johnson of ohio. also democratic congressman marc veasey joins us to talk about border security negotiations and other priorities for the 116th congress. [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] ♪ committeeconference on homeland security appropriations, the group tasked to find a border security solution to avoid a shutdown will meet at 1:30 this afternoon. you can watch that on c-span 3. it is the "washington journal" for january 30. the heads of the cia, fbi, and national center of intelligence -- talked about the threats facing the united states. the foreignt on threats -- we wanted to get your

thoughts on the trump administration's ability to meet threats from foreign countries. you can give us your thoughts on the phone lines. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republican. 202-748-8002 for independents. if you want to post on our social media feed, you can do so @cspanwj on twitter and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. the associated press did a recent poll taking a look at fox -- thoughts on foreign policy by the trump administration and the confidence in the administration's ability to meet those threats. this paul says the president receives -- this poll says the president receives low marks. like other issues, the partisan divide is startling. 76% of republicans approving and 8% of democrats saying the same.

turning to involvement in foreign wars, 39 percent of americans approve of the president pulling 2000 american troops from syria and 35% saying they disapprove. the president's decision supported by 56% of republicans and 26% of democrats. the topic of foreign threats, the topic of a hearing with three heads, the head of the cia, fbi, and the head of the national intelligence -- department of national intelligence. you can see that full hearing at c-span.org. the headline of the washington .ost highlights the differences highlighting when it comes to countries that are discussed, china and russia were working together to challenge u.s. leadership, undermining democratic governments and gaining military and technologically -- technological

--erior -- superior to technological superiority over the united states. bodiesced international that set rules and standards around information technology and collaborate around the same goal of rising doubts in some places about the liberal democratic model. that whole hearing at c-span.org . it to the idea of foreign threats weather from china, russia, or other places across the united states and the current administration's ability to meet those is where we want to get your thoughts. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. an independents, 202-748-8002. on the topic of russia, it was dan coats testifying and giving his thoughts on the current status of relations with that country. here is some of what he had to say [video clip] >> we expect russia will

continue to wage its information war against democracies and use social media to attempt to divide. the latest example of the kremlin's willingness to violate international norms, coerce neighbors, and accomplish goals. we expect russia will use cyber techniques to influence ukraine's upcoming presidential election. the kremlin has aligned russia regimes.essive moscow's relationship with beijing is closer than it has been in many decades. the kremlin is stepping up engagement in the middle east, africa, and southeast asia using weapon sales, private security firms, and energy deals to advance global influence. host: more from that hearing available at c-span.org. we posted this question this morning.

some of the responses go as such. nancy saying when it comes to his foreign policy advisers in which you heard from one contradicting everything the president says, no confidence at all. the last -- less foreign crises we are involved in, the better. it is not our job to babysit everyone else. he has done more positives than previous administrations. this is allen in brooklyn, new york, democrats line. you are first up, go ahead. caller: good morning. foreign policy is at the center the trumpblem with apparent deal with soviet russia because russia has a very different interest than we do. russia is far north then the

united states with a boundary on nonnavigableat is for centuries and a lot of territory that has been unbearable because it has been frozen most of the year and they have a natural interest seeing global warming progress that we do not have. change, trumpmate a moreing make russia economically successful place because warming helps to become more of an agricultural economy and shipping economy and helps the military. host: let's hear from willie in annapolis, maryland. caller: the last caller just about stole my thunder somewhat. i think what is happening with what we have in the white house now. a lot of these countries don't want to go into a physical war. they are influencing what we are doing with what we are doing.

was watching roger stone, i was surprised i saw people. i don't know what these nuts were doing, it look like they were waving russian flags. host: why are you more concerned about technological aspects rather than military aspects? once we have a nuclear confrontation, that's the end of the world. they know they cannot fight us physically. they are getting inside of our heads by influencing our elections. that is the thing that scares me. host: there is another story below the one i read from. was russiang it officials offering when it comes to north korea a secret nuclear deal. in exchange for north korea dismantling the nuclear weapons program, moscow offered that

country a nuclear power plant. the offer, which at halogens and officials were made aware of in late 2018 marked a new attempt by moscow to intervene in high-stakes nuclear talks as it reasserts itself in a string of geopolitical flashpoints. ee is next from texas. host: -- caller: good morning. i think not only is trump compromise, but a majority of the republican party is compromised. i don't know why we downplay the fact the nra was infiltrated by russian operatives and money was flowing through the nra to the republicans. i don't think that money just went to trump. i think it went to a number of republicans and i think that is why they are so in lockstep with everything the president does no matter how crazy or against american interest it is. host: how does that influence

larger foreign crisis issues? caller: if they are compromised, he basically has to do the bidding of putin in order for his secret to remain a secret and i think the republicans, many of them have taken the same money and that is why they cannot go against trump publicly because the entire party has been infiltrated. , on: from indiana -- iowa the democrats line, joe. hello. caller: i totally agree with the previous caller, she is right on the money. think about what the russians have control over in america, they have the three branches of government, the nra, and the republican party. they are also responsible for the right to bear arms and stand your ground, it's all about arming them against real americans. we need to wake up and pay attention. host: when it comes to the three

branches of government, how exactly do the russians have control? caller: they have the president. host: how so? caller: he is compromised, that is how so and they have the judicial branch because of the president. and they have the congress, the house and the senate. explain to me how they don't have please. host: if you can explain -- expand on those explanations on how you think they have the supreme court, the house, and senate. caller: self-explanatory, i just explained it to you. we don't want to confuse people, this is the way it is. host: john on the republican line from. nylund, new york. caller: hello. -- staten island, new york. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: it seems that all that comes on is anti-trumpers. this hasn't been going on in russia for 30 years? that told --ma

wasn't it obama after the last election that told putin i can do more. the: your confidence in administration to handle these foreign crises? caller: i think he has reestablished us around the world as a world leader. host: how so. give me an example? caller: how so. we are not bowing all over the world anymore. people are taking us seriously. he made everyone contribute more to the u.n., which will defend the world. host: okay. kenneth from missouri, independent line. , america.od morning all these democrats get on here every morning and say stuff against the president and everything else and i cannot prove nothing. if you are going to get on there and say something, prove it.

