to say whether that would happen. host: from lewis, on the line for democrats, from pennsylvania. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i have a couple comments.

i was in the service, and i have three sons who have been in the service as well as many nephews and cousins. i don't understand why people keep trying to send -- to say democrat shut the government down. nobody's talking about social security, i'm retired, and nobody's talking about social security. they could put that $11 billion in social security to help the people. but this way were not helping anybody. , in: that's lewis pennsylvania. alabama, bob, from huntsville. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i think it's immoral that nancy pelosi would keep up with the scrap going on on the borders so she could keep trump

from making a campaign promise of a wall. it's very political on the democratic side. the president is just trying to make things better for the united states. if walls don't work, why don't we take them all down from all the prisons. host: when it comes to 2020 politics, a story from the hill about joe biden saying that the former vice president says he is closer to making a decision on whether to run for president in 2020, saying he has not made up his mind. he was at an event at fort lauderdale on monday, saying he was a lot closer to make that decision. do not to is that i make this a fools errand. i'm closer than i was before christmas and i will make that decision soon. he said the election is critically important and he wanted to make sure he is the right person before jumping in the race, adding that the one thing that is for certain is that we are in a battle for america's soul.

i'm making a decision right now whether or not i am a right person because it's critically important that we change the atmosphere. these comments from joe biden yesterday. let's hear from catherine, in michigan, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment that walls work. all of these politicians have walls around their houses. why do they do that? that's to protect them and their families. and this is what president trump wants, he wants to protect us. it's craziness. , and all of them, when obama was in there they okayed putting up the wall. and now that president trump just -- do it they are anything he wants to do they are against. another thing i wanted to comment on is this investigation that has been going on since president trump was elected. this man has been under a

microscope since he was put into office. and they have found nothing. all of that money that has been spent on this investigation, could have been used to build that wall. i would like to hear some comments from other people, because i'm so disgusted with this investigation. they have come up with nothing as far as collusion, the whole from clinton, she paid for the dossier, wake up america. host: that's catherine from michigan, talking about the mueller investigation. there was a press conference at the justice department were some news came out from matt whitaker saying that when it comes to the probe, saying he says, from what he sees, it's near completion. there's the headline, you can see this if you want if you go to our website. when it comes to border issues

in the current negotiations between republicans and democrats with the white house, it was john cornyn on the floor of the senate yesterday, assessing what was going on and giving comment as to where the process is. at least the way he sees it. we havel people that solved problems like this every day in the united states congress. every single day. you don't read about it, or hear about it, because when we build consensus and negotiate compromises, it's not news. the only time is -- it is news , when wee disagree broadcast across table tv and are the subject of talk radio or social media. that dedicatede public servants were caught in the crosshairs over a partisan fight. what we have seen over the last month is that many members have desired to score those political points and win the fight against the president.

and that desire is much higher and greater than their desire to build legislation that benefits the american people. there is a solution to be had. we do it every day. the only question is are we willing to work together to find it? i am. and i have been speaking with many members of the texas delegation, republicans and democrats, to find the common ground for our constituents, for border security. we don't consider these to be political footballs or talking points, we consider these matters to be part of their daily lives and part of our responsibility as their elected representatives. next, fromt is michigan, on the independent line. caller: i don't get through much, and i can see what's going on. i read the bible all the time, and we have a bunch bloodsuckers out there. that's what i call bloodsuckers. they are the ones that should be

losing their paychecks, not these people out of their work. but that's not to happen because they control everything. it's all about taking this and making a worldwide government. there, trump in their -- anause he's irish and he's independent guy. he's not a republican or democrat, he's for christ. abortion is going to be turned over, and almighty god will step in to do it. this is what it is about. these people have their head in the sand, they're not paying attention, and a lot of people are not reading the bible. and a lot of people don't know jesus price -- jesus christ as their personal savior. host: and in virginia, good morning. caller: god did not put trump into office. god does not put people into office.

if god puts people in the office, it's to see if you will reject it or not, if you follow god, you don't follow the sin. republicans get together and they can pay for the wall, because those people on the other cited offense, they are -- on the other cited offense, they are scared -- on the others of the fence, they are scared. host: katie emison from the new york times is reporting that on the senate yesterday, a bill advanced which offered support to israel, saying the bipartisan israeltion reauthorized and jordan and oppose -- imposed additional sanctions providing support to the syrian government and republican leaders added a provision from marco rubio that aims to curtail support for the

bds movement, which seeks to pressure israel into ending occupation of the west bank. tim is next, on the democrats line from ohio. caller: hello. i have two things to say, if you give me the time. the first about the mueller with, they have come up seven or eight convictions, half of the people that were in his campaign are now in prison or in big trouble. so evidently he does not hire the best, he hires the most crooked. however he treated obama, you have to treat trump. thatreally irking me people are more emotion-based than fact-based, give people facts just because. fact-based society. the other thing is about the whole bible and jesus thing, i