prove your point. if you can't prove it, it is nothing but bias. host: when it comes to the confidence in foreign affairs, what would you give us examples of this current administration's handling of them? caller: a lot better than any other president in the last 30 years. host: give me an example. caller: did any of them go to north korea and talk to the north korean leader except trump? host: okay, that is an example. that is some of the sampling for the first couple minutes of this program. foreign threats is the topic. the confidence you have in this administration's ability to meet these threats. you heard from dan coats talk about russia earlier. made other statements including when it came to the topic of china from that hearing yesterday. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> in its efforts to diminish u.s. influence and extend its own economic, political, and military rate, beijing will seek

to tout a chinese fusion of strongmen autocracy in a form of western-style capitalism as a developing model and implicit alternative to democratic values and institutions. these efforts will include the use of intelligence and influence apparatus to shape international views and gain advantages over competitors including especially the united states. china's pursuit of intellectual property, sensitive research and development plans and a u.s. person data remains a significant threat to the united states government and the private sector. host: usa today takes another look at relations between china and the united date. this is thomas saying beijing fired back tuesday over criminal charges against a chinese huawision giant huaewai --

ei. the company stole trade secrets, violated trade sanctions, committed wire fraud u.s.g" "for some time the has been using power to -- in an attempt to strangle lawful and legitimate operations. that was the chief foreign ministry spokesman adding that behind these practices are deep political intentions and manipulations. we urge the u.s. stop unreasonable bashing on chinese companies including huawei and treat them objectively and fairly." negotiators on trade meet in the united states with u.s. counterparts talking about those issues. all that falling under the banner of foreign affairs, foreign threats and your confidence in the administration to meet those. vernon in south carolina, you are next. caller: thank you.

host: vernon from south carolina, hello? caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i want to know why. host: hello? -- caller: hello? i am here. host: turn down the tv and go ahead with your statement. caller: i want to know why they soe so much problems with -- much problems with the president that can be fired. somebody has got to be accountable for everything. who is accountable for him? host: tony in maryland, independent line. caller: yes, i have no confidence at all and i am there to figure out since seems to be, according to trump, a national crisis at the border, that this issue was not even brought up to a threat to this country. it wasn't mentioned by the

intelligence directors at all. host: when you say you have no confidence, what do you base that on? caller: i base it on what i just said. host: you need to stop asking people -- caller: you need to stop asking people questions. they come on the air to talk. host: i am only asking you to expand on things you have already said. caller: you don't need to do that. you need to let people come on, voice their opinions, and hush. host: david is next. from alabama, democrats line. caller: hi, pedro. how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i have no confidence in the administration. russia's involvement in our democracy is greater than i have ever seen. we have a country divided fighting against each other. it is an about democrat or

republican. this administration has infiltrated our country with russia. that ond you are basing the russian influence of the election? caller: i am basing that on everything this administration has done, has diminished us around the world. the president. i have nothing against trump but one thing, he is not capable of being the president of the united dates of america. ryan, servingfrom as a diplomatic resident at princeton university. histaliban is his topic in op-ed this morning, adding he was ambassador to afghanistan and concerned about the current negotiations. ryan writing this current unfortunates an resemblance to the paris piece talks in the vietnam -- paris

peace talks in the vietnam war. the taliban will offer any number of commitments knowing when we are gone and the taliban's back, we have no means of enforcing any of them. it does not have to go take this. the united states could announce talks will not proceed beyond framework without the full inclusion of the afghan government. the inclusion is only theoretical. we can only note unless some other solution is found, u.s. troops will remain in afghanistan as long as the current government wants them and offending core values such as women rights that we have fostered there since 2001. that is in the washington post this morning. julia is next from manchester, new hampshire. confidence in this administration to handle foreign affairs and foreign crisis, go ahead. anyer: i don't have confidence that president trump has our best interests at heart.

i see that he wants to pull out -- wanting to pull out of nato. i hope he has been convinced that is not a good idea. our allies are pulling away from us. he did not do anything about sanctions on the russians for the poisoning and now, why should britain wanted to have anything to do with us or france? these are the things that terrify me about what he is doing because i feel as if he is compromised by putin. he seems to be an thrall to buy putin and as far as i can see, he seems to want to line his pockets. that deal he had with trump tower in moscow, that would have brought him hundreds of millions of dollars and here he was running for president of the united states and it doesn't seem to me as if he stopped having those kinds of financial

interests in moscow even after he was elected. commentsi may, your about britain and france, why are you concerned? was it just about the statements of nato or are there other issues? caller: i just feel as if theresa may, with all the problems she is having now with brexit, normally a united states president would be there supporting, making comments that the unitedow help kingdom. i don't feel as if he is doing that at all. he doesn't seem to be helping to support what is going on in going through a lot of the same things we are in terms of parts of government trying to take over and he is not supporting. a united states president would andupporting the presidents prime ministers of the countries we are allied with. host: okay. we will go to ben in florida,

hi. caller: good morning. it just amazes me as i sit and listen to the amount of disinformation that comes out. in dealing with international affairs, we are dealing with pockets that have been created the decades and to say that president has not done anything good is almost ludicrous. as you notice, i called on the independent line because if you listen to the democrats, they are all hate. if you listen to the republicans they are all, he can't do anything wrong. the fact of the matter is the .resident is a temp he is there for 8 years at max. they barely scratch the surface in that time on what can be done with international relationships. host: give me an example of a

positive this administration has done when it comes to international affairs? now know our can economic power can affect them directly. there has never been a president to take on that deficit havetion with trade as we with china. russia, how do these people not know there are greater sanctions on russia right now than ever before and that we make sure when like germany deals with manner,n a favorable that we call them out? we have always dealt in a one-way street internationally. we give, we give, but we did very little back. host: that is ben in florida. let's go to jim in north dakota. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i would call it stalingrad. it is 55 below zero and 33 below

with 55 is the windchill. i went out to start my car an hour ago and got it started. i am going to work in about 10 minutes. i wanted to say, all the talk about climate change made me feel good. host: the administration's take on foreign affairs? caller: we are not at war, there are no missiles coming over hawaii. he is talking to our enemies, which is what democrats said we needed to do. first of all, the main thing i wanted to say is some of these calls about russia, i remember -- we have a little -- a lot of little mccarthys out here. democrats have become obsessed with russia and russia is a

dying empire. it will lose 25 million people in the next 50 years. it has one warm water port behind italy in its and can't -- in its economy. host: you are saying russia does not have a pull on the administration? caller: of course not. why would putin support trump, a man who wants to open up and , the dakotaar pipeline. we are stronger. in reality is humming along and there are no racial riots in our cities. we are getting along great in north dakota. everybody gets along and is happy and there are all kinds of opportunities. all this crisis is created by the left and the media. host: that is jim in north dakota. texas is next, republican line. caller: i have total faith in what trump has been doing. he is trying to make us a

stronger country. if we pull out of afghanistan, i have no problem with that. how much money have we spent there and what did we get in return? nothing. china is trying to serve in the south china sea. i served in the navy when we had complete access to the south china sea and now they are trying to take control and trying to support these puppet countries like in south america where the people do not even want their president in office. i just don't see where he has done anything wrong. host: that is john in fort worth, texas. we are spending time talking about when it comes to threats from other nations, your confidence in the administration's ability to meet those. this is based on a hearing that took place on capitol hill. you can see that on c-span.org.