do not force on other people because that is not what the bible says. as much asstian not i love jesus, then i love jesus'believes. a christian, are you do not like a solecism -- catholicism. homes, my wife had cancer, always had insurance, and then $250,000, lost my house . i was a union worker, made good money, got remarried, my ex w ife was nuts, so i got custody of the kids, my mom was ill -- but when she died, i ended up losing the house because i broke my neck and 2012 and she

died in 2014, so i could not afford to get my house. all while withes medical bills. our last call for the segment. go-ahead for you --. caller: i do believe that we need security at the point areas, but they come in other ways. what are we going to do, border the whole united states eventually? i do not think that is the answer. i don't. if you are a christian, you believe in jesus, how did all of these other people that got them a highest powers all over the world, got in and so much tragedy happened? wherem not quite sure president trump's heart lies.

last callthat is the on this topic. two more guests is joining us from this program. we are want to hear from a democratic legislator, the vice , all of the problems caucus, and then later, we will discuss the missile defense review that was announced earlier this month by the trump administration. the segment coming up on washington. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service. 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. >> lives super bowl sunday at noon eastern, author and sports writer is our guest on book tv's "in-depth. books including "game over: how politics is turn the sports world upside down." and his most recent, "jim brown". >> i love sports and that is why we need to fight for sports. if we are going to do so, what we need to do is know our history. that is our greatest ammunition in this fight. ofn he to know our history the athletes, the sports writers, and the fans who have stood up to the machine if for no other reason than for knowing this history allows us to look at this world and see that every aspectaffect

of life in this system, even in the ivory tower known as sports. >> join our live conversation with the author. that is live sunday at noon "in-depth."ook tv's that is on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by democrat tom suozzi, and he is the vice chair of what is known of the problem solvers caucus. good morning. guest: good morning. host: that caucus, what is it? guest: democrats and republicans trying to find common ground. we have done a good job of finding common ground but we cannot put anything on the floor in the last congress, so we had some influence on the criminal justice reform and some other things, but we would like to have more influence. is a what do you think

common ground approached keeping the government from shutting down again? guest: what is happening now is this conference committee is a big step forward with the senate and house working together, democrats and republicans. i heard senator schumer on your show earlier this morning where he was talking about, the president should stay out of it right now, let as do our job, let us find common ground, and i think that common ground means we have to have robust border security and do something about immigration reform. i've been young with this issue since i was first elected as mayor of my hometown 25 years ural and in my it inaug address, i talked about newcomers from south america gathering on street corners. theseeople saying, diget people out. and others saying, let's try to help them live the american dream. so we found common ground and my

little hometown 25 years ago, but we have not addressed it at the federal level for 25 years. let's finally do something for real. strong, robust border security and immigration reform that addresses the fact of dreamers and other folks that have been living here and playing by the rules for decades, going to work six days a week and church on sunday and trying to help them live the american dream. host: how much success is going to depend on the leadership, particularly speaker pelosi? will she be as open as you would like? inst: she is a major player this whole thing and she just had a big victory and the key is for her to move on and say, let's work together to find common ground. let's accept the fact that border security, which she has always set and the democrats away said is important -- we ands more on technology humanitarian aid and ports of entry and what we need to do as far as el salvador, guatemala,

honduras, but also physical barriers in certain locations where it makes sense. at the same time, let's see what we can do about the dreamers and other undocumented persons in this country. host: what about the $5.7 billion the president continues to talk about the is that a figure that you can accept? where do you stand? guest: i can support a lower figure, that figure, a higher figure -- any figure that gets to a deal that says let's finally address border security. 30 years that people have been coming over the border. el salvador, the civil war in the 1980's with tens of thousands of people trying to escape the violence. that was back in the 1980's and that has been going on since that time. let's finally address border security in a real way, democrats and republicans, and let's finally address at 11 million

plus people in this country that have been living your undocumented. host: our guest is with us until 9:30. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, an independents, (202) 748-8002. for those doing negotiating, is there a member from the problem solvers caucus doing that? guest: there is nobody assigned to that, but we are going to continue negotiating as a group. now we need to do it as the current negotiation. we will continue to work on and share our ideas. host: do you think that they capture the spirit of the problem solver? guest: anyone who comes to solve problems. everybody is so sick of this stuff. it is not the way it is perceived, most people really want to do the right thing. it is a matter of breaking through and actually getting to your mission of what you came