mission connell parking -- pushing back against the administration -- mitch mcconnell pushing back against the administration when it comes to syria and afghanistan. here is senator mcconnell from yesterday. [video clip] >> we have seen the cost of a precipitous withdrawal before in afghanistan, we have seen the downsides of telling the enemy they can wait us out, we will be gone on a date that is certain. i would urge continued commitment from the u.s. military and our partners until we have set the conditions for the enduring defeat of these vile terrorists. this measure would reflect a conclusion of our nation's military and national security professionals. it would speak directly to our allies and reassure local

partners doing the bulk of the fighting against a shared enemy. simply put, while it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and security of our own shores, there is a great deal of work to be done and we know unattended, these conflicts will reverberate right here in our own cities. host: nancy in the wall street kernel talks about isis and the pentagon's assessment of the territory they hold. this is patrick shanahan quoted saying if we wind the clock back of thers, 99.5 plus isis-controlled territory has been returned to syria. a role he assumed after jim mattis resigned, the story adding experts and defense officials also warned the end of the islamic state possibly in holdings doesn't mean the end of danger from extremists because

the group -- "the long war against isis will not be won by destroying its territory, that is the easy part. another one of those foreign affairs hotspots around the world and we are asking about those and your faith in the administration's ability to deal with those issues. francisco.from san go ahead on our independent line. caller: thank you for the opportunity. my confidence in this administration at the moment, at the moment is low because like many people right now, they are separating the technological weaknesses from our military weaknesses into some kind of dichotomy instead of recognizing them as one threat in the aggregate. if you look at it, if you were

to give me your email address, right? and i was a simpleton. i can get an app from anywhere and it can project -- this is my concrete example. it can project millions of email searcho your fax -- search box or login box at a time. when i am in your email, i have all of your information. i have valuable intel and you could be a senator, right? with that, the fact that there is no legislation handling this particular issue and the fact that this administration at the moment is not looking towards creating any rapport with the senate for bipartisan legislation in this area, my

confidence is low. host: that is ed in san francisco. he mentioned the technological aspect. that was another aspect of yesterday's hearing. this was a back and forth between dan coats, the director of national intelligence, california democratic senator kamala harris. here is that exchange. [video clip] ofdo you have any intention having a written strategy that will be agreed to and understood by all members of the ic as it relates to the collective responsibility and international responsibilities for addressing foreign influence on social media in the united states? >> as i said, it is a fluid situation. we are making significant progress on that in terms of one specific written strategy, something that will have to be looked at in a continuum of

change. why thisexactly sure written strategy would give us anything more -- single strategy that would have to be modified daily, but you can be assured it is a top priority as we talked about before. it is something we have been working on and we have seen significant progress. if you go back and read the transcript of what we talked about, you will understand that. fromhave the transcript 2018 when you and i had this discussion at our last worldwide threats hearing when i asked you then would you provide us and would there be a written strategy for how theic is dealing -- the ic is dealing with these threats. has there been any advancement on that point since february, 2018? >> i will be happy to get back

to you on that. host: here is bradley from georgia. go ahead. kurds toe used the help us fight isis and because turkey and russia wanted us out, trump is siding with vladimir toting -- vladimir putin control his names. this is absolutely shocking and the point of republicans not caring about russian influence in the elections is because they are helping republicans win. prospects.ir 2020 isy know vladimir putin helping him. noaking around with translators and republicans have no problems with this whatsoever. i find it shocking and i don't know what else to say but

republicans are completely owned by vladimir putin. host: this is bill, republican from pennsylvania. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i would say i have the most confidence in trump that i have had in any president since kennedy. i have been around a little while. he has gone asis far as he can go and he has encountered our deep state, which is trying to keep him in syria when he has come out and said clearly he wants to get out of syria. i want to point out one thing about syria. the deep state tried to get obama into syria. he pushed back on them for quite ishile and then said assad using chemical weapons and ended up in syria and now trump is doing his best to get us out because it is not our conflict

and there's a lot of pushback. the other thing trump as done is he improved our relationship with china. he has done a very good job with that. he has done an excellent job with russia. he would like to have better relations because russia is a weaker state. they are not a -- the superpower of the soviet union. the message i have to the people and trump and the deep state is stay out of venezuela. it is obvious to everybody that the desire to be there is an unhealthy desire that we want meddleil and we want to in their affairs. president trump, hands off venezuela. host: venezuela being a topic from the state department's perspective. this report in the new york times saying the department said

giving the opposition leader the rights to control -- mike pompeo gave the certification to him last friday, two days after he declared himself interim president. in the united states government kept it a secret until now. john bolton retaliated with a threat of his own saying on twitter in response to prosecutors in venezuela, let me reiterate, there will be serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy. citizens do not travel to the country "due to crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure, and arbitrary arrest and detention of u.s. citizens. from north carolina, democrats line, we will hear from steve. hello. caller: how are you doing?

host: fine thanks, go ahead. --ler: republicans remind me they just follow -- they don't have a brain of their own. donald trump says one thing and one thing another day. he hires so-called smart people and does not listen to everybody. how dangerous is that? you hire people and you want everyone to agree with you. host: when it comes to foreign affairs, give me a specific then. caller: everything. it comes out of the blue. we cannot be in wars forever. we have to do things by talking to people and figuring out the best exit strategy. you just don't snatch people out. they come out of nowhere and all of a sudden we are dragging one

week. don't show them what you are getting ready to do, but he did. you have to let the people know who you are working with. host: what is wrong with the exit strategy? caller: it was too abrupt, too sudden. we have the generals figuring out how to exit easily without having people get hurt. becausethem in danger the enemy feels like they are leaving, so we can go back to doing what we want. you cannot do things just need knee-jerk reaction. host: george in michigan, independent line. go ahead. trump: yes, i feel donald is all over the place and one day you don't tell your enemies what you are supposed to be doing and one day he is on tv

telling you he is coming out of syria in the -- out of the clear blue sky. host: you have a problem with that strategy? caller: this is too complicated of a subject to talk on a 30, 40 minute soundbite, but, on. it is a serious crisis in northern africa. is in tatters.ce it will take a concerted effort by europeans, united states to address the north african problem. host: when it comes to north africa, specifically what is going on? caller: it is in total chaos, tinderboxpt, it is a ready to happen. now you have succeeded to the russians and our nato alliance is what?