here for and the not being distracted by the base of both parties. solution is somewhere in the middle of people working together. on theou are also subcommittee of tax policy and oversight. as far as ways and means, now the democrats of power, what is the goal particularly in tax policy? guest: let me talk for me personally. the big issue is trying to reinstate the state and local tax deduction which was capped at $10,000. host: the republican tax plan -- really hurt my district, it hurt new york state, her to new york city, long island, and it hurt a lot of states that have high property taxes, income taxes, and they have had a state and local tax reduction since the days of the civil war. now it has been capped at $10,000. you'll be taxed on money that

you are paying to local and state governments. we do not think that is fair. that is a big personal priority for me. priority for the committee is going to be stuff we have been talking about for a long time. what do we need to do to help people increase their wages and united states of america? what do we need to do to decrease health care costs and prescription drug costs? we will have a hearing this morning which would be about protecting people with pre-existing conditions under the affordable care act. my personal priority is going to be to try to push the issue of state and local tax reduction. host: when it comes to pre-existing conditions, what is the way forward? guest: the republicans talk to during the campaign, for the first two years, the president and the republicans tried to dismantle the aca. there are a host of milestones that happened over the last two years. i'm not going to going to all of them. em would have on

done the protection for pre-existing conditions. now we are going to have a hearing that shows clearly that 4 million people have lost their health care under the trump administration that had had it previously before the president came into office and the republicans had control of the senate and house. and some people with pre-existing conditions are as serious -- at a serious threat. what can we do to protect those folks? one thing the chairman has pushed is a lot more hearings. a process of bringing in at birds to listen to what they have to say so democrats and republicans can find common ground. bill last year, we did not have hearings on it. how is that possible? you do not bring in the experts. you need to know the consequences of your actions and having hearings is a big part of that. host: the first call comes from new york, this is pamela. you are on with representative

tom suozzi. caller: hello, how are you? guest: ok, what county is your city in? it is primarily a republican county, livingston county. guest: i actually ran for governor back in 2006, and i got been very badly. [laughter] caller: i have a question about this problem with the border wall. the democrats are constantly seeming to be blamed for not wanting to do etc. what i would like you to explain er was with the democrats for the border security in relation to spending that amount of tax money. i know our wonderful governor cuomo is against burdening the new york taxpayer with the border wall. i would like you to explain what offer was presented to the

president regarding the border security, not necessarily the wall. guest: let me go back to one thing you said about governor cuomo and spending taxpayer money, new york is the highest donor stay in the united states. theend a lot more money to federal government and our federal income taxes -- 36 to $48 billion more in income taxes than we get back and federal investment. we are the biggest net donor stay in the united states. takers, neware net york state is a net donor. wall, thethe border democrats supported border security for a long time. most recently proposed putting up $1.8 million for additional border security. democratstly, other have said, we will spend $5 billion on border security, but we want 21st century board security and not medieval. we want to see radar, drones,

x-ray machines, dog sniffers, and more custom agents, and more immigration judges at the port of entry -- doing things that make sense in the 21st century and not just physical barriers. that is not the say that i personally -- i would personally support physical barriers as a part of a deal, especially places where there are physical structures already, though we need to enhance them, or places that are identified by homeland security, but let's also focus on 21st-century solutions that experts say it is the best way to do it. but i want to be very clear, i personally would only support border security if we could also get immigration reform married. let's not to waste the crisis. let's try and work together to solve the problem. i should have said earlier in the show -- it is so unfair to the federal workers that have been held hostage during this process.

a law families have suffered. there is going to be times where the president does not get their way, the republicans do not get their way, but that is a part of governing. you do not shut down the government. at bananaat happens republic. that is not supposed to happen in the greatest country in the world. let's figure out to try to do what we have always done to negotiate and figure out these problems and not hold federal employees hostage while we do not get our way. host: republican line from stan in maryland. caller: hi, real quick. i am a trump supporter. for many of us, the wall is more symbolic than anything else. at least he brought the conversation to the table. we are all talking about the border and before he came on the scene, nobody was talking about the issue. and i heard heart, the other person that recently came up -- he said it took him 10 years to become a citizen. that is ridiculous. we need to find a compromise and work together.