turkey. are they really a reliable partner? is nato going to back each other. you don't know that. the europeans that did go to afghanistan, what is it for them? we slapped them in the face for what? after they helped us. host: that is george in michigan. when it comes to events in the united states, particularly on the southern border and the plan for new -- more troops, pat shanahan told reporters at the pentagon the evolving mission will focus heavy on watching the border for threats and mark the latest shift in how active-duty troops are used and knowledge of the number from 2300 active-duty servicemembers closer to a high watermark of 5900 involved in november and 2300 national the bordereployed to mission. on capitol hill, defense officials said the department of

homeland security request approved this month by shanahan to have u.s. troops operating multiple surveillance cameras across the border. u.s. troops installed more wire, and mission that will shift between ports of entry to sections between arizona and california. the president sending out a tweet about the meanings -- meetings of republicans and democrats. the homeland security appropriations committee will meet to come up with a plan for border security. if the committee of republicans and democrats is not discussing or contemplating a wall or physical barrier, they are wasting their time. that first meeting takes place this afternoon. if you go to our website at c-span.org, find out more information on this first meeting of that committee. we will go to south carolina where wayne is, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have one quick comment about

president trump having confidence. i have got 150% confidence in president trump. look a few years back under the previous administration. he drew a line in the sand in syria. the last administration did nothing to stop north korea from also,,missiles and iran $150 billion. i have got all the confidence in president trump. we haven't seen missiles coming from north korea. host: democrats line from larry in georgia. hello. caller: hello. want toling in to say i talk about the border wall and that the border wall, we have good border security right now peoplejust have a lot of

down there working the border wall and i don't think they are doing a good job on how they are processing the people. about syria, i think the president is right about trying to get out of syria. what he needs to do is make sure as we get out, we have people on the border to protect us and watch us. and another thing, president putin has done what he needs to have done. he played a game we used to play a long time ago about child psychology. he had to get the republicans and the democrats to fight each other so he can control his agenda and his agenda is taking over the middle east and while republicans and democrats are ,ighting over things in america

-- don't really understand that. host: bill is in georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am fine, thanks. caller: i love c-span. it is a national treasure. as far as the venezuela situation, i think it is ironic we are so quick to denigrate another country's elections win if you look at our history of not having the popular vote, we pluralityllion vote for hillary clinton, but who got appointed president by the electoral college? host: when it comes to the larger issues of confidence in this administration in foreign affairs, what would you think of that? caller: i have a very negative opinion of the way he is dealing with foreign affairs. just the fact that those who worked for him, the

professionals. i assume they know what they are doing, i think they do, have different views that are so much different from his. i don't have confidence in him. host: when you say so much different than his, do you mean hearings yesterday or do you have a more specific thing in mind? caller: in general when he says we are done in syria -- which i agree we should have never been there. these foreign involvements cost us billions and billions of dollars and accomplish nothing. we should have learned our lessons after korea and vietnam and afghanistan. pulling troops out of the mideast, what is he going to do with them? he will redeploy them and they will end up in venezuela or the mexican border. host: bill is next from pennsylvania. justr: the gentleman talking doesn't know what he is talking about. all these people calling in are

not the president and they never became the president. . host: when it comes to foreign affairs, what is your level of confidence? caller: i was in greece a year and a half, it's a disaster. they are dying over there because they have open borders, number one. second, all these hearings spend american dollars for these people and the borders. hello? host: back to the original idea of your confidence in the administration in foreign affairs prayed what would you say? caller: i agree with the affairs, get out of there and take care of our country. thank you. host: that is bill in pennsylvania. a couple other stories outside affairs. of foreign this looks at presidential politics, harold schultz of starbucks in the news when it comes to his looking at possibly

running for president of the united states. advisers say he plans to make a decision midyear on a campaign based on continued polling and bookstore feedback. if he moves forward, this fall he will begin the process of collecting signatures to gain ballot access in all 50 states. he has built an extensive operation to support his bid. he has been working on ballot access plans with two former strategists for americans elect which mounted a similar effort. schultz has been having policy conversations to develop his platform including a meeting .ith a venture capitalist this also adding in national polls, his team, led by republican pollster tested a three-way race between trump, a generic centrist independent and named democratic candidates and found the independent candidate

wouldn't fare better in a general election than a more liberal candidate such as elizabeth warren or bernie sanders were to win the democratic nomination. if you are looking at the post, there is polling that takes a look at potential presidential candidates on the democratic side and the republican side and where they are at, they are at, their thinking when it comes to 2020. a 56% majority of all american say they would definitely not vote for donald trump because if he became the republican nominee again while 14% say they would consider voting for him and 28% would definitely vote for him. this adding when it comes to potential challengers, it was joe biden the person most often -- 9% of leading both -- leading voters. senator bernie sanders and the

president were named by 4% followed by former congressman beto o'rourke of texas with 3%. that is in the washington post. when it comes to the trump administration's handling of foreign affairs and your confidence in the ability to handle a foreign crisis, tom is next from california. democrats line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. the situation as far as foreign policy in the middle east, that was a political -- i consider it a -- political quicksand. when you put troops on the ground those many years ago, they were going to be sucked into a situation where they were going to be there for decades. the problem is you have a situation that has been ongoing for a very long time and we were basically newcomers. we have been involved in a situation. i don't know if it will ever be

resolved. that is the way i look at it. host: from maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. how are you doing, sir? host: fine, thank you. caller: my confidence in trump and the way he is handling foreign policy is right up there. i admire him. the problem that is going on with america today is about how much uninformed the people are. it is insane. somebody called earlier and talked about disinformation. americans have decided they don't want to be informed. i hear a lot of people cry about we are giving putin what he wants. this is why you have to be informed. turkey, iran, russia are all syrian allies. they are supposed to be in

syria. the united states is not a syrian ally. we are there illegally. we are there in a war that does not concern us. someone will come on the air and say it is about our national security, no it is not. syria never invited the united states. let's talk about dealing with russia. past u.s. presidents have dealt with russia. even obama himself -- making .romises to putin with the withdrawal from afghanistan, we sewed -- we should withdraw from afghanistan. i don't know why people are all up in arms that wish to stay in

afghanistan. host: when it comes to events in the near future, it was announced stacey abrams, a rising political star from georgia who narrowly lost a race for governor will end up littering the official response to president trump's state of the union -- delivering the official response to the president trump's state of the union. publicly agreed to the often thankless task on tuesday. "she is just a great spokesman, an incredible leader and led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything." on can watch that here c-span tuesday, february 5. our coverage starting at 8:00. you can listen to it on our radio app. north carolina is next, this is ricky, republican line. caller: good morning. i am happy to be able to get