maybe rather than punishing the s, and find a path for them, we should reward the people who did at the right way like the whole chain migration thing. if you did at the right way, you get to bring in 10 or 20 of your relatives a lot easier, maybe reward the people who do it the right way. give them an incentive to do it the right way rather than punishing the people who do it the wrong way. say, you are just a republican, you are a trump supporter, and you are saying things that sound pretty reasonable quite frankly. i think that you are right. a law of the things that you said, the wall has become symbolic. it is really about focusing on the issue of board security, and that is a good thing. people have the focus on border security and immigration reform. that is a positive thing that has come out of this negative experience. people are focused on this. i hope and everyone's hope is

that the next three weeks will result in this laserlike focus on finally addressing a problem that we have had for three decades. what you said is very encouraging th you said -- is very encouraging. i think that most people feel that way, they want to solve the problem once and for all. let's treat people like human beings. i talked earlier that 25 years ago, i was elected mayor of my hometown, and the day workers on the street corners. one of the things i said is we are looking at this complicated problem -- some people say, get those people out of here and others say, let support them getting the american dream -- we need to look at the basic american principle. are createdwomen equal. not all men and women with a green card or a passport, but all men and women are created equal, regardless of where they are from our what their skin is, their status, or the language they speak -- everyone should be

treated with human respect and dignity. addressgure out how to this problem in a way that is fair, that recognizes that some people came in illegall andd they are human beings and their families. we need to figure out people who are trying their best to be a part of our society are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families and are contributing to our country and how they can have legal status in this country. mayor 25 years ago, those same guys have their own businesses as landscapers and contractors, and they own their own homes. -- their kids went to school with my kids. let's treat people as human beings. host: you and other problem solvers had a chance to meet with the president earlier this month. what do you think about his interest in resolving it? guest: i have to believe, it is

hard with the president sometimes because of the way he talks about things in the way he treats people sometimes, but i think he sincerely wants to solve the problem. a problem.rity is undocumented people living in our country is a problem. i think he is now invested so much political capital as well during the campaign with people saying, what are we going to do? build the wall. who is going to pay for it? mexico. he is so invested in that now, he is kind of stuck. now we need to let the congress, let the house of representatives and senate, democrats and republicans, work together for a compromise to find common ground that they can accept. people who are willing to negotiate and focused on negotiating to solve this once and for all. and then put it on his desk for signature. host: if it were approved, it would automatically revert who dos and departments

not get funding to revert -- is that something you can support? guest: i think shutdowns are so irresponsible. i do not know the exact answer, but it sends the wrong message and that is so unfair to the employees. there are people who live paycheck to paycheck. a lot of americans live paycheck to paycheck. polling hasple, show that more than half the american people could not handle a $500 unexpected expense. the idea that government employees are being held hostage because of a fight between the president and the congress, it is just not fair. it is not right. host: new york is next, this is linda. caller: hi, thank you. i do not understand why if there they need a where physical barrier, they do not come out with the cost of that.

and tell the people what the cost of that is versus what trump wants $5.7 billion -- is that the cost for these actual places where the barrier needs to be? i would like to see the facts and the figures so that you can understand how much money this $5.7 billion is. i do agree with you, what you said. it needs to encompass the immigration judges, the other technology that is needed there, but i would like to see -- please lay out what you actually have in the cost and do you have the ok's to build their from the land owners -- what is it? i've not seen anybody tell me what is it. guest: i cannot believe how reasonable all of the callers are so far. it probably will not last, right, pedro?

but what you just said -- you have to have hearings. yet the bring in the experts, in this case people from homeland security to come in and lay out the details for your homeland security -- -- the details. homeland security is really asking for 200 miles of physical barrier. miles of but 200 physical barrier in certain locations. as you pointed out, a lot of property is privately held, rivers, mountains, you have to look at the terrain, who the land owners are, so they are asking for 200 miles, not 2000 miles. we have to look at that is how much is repairer, how much of that is new. willook at how much it cost for each of the locations, what type of physical barrier it will be, but more importantly, what is the effectiveness of it and the cost-effectiveness of it

compared to using radar and drones. compared to using personnel. bulking up the ports of entry to make them modern facilities so they can handle the people that are coming through. to make sure that there immigration judges that can process the cases. to make sure there are places that cannot live in squalor when they are in these facilities. what you are saying is very reasonable and that is exactly what the congress should be doing. i think many people in congress want to be doing -- and you will see under the democrats, there is a big commitment to more to build transparency, more bipartisanship, and more hearings where things are fact based and not just the rhetoric of the base of both sides. just watch fox news and msnbc. to the base of the republicans and democrats, nothing will get accomplished.