inine and express my views the great administration we are under and everything that is going on with our economy and -- everybody was looking at in the midst of the shutdown -- earnings for the quarter were going to be down and this and that and the other and the media outside of fox -- my question to the contrary is i am wondering when is it going to become a serious situation about our border wall in the midst of the deaths, 3000 a week and the drugs coming across our borders down in the south border or everything else going on down there. when they sit there and talk about in the senate or whatever or the house or whatever when

on thee talking about democrats side, they are always talking about people -- we need , weet our troops home wanted to be able to let our troops come home for christmas and what about the bridge that needs to be fixed over here. what about the mothers and fathers and families of the children dying each and every day, the opiate crisis coming across our borders or whatever that is protected? we need that wall. we need to be able to stand up for our citizens. host: roger in michigan, republican line as well about the confidence of the administration's ability to handle foreign crises. caller: good morning. thank you, sir. in the issues of the foreign affairs, trump is trying to do his best with most of the issues . i have one issue.

why is nato not in syria? in venezuela and other areas of this world? we take and send our troops and yet we do not take and consider why we have nato in the first place. there are joint operations between nations to settle an affair. host: aside from the nato troops, your level of confidence in this administration handling of foreign issues? caller: the issues are out there and we have had them for decades of presidents. i don't care if it is world war i or world war ii. when you take and put our troops across those lines, we should be united across the world, not just us. we look like the bully of the world. michigan. is roger in another topic altogether when it comes to outside foreign affairs about teacher pay. a survey taking a look at data

outside the labor department when it comes to the pay of teachers. this headline saying they are paid less than average in every state but one, adding that this is information compiled by the labor department in 2017 teacher earnings topped the average in one state, rhode island. public school teacher and staff earnings fell relative to the -- 42e worker in all 32 states. the biggest drop came in wisconsin, they earned about 1.2 times the average worker pay. that number has fallen to 9/10 of the statewide average. smallest drops came in alabama, mississippi, where teacher pay was already below average. you can find that story in the washington post taking a look at data from the labor department. from steven in michigan, democrats line. no ahead. caller: can you hear me?

host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i have no confidence in a liar, a coward, and a thief, period. whatever he is doing, i am totally against. i don't know where he is from. he is definitely a russian spy and as far as i am concerned, if he cannot show his taxes, he should not be able to run for office at all. host: adam is next in iowa, republican line. caller: this is adam from iowa. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: as far as trump's foreign policy, i think trump is lacking in some of those areas. i think it is obvious because is general left. the crisis in the middle east and syria is a humanitarian

crisis and how we have allowed syrians to use chemical warfare many times over. necessarilyue isn't what can syria do for us, but what can we do for the syrian people. i guess that is what i have to say. host: one more bit of tape from yesterday's hearing. dan coats talking and addressing senators. the topic, the continuing isis threat. [video clip] it would be -- we should not underestimate the ability of terrorist groups, particularly qaedand groups with al and other terrorist groups that they are operating not simply on

what takes place on the themefield that gives strength or weakness, but they are operating on the basis of a cr chrissy, theology and ideology that we will continue to see perhaps years ahead in various places of the world so we see those that were engaged in syria moving to other ungoverned spaces. andee the tentacles of isis isis and al qaeda tactics and other places of the world, north africa, the philippines. we have seen that take place, isis claiming credit for that. isis will continue to be a threat to the united states and we will have to continue as pel said to keep our eyes on that an interest in the realization this terrorism

threat will continue for some time. host: one more call for this segment. this is from texas, ivan, republican line. whyer: i don't understand we have to worry about crises in other countries. this country has only been around for 243 years. why do we have to police or help people -- help the whole world, feed the whole world. what did countries do before we became a country? a lot of those countries have been around for thousands of years and they cannot even feed themselves. host: you don't think these other countries prove a threat to the united states? we don't need other countries to take care of us. we are self supportive in this country. host: ok. that's the last call for this topic.

the house is coming in at 9:00 today. when it does, this program will be over. two guests joining us before that happened, ohio republican congressman bill johnson to take calls on a variety of topics, including the shutdown and other matters. later in the program, texas democratic congressman marc veasey will join us. both of those conversations coming up on "washington journal ." ♪ announcer: sunday on "q&a," the case that brought down vice president spiro agnew in 1973, with prosecuting attorneys ron lehman and tim baker. >> we believe we could indict the vice president. we believe he is not immune from prosecution while in office. , among thes lawyers

defensive positions they took, was that he couldn't be press peaked -- couldn't be prosecuted. agnew didn't want to go to jail, and he had this get out of jail free card. what was that? this is watergate. richard nixon was a walking dead man, politically speaking. it was only a matter of time. most everybody understood he would be forced out of office. that would make spiro agnew, this vice president who we have under investigation, president. can you imagine how the country would react? president nixon, a crook, leaves office. vice president agnew, a crook, becomes president. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." ♪ announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service i america's cable

television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. " continues.journal host: our first guest of the morning is representative bill johnson, republican of ohio. he serves on the budget committee and a number of the energy and commerce committee. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: is there a legislative way to keep it from happening? there is a proposal that any money should be dumped right into a cr. guest: cr's are terrible. it is tough for our military because they have contracts that expire. it increases costs over the long run, and it inters their ability to do that -- it deters their

ability to do their jobs. the responsible thing to do is to do what congress is supposed to do, which is past the budget, past the appropriation bills, the-- pass the budget, pass appropriation bills, and that is the response will thing to do. host: is this something you can sign onto as far as the able to do to complete that process? guest: i really don't know how they are going to manage the process. i know over the last eight years, we have been very conciliatory. we have a very congenial conversation with democrats where budgets are concerned. most of our appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis. the problem resides in the senate, where we can't get those bills through over there. obviously we've got some work to do, but shutting down the federal government is not the right answer. host: when it comes to budgets

and priorities, do you have a sense of what democrats' prio rities will be when it comes to passing budgets? guest: i'm concerned about some of their proposals. if you look at the current levels of spending, we just had yesterday,eline clearly we've still got a spending problem in washington, d.c. our debt is rising not because the american people are taxed too little, but because washington spends too much. if you look at what is going to happen over the next 10 to 20 2029 our debt is going to reach 93% of gdp under current law. going to spiked up to 150% of gdp. remember, only after world war 106% of gdp, to and that was in the middle of a world crisis.

i'm concerned. if you add on top of that the many spending programs that the democrats have said they are going to be offering, you are looking at another $50 trillion in debt that we simply cannot afford. so i'm very concerned about that. we will see what happens through the process, but we've got some work to do. host: one of those things being floated, medicare for all. john yarmuth, head of ways and means, saying that is possibly a consideration or something to talk about. what goes through your mind as a budget person? guest: medicare and social security, those are safety net programs and obligations that the federal government has made to the american people. my mother, when i was first elected, the first thing she said to me was not congratulations. it was you better make sure my medicare and social security is protected because otherwise i'm coming to live with you.

my wife said you better do what your mom said. so we had a clear understanding. i believe that karen seniors and those that live within that retirement window that can't change their retirement plans, they need -- the government needs to keep the promises they made. however, our largest driver of our national debt our health care costs. we cannot afford medicare for all. i just mentioned the $50 trillion in additional programs. $30 trillion of that $50 trillion increase would be coming from medicare for all. it is just not something that america can support. host: our guest with us until 8:30, representative bill johnson, republican from ohio. if you want to ask him questions, you can call (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002.

say the heard the cbo united states lost $3 billion of the shutdown of what goes through your mind? guest: nobody wanted to shut down. i didn't want the shutdown. i voted last year before we went home for christmas to fund the federal government, and i was really disappointed we couldn't get cooperation in the senate to get that passed. shutting down the federal government is not the right way to do business. it always costs more to open it up. it sends a bad signal to the rest of the world that america can't manage its financial responsibilities, and i don't like that. host: there's negotiations starting today. the committee starts trying to come up with some kind of package that can meet the president's approval. what is your level of confidence in that process? guest: that is difficult to say, but at least it is a step in the right direction. you have to have willing participants on the table to negotiate.

the president has thrown out an olive branch by opening the federal government back up and bringing both parties to the table to address the issues of border security and opening up the federal government. for common sense people like you and me and the people i represent back at home, it is not that hard of a problem to solve. we need both, and we ought to be able to get there. host: you had a recent op-ed when the shutdown was going. you suggested the president use the state of the union as a means of trying to resolve this issue. briefly explain that. would you still say that is a strategy coming up? guest: i actually suggested that to the president when i met with some of my democrat and republican colleagues over at the white house to talk about finding a pathway forward. i suggested that to him. you've got the watchful eye of the american people focused on what you are saying as president of the united states. i said take your jacket off, roll your sleeves up, until the

leaders of both parties in both chambers all in the same room, let's solve this problem right now and let the american people see firsthand who's willing to negotiate and who is not. host: what was his response? guest: he didn't say anything. it is kind of an out of the box kind of idea, but he's an out of the box president. he didn't say no. host: first call for you comes from ohio, cleveland. democrats line, you are on with represent a bill johnson. caller: good morning. you had the congress for eight years, and you could not get a budget. nancy pelosi has been in for about four weeks almost, and she is working. now your major concern is the debt? where was your concern for the you had control of

that particular house? guest: that is a very good question. i'm not sure where you got your information or your facts, but if you look at the four or five years prior to republicans taking control of the house in 2011, there was no budget. republicans in the house consistently passed a budget every year up until last year, so the house of representatives did pass a budget. they didn't pass it in the senate, and i give you that. that is a frustration to me as well. but i don't work in the senate. i work in the house, under both john boehner's leadership and paul ryan's leadership. the house of representatives did pass budgets during that period of time, and cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of discretionary spending over that period of time. that if you

consider what the federal government spends as a pie, 1/3 of serving, about the budget of what we spend is discretionary spending. if you were to zero out all discretionary spending, the mandatory spending, the 70% of the rest of what the federal government spends is still sending our spending curve in the wrong direction. it is more than we take in and revenue. -- take in in revenue. i understand your concerns, and i agree we did not get budgets through the senate, but the house passed a budget each and every year until last year. host: on the republican line, carol. caller: good morning. i am worried about this new financial crisis coming up. nobody's talking about it, so it is going to get sprung on us like it did in 2005 and 2006.

it's been going on since at least 2013. housing prices have been inflated since then. we've got a crisis coming because what's going to happen when this ball falls, and all these people are going to depreciate again just like they did the poor -- did before. what is going to happen? properties have already started coming down. these prices have been up since 2013. something bad is about to happen. thank you. guest: i think i understood your question. there was a little bit of static on the line, but i think you are talking about property prices. economic growth has outpaced anything that the experts .xpected last year in 2018 economic growth was 3.1%. however, our deficit was at

3.8%, so it didn't overcome that. that goes back to that mandatory spending that is driving our debt. i share your concern because when our debt continues to onrease, it throws water america's economic campfire in so many different ways. it depresses wages. it causes businesses to be concerned and to slow down their investments. over the long-term, the more we borrow, the more interest we pay . under current law, for example, between now and 2029, if we don't do something to reverse course, interest payments are going to nearly triple in america, and americans can't afford that. i share your concern, and that is one of the things i'm going to be focused on on the budget committee. how do we begin to address those

mandatory spending levels and roll that clock backwards, and start to bend that spending curve in the opposite direction? host: the federal reserve chairman is expected to make remarks today following its meeting. particularly, what are you paying attention to as to what he might say? guest: i will certainly be paying attention with interest. we'll see. nobody knows what he's going to say, but we'll certainly be taking that into consideration during our budget deliberations. host: do you think it is expected, if he keeps on interest rates, what does that mean for long-term economic growth in your mind? guest: i think it gives us a chance. we saw what tax reform, the tax cuts and jobs act, did. it stimulated economic growth. it increased revenues. we know that that added to the economy. we still got the problem with mandatory spending, but if we can keep interest rates down

where americans can borrow money, where they can finance invest, isses and think we've got a chance to pull out of this. congress has got to do its part. we've got to stop the out-of-control spending on the mentoring side. host: can you offer a specific from where you live in ohio where businesses benefited from a tax cut directly? guest: oh my goodness. it would take the rest of our show. host: just one. guest: manufacturing companies that gave out bonuses. i have one constituent that owned the line of business and said, come and see the of business i've opened up -- the new line of business i've opened up because with the new tax reform package, i'm going to be investing in a totally of business. and those were jobs -- a totally new line of business. and those were jobs that were created.