the key to success in democracy is the people participation. that is why this show is so important. if you listen to the callers today, everything they have been saying thus far is reasonable. i am a a guy say, trump supporter. the wall is more symbolic. that is reasonable. .ost: parents -- terrance, hi caller: the reason i am calling is, i would like to ask the gentleman there why we do not oa plants down we have all of the technology to do that? we have a bigger problem than most people think with coal cane . we are building an army -- cocaine. we are building an army of people here. when my daughter was in ninth

grade, she went to a party, and the parents were in on and they got her addicted to cocaine. then they control everything. they got a budget that you cannot match. i think the border wall would be a good thing. what is goingop on with that because it is getting out of hand. people do not realize right here in our backyard, there is a war going on now. just wondered why nobody is with theuff, technology we have, why do we not just go down there and take our harmony and burn down the fields. guest: listen, i can understand how frustrated you must be, and i'm so sorry you had to go to that personal tragedy yourself with your daughter. there is a major problem with our country right now, and a lot ids,t is related to opio

and a lot of the overdoses are happening because of fentanyl, which is coming through china and sometimes the southern border. most of the drug that come through america are actually coming through the legal ports of entry and are being smuggled cars, built trucks, into the walls of the vehicles. dog we need are more sniffing to sniff out the drugs, x-ray machines that can actually what is going on inside of these vehicles when they come through the legal ports of entry. a law the drugs that are not coming through the areas that they're talking about putting fence. they are coming through big vehicles through the ports of entry, but we do not have the proper technology to go after it. i know a lot of times, people want the answer to be let's go bomb it or blair and -- or burn it up.

we after member, these are sovereign countries and we cannot go in there. a lot of problems we have in america is the drug crisis coming through the port of entry, but just as importantly, it is a health crisis in the united states. a lot of people got addicted to prescription drugs, opioids that because ofibed a sprained ankle or wisdom tooth taken out. , andr someone took them then once i got hooked, they could not get a prescription drugs anymore solicited using cheap heroin. ands a health crisis we also need to do the border security, especially a ports of entry. host: this is clint from texas, republican line. caller: yeah, hello. good morning. guest: hey, how you doing. caller: trying to stay vertical.

, i haveion to you is not taken any political science however, i cannot see why the house, the senate cannot get together, propose a bill unanimously, send it to the president -- which obviously, if there is not a wall and it, he is not going to sign -- sin it back to the house in the senate, and send it veto, on. guest: what you are saying can be done, but something is very important for you to understand. one of the challenges in the country today is that a lot of people are in safe seats. there are 435 seats in the house of representatives for you all -- 480 seats are

representatives. 380of the 435 seats, are safe. only way you can lose is by losing a primary. very few people bow in the primaries. for the republicans, it is the far right typically. for democrats, it is the far left. to overriden dares a veto of the president, they are going to lose their next primary. if you look at the polling, the base, the far right, supports the president unconditionally. if you dare to say, i disagree with you, you are probably going to lose your next race. there is a famous book called "profiles" by john f. kennedy. it is a very small book.

it is very hard to stand up against your party, your with the risk of losing the next primary. i hope that i will have the courage to stand up and do what i think is right when the moment calls for me to do what is right even if it goes against my party sometimes. but that is very hard to do in politics. everyonee safe seats, worried about their base, it is hard to do. i do not have one of those safe seats, but it is great for my constituents because i have to find common ground. ist: part of your background time as a public account. there is a story from bloomberg saying that for a second, you will have to borrow $20 trillion to satisfy our deficit. guest: the deficit is a major problem and the republicans always say they are fiscal hawks when a democrat is in office,

but now that there is a republican in office, we do not see them being fiscal hawks. we just blew this deficit by doing that trillion dollar tax cut. we do not see that fiscal rectitude taking place right now. when interest rates go up, the money we have to pay back, the principal plus the interest is going to go up dramatically. americans are going to be stuck with that bill. we have to be more responsible. we cannot afford to give tax cuts to the wealthiest in the america just because, i do not know why it happened, quite frankly. we cannot increase the spending on everything. we are spending more money than ever. i was on armed services before i was on ways and means, but you cannot tell me of the $750 billion in armed services, we cannot find efficiencies. for the first time in america's

history, it has gotten very little press, there have been audits done of the department of defense. for the first time ever in the history of america, there were audits done on the department of defense. most of those audits could not be issued an opinion because they do not have oper -inventories of how many buildings we have, munitions we have -- we do not have proper accounting of cash balances. we do not proper accounting of a whole bunch of different things. i get excitedcpa, by this kind of thing. it is not sexy, but we need to drill in on those audits. we have hundreds and hundreds of software systems in the department of defense that cannot communicate with each other. so you cannot push a button and say, give me a list of all the planes we haven't where they are and how old they are and what the depreciation is on them and -- we should be able to

push a button and do that. i should be able to ask someone in the department of defense, the armored vehicles we have and where are they. that should not be difficult to get the information. but we do not have reliable data on that right now on the department of defense. that is not to criticize this administration because it has been going on for decades. that is to say that we know what the problem is, inventories, software programs that match each other -- we have to now address those problems to make it better. host: representative tom suozzi of new york is the vice chair of the problem solvers caucus, thank you for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up, we are going to talk with andrew clevenger. the topic, the president's missile defense review and what it means for the missile defense of the united states. the conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪ live super bowl sunday at

noon eastern, author and sports writer is our guest on book tv's "in-depth." author of many books including "game over: house -- how politics have turned the sports world upside down." >> i love sports and that is why i think we need to fight for sports. we need to reclaim them and we need to take sports back. if we are going to do so, we need to know our history. that is our greatest ammunition in this fight. theory of the athletes, sports, and the fans who have stood up to the machine. foror no other reason but knowing this history allows us to look at this world and see that struggle can affect every aspect of life in the system, even the ivory tower known as sports. >> join our live three-hour conversation with your calls, emails, tweets, and facebook questions live sunday afternoon eastern on book tv's "in-depth."