as a result of energy develop into and tax reform combined, i can tell you the quality of life of people in eastern and southeastern ohio has been improved because of tax reform. host: srs tariff policy by this administration -- as far as tariff policy by this administration, are you seeing negatives in ohio? guest: yes, they are a concern. but in the long term -- diplomacy, that is why they call it an art. it is not a science. to get world leaders to come to the table to talk about something that's going to put them in a position not as good as they currently are, it's very difficult to get them to the table. sometimes you have to knock the chip off of their shoulder, and that is exactly what president trump and the ministry should has done. -- the administration has done. there's going to be some near-term pain associated with this. i've got manufacturing companies that buy all of their steel from

domestic steel producers, and they do all of their manufacturing. they are 100% american made and many factors -- american-made manufacturers. they are now being hurt because their competitors on the global market are buying the excess steel thatglut of china and other countries have put on the market, and they are buying it at a cheaper rate. so while their competitors' prices for raw materials are going down, their prices are going up. it is making it very difficult for them to compete. that is just one of many. but you know what those employers tell me? stay the course. this is built over a long period of time. it is not going to resolve itself overnight. we've got to get these countries to the table and help them -- wetand that fair trade are over 50% of the world's

economy. most of the customers in the world live in america. so we have a responsibility to do our part where the global economy is concerned. and if america begins to shrink, the rest of the world begins to shrink with us. i think we are doing the right thing. it is going to take some time to get through it. host: let's hear from sam in california, independent line. caller: yes, good morning, congressman. thank you for taking my call. i share your concern about the national debt. personally, the way i've lived , as shakespeare, neither a lender nor a borrower be. with that, i ask you a hypothetical question. with a hypothetical president, not this one, and a hypothetical

congress, not this one, i would like your view on this. let's say we had a president who civilly refused to borrow money. -- who simply refused to borrow money. let's say such a president exists. could either of the other two again,s of government -- a hypothetical congress -- or , force the court government to borrow money? assuming there is no debt limit at all. in other words, there is no limit to how much you can borrow. host: thanks, caller. guest: there is a debt limit, and i think there is a reason for having a debt limit. now, i don't know if you'll appreciate my analogy on the debt limit, but i've equated the debt limit to having a leaky faucet or pipe underneath the

sink in your house. here's what's going to happen. you're going to put a bucket or container under that dripping water. when that bucket fills up, you've got very few choices. you either take some of the water out of the bucket, which means you stop the leak, or you get a bigger bucket. what has happened over time in america is we just keep getting a bigger bucket, and we accumulate more and more water. that debt continues to rise. if you can't stop the leaky faucet, you are not going to stop that rising national debt. and it goes back to what i said at the outset of our segment this morning. we don't have a debt problem because we are taxed too little. we have a debt problem because washington is spending too much. pie, the you take that total amount that the federal government spends, only 1/3 of

that roughly is discretionary spending that we argue about every year in funding the government. all of this talk about government shutdown, we are only talking about 1/3 of what the federal government actually spends. the other 2/3 is driving spending in the wrong direction, and it's more than we take in in revenue. it is like that leaky pipe that is filling that bucket up. that is why the debt limit continues to have to be raised. how do we stop that mandatory spending or reduce it? it takes both chambers of congress and the president signing legislation into law that will change the formulas for those made at tory spending programs. it is -- those mandatory spending programs. medicare and social security, for example, are going to be insolvent over the next 10 to 15 years.

we think we have a problem today with a month-long government shutdown? wait until millions of americans are told there is no more money for medicare and social security. if we don't reform those programs so the current seniors are protected and so future generations have a similar programs, wet of are heading for a real fiscal crisis in america. host: it's been reported senator lindsey graham has suggested to the president that that should be part of the border secure the program. is that a good idea? guest: until we address the mandatory spending programs, the debt limit is going to come back up. whether it comes back up in discussion over border security or not, i don't know. i don't particularly like holding national security and the safety and security of the american people hostage for anything else.

i mean come on my oath of office, the president's oath of office was to support and defend the constitution of the united states, which is essentially protecting the american people. that is what border security is for me. when you look at the criminal elements that are coming across our southern border come of the 300 americans that are dying border,k -- southern the 300 americans that are dying each week from heroin overdoses, that alone is a concern for me. in ohio we've been hit extremely hard with the drug addiction crisis. the heroin that is killing ohioans and americans all over the country is coming up through mexico, and we need to stop that. host: let's hear from joel in maryland. caller: good morning, congressman. guest: good morning. caller: just one comment, one question. it seems like every time the republicans have a super majority or congress, they want

to talk about fiscal response ability, but they are never responsible. they are always mating tax cuts. then the democrats take back the congress, and oh my god, the deficit is so high we have to cut the spending, but we don't want to cut these -- don't want to talk about these tax cuts. you have to talk about bringing in more revenue if you talk about this spending like republicans do. second, i don't understand why nobody in congress -- there's a couple democrats supporting federal contractors getting back pay. we were hurt the hardest the 35 days we were out of work. i've cut so deep into my savings i had to take stoxx out of the stock market at a time when it was down because -- had to take marketout of the stock at a time when it was down because i didn't have income. just like other americans, we were triple hit. could you explain why you

probably don't support even these contractors back pay? thank you. guest: well, let me answer the first part of your question first, and then i'll get to the contractors. the tax cuts and jobs act did increase revenue to our country. in fact, when we met with cbo this week, economic growth grew 3.1% in 2018, the highest we've had since 2005. in 13 years. that's how much the economy grew, and that was largely the result of the tax cuts and jobs act. here's what the experts that how, by cutting taxes that were decreasing revenues, that is going to create deficit, here is what they are not telling you, or here is what you are not hearing the pundits say on national tv. if economic growth gets to 2.4%

or higher, those deficits don't even materialize. we never even see them because the revenue is bigger than the deficits. you thatd submit to when americans get to keep more of their money and make their own investment decisions and not have the federal government taking the money from them, americans do much better. we saw that in the 1980's under ronald reagan, and we saw it last year, and we are expected to see continued economic growth this year in 2019. so i am optimistic about america's fiscal future if we can get a handle on the government spending, the mandatory spending programs. now, back to your question about the federal contractors that were out of work. look, i empathize and sympathize with the problem. i did not want to shut down the federal government. the house passed legislation

under republican control last december that would have avoided all of the government shutdown. and the, nancy pelosi democrats took control of the house in january, the first week in january. that's three days into the government shutdown. we should have been able to solve that problem by now, but she has refused to come to the negotiating table. i, along with a lot of my colleagues, had my pay stop, too. i realize that is a small token in the big scheme of things, but i think it's important that congress does its job. i wasn't going to take a salary until federal workers got their salaries, and that included contractors. we can only do so much. nancy pelosi is in control of the agenda in the house. i think the president has asked