that is on c-span2. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service by america's cable-television companies. today we continue to bring you on filtered 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. host: joining us now, andrew roll call, heq's is here to talk about the recent announcement of missile defense review. good morning. what is it and what is its purpose? guest: the missile defense review is an analysis and assessment of the threat to the united states and its allies

that come from foreign countries by a missile. host: when it comes to the review process, why does it need regular reviews and what things going to consideration for that? really sets pentagon policy for how it wants to go about defending against missile strikes. this is the first new review since 2010. that was the last time the president, the administration did a missile-defense review. back then, it was called ballistics missile defense review. this review takes away the ballistic, meaning, it is embracing a wider array of threats. host: when it comes to the actual threats that leads up to the review, there is a line that i want you to bounce off. based on thers recognition that the environment is more dangerous for both homeland and regional defense. tell us why. the mainaditionally,

concern has been a ballistic missile coming from a rogue state. someone like north korea or iran, out of the blue, sort of striking without notice. we have geared our defenses toward that type of threat. but recently a technologies have advanced, there are more regional weapons that can hit quickly add a closer range and russia and china which the pentagon has identified are are near peer competitors in the great power competition, have developed more advanced weapons including hypersonic weapons which move fast, and unlike a ballistic missile, they can maneuver so you cannot just plot it's course and figure out where it is coming down. you have to track in real-time. host: missile defense is our topic for the last half hour. if you want to ask our guest

questions, we have divided a line for central time zone, (202) 748-8000, for the mountain pacific time zones (202) and perhaps you are military and have special interest on this, it is (202) 748-8002. let's hear for the president -- from the president. [video clip] review callsour for 20 new ground-based interceptors at fort briley, alaska. immediately detect foreign missiles launched against our great nation. are committed to establishing a missile-defense program that can shield every city in the united states and we will never negotiate a way our right to do this. host: certainly not exhaustive, but what is the rationale? guest: the 20 ground-based

have already been off the rise and a down payment has been paid by congress. those are going to go to fort greely, alaska. the u.s. already has 40 ground-based interceptors there. it is an ambitious commitment to defend against any missile strike anywhere. i do not think the pentagon is quite prepared to do that. there are other ways to defend against missile strikes. host: if you go to the website for the missile defense, the gives you three examples of how the defend against missiles. there is a midcourse of the terminal, walk us through the capabilities we have. section is when an enemy missile has just been fired and is just coming up, probably out of the ground, and

is gaining altitude and speed. the advantage of hitting it turf,is it's on their you are less worried about a hitting its target, and it is not going quite as fast. then a ballistic missile will take a long mid course flight as it travels across the globe. theill probably leave atmosphere and then have to navigate reentry. that gives a fairly lengthy window to try and hit it. of course, it is going quite quickly at this point. and it is far away. that's posing its challenges. really highense is stakes because if you miss, it is right on top of your target and you might not get another shot. host: that is what you don't want? guest: that is what you don't want. host: when it comes the

capabilities? guest: was a ground-based interceptors are designed to be midcourse. it takes that long period where it is arcing over the globe. the pentagon would like to get at the boost phase. there is the missile-defense review that authorizes study to look at arming and f-35, so our latest fighter jet, with a missile that is capable of downing an enemy missile and boost phase. that is technically very tricky to do. but the pentagon thinks it can be done. host: how advanced and the technology side are we at stopping missiles and how has that progress over the last decades? guest: we are pretty advanced. alwaystagon would like to have greater capabilities and the pentagon recognizes that our peers are not standing still and they are advancing their own capabilities. a hypersonic missile poses a

serious challenge. to get at that, the missile defense review wants to put a sensor in space so you can have birth to death tracking. with a hypersonic, it is not like a ballistic missile where you can calculate its course and figure out where it is coming down for you have to track it added is in moving -- you have to track it as it is moving. host: before we get to the calls, a price tag for all of these? guest: is going to be very expensive. the 20 ground-based interceptors i mentioned before that congress already put a down payment on at a bulk of $5 billion emergency funding for the pentagon a little more than a year ago. we have not seen a price tag for a lot of the things the missile-defense review proposes. we are hoping to see in the pentagon's budget submission which we hope to see in february but that might be delayed.

host: for central time zones, it is (202) 748-8000, mountain pacific time zones (202) 748-8001, and active or retired military and you want to give your thoughts (202) 748-8002. ,ur guest andrew clevenger defense policy reporter for cq roll call. we will start with michael, you are on. caller: hi, mr. clevenger. i just came in on the show, and you were talking about how they deviate course and all. i was wondering if there was some type of electromagnetic disorient anyould possible electronics on such a missile. that is not a concept i am familiar with or i have heard talked about a lot in the pentagon.

one thing to remember with a law of the hypersonic weapons is some of them fire initially and then are actually gliding. it needs very little maneuvering of fins to change its course. i am not sure that an electromagnetic weapon would be able to disrupt that, but that is probably something the pentagon is looking into. host: of you were off of twitter asking to about inf, please explain where they are and where we are walking away from the treaty. guest: it looks like we are walking away from the treaty. host: what is an inf? guest: that would be a nuclear treaty designed to reduce the wheres of nuclear weapons and that case, the u.s. and russia have aimed at each other. both those countries have somebody nuclear weapons that the opponent could not hope to

shoot them all down. mutually assured the structure and is really the key deterrent to that. the treaty looks like we are walking away from them. the u.s. feels that russia is not in compliance, and it does not see the point in remaining in a treaty when your partner is not playing by the same rules. host: you mentioned that china and russia are the obvious. what about threats from the other places such as the middle east? where are we as far capabilities for that? east, theree middle is sophisticated regional network of smaller defenses that to geted around the area at some of the shorter range threats that might come out of iran. iran has quite a striking distance. it can reach parts of europe with the capabilities we believe they have.

thet bulk sped up at all, concern is that it can eventually reach the continental u.s.. host: james is next. good morning. there is a really good website, i wonder if andrus familiar with -- andrew is familiar with public integrity.org. here we are $23 trillion in debt. vetad was a world war ii and he only said that war should never be wall street traded for profit. what he thinks about the biblical passage james 4:2. the cause of war is greed. guest: the development of a

massive industry in terms of -- theng this country missile-defense portion of the think is theot part that is going to necessarily break the bank. the causes of war are very tough to get at and above my pay grade, so i will leave that to the planners. host: from california, george is next. caller: hi, good morning. richard, ingo to ohio, go ahead. caller: good morning. i followed his industry to a irtain extent and anyway, read about what china is developing as far as different kinds of missiles. we got maybe 44 defense muscles to stop icbms, but what if they launch 2000?

and frankly, how many cities in the united states have to be nuked to destroy this country? i think what we are doing is crazy. we are trying to pick a fight with china over trade for crying out loud. this is going to get freaking out of hand because we are going around trying to intimidate them militarily and they are going to do the same thing to us. economically speaking, they can produce missiles a lot cheaper than we can. what do you think about that? guest: you raise a great point. having 44 ground-based interceptors is not a blanket deterrent against any missile lost our way from that side of the pacific. i think they are designed to more towards a rogue strike perhaps towards north korea where you do not anticipate a massive wave of missiles you are describing. so far, the best deterrent

against that strike has been the fact that we can hit them back. if you launch missiles at us, you will be staring at 2000 missiles coming back to you, and that is the end of the ballgame. host: because missile-defense depends on alliances with countries and we have a president who sometimes is very critical of allies, how does that rhetoric factor into these longer-term negotiations with nuclear accords and treaties? does it have an impact? guest: it does. some of our allies are very nervous because the rhetoric he uses and the questioning nato's defense spending, suggesting that our allies are getting a the allies rely on u.s. commitments to keep them safe. if the u.s. were to draw back ,ignificantly from south korea

japan would be very nervous. koreare very close north and north korea certainly has the capability of hitting them quickly and easily. so it is important to reaffirm these commitments to keep our allies confident. host: gerard from georgia. caller: hey, how you doing. there was some, news about a month or two ago about russia having a way to scramble the gps system. we had some exercises and they had a way to scramble them. our gps would not be used. thethe other thing, tommy moore, everybody would die , nobody would survive. that is tommy moore. guest: thanks. a nuclear exchange would be devastating and frankly, a nuclear weapon across

the globe would be a devastating loss of life, and that is the incentive to not let that happen. capabilities, they are very good at electronic warfare is as you mentioned. gps and able to disrupt that would be challenging to the pentagon. but of course, the pentagon has more than one type of sensor to rely on, so that is not the whole ballgame if the gps is knocked out. to thef you go missile-defense agency, there are pictures of the various items that are used in this idea of missile-defense. how does the defense contractor comment all of that? guest: well -- come in to all of that? a, missile-defense is a hugely challenging enterprise and there is a lot to coordinate. if you are talking about striking an incoming icbm, first you have to be aware of its