her to come to the table in good faith. he has broadened the discussion about what he's willing to put on the table to get border security and open the government backup. our number two -- her number two, steny hoyer, the majority leader, said he would invite the president to do the state of the union. representative kleiber said he thought the president's proposal was going in the right direction. you've had democrat chairmen and the new democrat-controlled congress that have said give the president what he needs to control the border and provide border security, and let's get the government open and get on with addressing the needs of the american people. you've got to have a willing participant to negotiate. i would urge you to contact nancy pelosi -- excuse me -- and ask her to come to the table. host: the caucus chair was quoted as saying, "when it comes to this idea of executive action to resolve the border security

versus a shut down, those are the choices. he doesn't mean a shut down is off the table." do you think there is a reality for another shutdown? guest: i think that is a possibility. the president is not keen. the president is bound by the constitution and the rule of law , just like everyone else in this country is. there are only so many arrows in his quiver. there are only so many tools in the toolbox. the president is running out of options if the legislative branch of government cannot function and come to the table and solve the problem. a national emergency declaration is certainly on the table. i don't think that is the best way to go. the best way to go is to fund the government and provide border security, protect the safety and welfare of the american people, and get on with addressing the needs of the

nation. that is the right thing to do. but in the absence of that, the president is running out of options. host: representative bill johnson of ohio, a member of the budget and energy and commerce committees. guest: thank you very much. host: the program ends at 9:00 today when the house of representatives comes in. guest,t democratic congressman marc veasey, joins us. ♪ "q&a," thesunday on case that brought down vice president spiro agnew in 1973, with prosecuting attorneys ron lehman and tim baker. >> we believed we could indict the vice president. we believed he was not immune from prosecution while in office. , among thes lawyers defensive positions they took, was that he couldn't be prosecuted. that he was cloaked with immunity. agnew didn't want to go to jail.

he had this get out of jail free card. what was that? this is watergate. richard nixon was a walking dead man, politically speaking. it was only a matter of time, most everybody understood, before he would be forced out of office. that would make spiro agnew, this vice president who we have under investigation, president. can you imagine how the country what react -- country would react? president nixon, a crook, leaves office. vice president agnew, a crook, becomes president. announcer: sunday at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: live super bowl sunday at noon eastern, author and sportswriter dave siren is our -- dave zyran is our guest on "in-depth." the author of many books, including "a people's history of

sports," and his most recent, "jim brown: last man standing." >> i love sports, and that is why we need to fight for sports. we need to take sports back. we need to know our history. that is our 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 then knowing this history allows us to look at the world and see that struggle can affect every aspect of life in this system, even the -adorned ivory tower known as sports. announcer: join our conversation with sportswriter dave zirin sunday at noon eastern on book c-span two.th" on announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is representative marc veasey,

democrat from texas. he serves the 33rd district, which includes dallas and fort worth. good morning to you. guest: hello. host: can you tell us where you think your party is on border security and the prevention of a shut down? guest: we want to come up with a solution to this. the president, it was very discouraging to hear him say yesterday that he's ok with having another government shutdown. mulvey basically echoed that same sentiment. this is very serious. there are people out there that are very concerned, obviously, with this reprieve we are on that give them a little relief, but they are still concerned. people have their bills. people need their checks. kids need their college tuition paid. the most important thing is that if you work 40 hours or more a week, you need to get your check. playing a game with federal in this deal for a

wall he wants i think is very, very bad and misguided. we need to work together to come up with long-term solutions. look, democrats, what did we do on the very first day? we could have been arrogant and said we are going to craft our own piece of legislation on this. we passed the public and bills out. we said, let's just past the republican senate bills on january 3. we passed those out and sent them back over to the senate, and there was no action on that. the president a few weeks prior said he was going to support that, though he's being very wishy-washy on this. this was his shut down, and the next one will be his shutdown as well. we need some action from him. we don't need another shutdown. host: we heard speaker pelosi say sharp words about the dollar figure he wants for border security. what is wrong with that dollar figure in your mind? guest: the problem overall is trump wants to waste money. we need to be smart about how we

spend this money. we need 3000 new people to work along our borders. that is exactly the number we are short of, around 3000. we need to invest in technology that will actually detect cars coming through our ports of entry, advanced technology that can help us in the fight against human trafficking and narcotics smuggling. the president doesn't want to use the money in those areas. that is what we need to be focused on. him throwing out these large numbers so he can ultimately pay for a very expensive, ineffectual wall is not a good way to go. host: the follow-up offer, he offered more people on the border, temporary reprieves for dhaka and other recipients -- for daca and other recipients. why not consider those as part of a broader package? guest: we've been saying we want more workers for a long time. democrats are taking border security very seriously.

in addition, there are some other areas where we've said we can work with the president. but there are other areas where there's going to be some gamesmanship and some places where it is absolutely out of the question. nancy will come up with a great solution and a great package for us to present to the president so we can come up with something meaningful, something that i think the american public will be behind. the polls show the american public is 100% against the president's wall. thatnk that you will see we will have a good package for the american public. host: speaker pelosi is currently crafting that package? did she clue you in on what might be part of it? guest: i am sure you will see as far as a presentation from democrats as the days go on , but we really need to

president to work with us. host: our guest with us until the house comes in at 9:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, publicans (202) 748-8001 -- republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you can tweet us and post on our facebook page as well. a little bit of work about the first bill being introduced by house democrats, hr one. where is that in the process? guest: representatives our brains -- representative saar has done a great job to reduce the role of money in politics. we need to move more towards an option for individuals if they want to pursue public finance of campaigns, where we get corporate money -- i'm not don't is a corporate money, but pack money-- out of -- but pac -- out of campaigns, to move self funding out of campaigns so

the american public can hear more directly from individuals as it relates to how campaigns should be financed in this country. so i think that hr-1 is good. i think a lot of young people will particularly like hr-1 because before 2016, one of the things i would often hear from young people in the district is they didn't have any confidence in our electoral system. they don't think that things will change. i think that having a big, sweeping bill that brings in reforms, that brings in new technology that addresses some of the concerns about money in politics, i think you will see an increase in young people participation in our electoral process. i am really excited about this, and glad we are rolling this out. host: you introduced legislation on your own, the american vote act. guest: it is something i am doing with represented of larson. basically if you affirm who you

sworn affidavit that this is the person who you are, you cannot be denied. when you look at the 2016 presidential election, a lot of people believe that what is swung inwas actually the way of donald trump and republicans because of restrictive voter id -- that wisconsin was actually swung in the way of donald trump and republicans because of restrictive voter id laws. i think this will make it much more difficult. we want to get away from that. we want to make it easier for people to vote. that is why represent it of larson and i have teamed up on this. host: the first call from maryland on the line for democrats. mark