launch, the second you have to have sensors that are able to tell you where it is going, and then you have to have the capability to get your interceptor in front of it so that they can collide. it has been described as shooting a bullet with a bullet. contractor, ite really requires a martian of resources and often they have to work together because one company will do a sensor that works and feeds information to the missile that another company will develop. top defensee the contractors and how much are they getting paid to develop and keep this technology going? the maineing is contractor on the ground-based interceptors. raytheon has an extensive business. askheed martin missile-defense systems, that is part of the regional that the

u.s. and allies the -- allies deploy. it is a billion dollar industry. host: we will hear from mark. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i am wondering why we spend seminars $70 billion on defense, the russians only spend $60 billion, the chinese only spent approximately the same. you mean to tell me that we cannot control the world like we are now and to mr. kim was to lay off one nuke, they have 200 coming back at him -- i do not believe it is going to do that. it is a false claim and a waste of money. guest: you raise a good point, top defenses spending globally, but the pentagon is very clear. our adversaries and potential adversaries are catching up. they have not been sleeping while the u.s. has been busy in conflicts in the middle east.

in fact, they have been going to school on american capabilities and working very hard. they have good scientists and engineers. they have working very hard to develop capabilities that can not just counter ours but surpass ours. i think the pentagon is playing a little bit of catch-up in these missile-defense regions and that is going to be expensive. --t: letter from angelo, let's hear from angelo, massachusetts. caller: how far away come from knocking down missiles with lasers? guest: that is a great issue and something that is contemplated in the missile-defense review. they are calling for a study of six months to produce a report on the feasibility of that. it sounds like something out of science fiction, but lasers in space is not that far-fetched. having a laser that can disrupt while it icbm

section isidcourse not so far-fetched. host: a couple of topics to talk about, space force. we heard a lot about this last year. where are we as far as the development of this? guest: the pentagon is doing the organizational steps that it is capable of doing without congress. acting secretary patrick shanahan recently by memo designated under secretary of defense michael griffin to oversee the space development agency. that is sort of the hub of acquiring assets for space, overseeing the parts you need to assemble a space force. whatremains to be seen is the pentagon's budget request looks like in terms of specific

money for the space force, and whether congress buys in. a lot of the changes necessary are going to have to be authorized by congress. host: and the purpose of space force, what is it? u.s. has a law of assets that are in space already. a lot of gps satellites are up in space, and if we are going to space, we aree in going to need to defend those amongst thesly capabilities that china and russia are developing -- the ability to get at our assets. this riseometimes as juicy targets by the pentagon and they need to be defended. host: washington states, maria, hello. caller: hello, how are you doing? host: fine, go ahead. caller: ok.

my question is the waterways of the philippines, when macarthur toe back from world war ii help us in the philippines, the waterways are very important to the navy. abade navy system themselves? guest: i'm not quite sure where you are going with that and the waterways of the philippines. host: if you go to the mba website, the naval aspect of it? just: the navy does not have radar, but it has defensive missiles that are on board ships. it is a key element of our

theonal defenses to have system on board of the missile destroyers. the navy has a key role to play in regional missile-defense. host: what do you mean by that? is -- i'm going to mess of the acronym here but act ive -- i will not even try. it is a radar sensor system. host: lorenzo joins us from louisiana. he is also calling on our line for those who are active or retired military. hello, go ahead. caller: yes. i was calling on a couple of things. states, they are talking about the wall. we have only been attacked twice and that was once by the airplanes from the saudi's and the other time was the russians in the election. the wall is not going to be up to stop that.

when ier thing is that iraq, i there in wanted to give a shout out to those guys. they knocked down everything saddam tried to throw. don't fear russia and to do not fear china. they have no way to deal with america. i do not appreciate getting on the republican and all this information out to the public. stuff, evenret though it has been unclassified, i do not think we should be putting fear and americans talking about what china can do and what russia can do. host: thank you. good point,aise a one that the patriot system was very successful during the gulf war invasion.

that remains a key system for regional missile-defense. success is something our competitors to close note of and started working very hard to counter out that -- counteract that. i take your point about not wanting to talk to carefully about our capabilities, but you lose some of the deterrent effect of our capabilities if you do not let your adversary no that you can stop of what they are contemplating. -- some of what they are contemplating. it is good for china and russia to know that a volley of nuclear weapons is going to meet with a volley of nuclear weapons coming back at them. that is a very effective the -- deterrent. theyorth korea, thinking might be able to slip one missile through, it is good to telegraph that we are able to knock that. host: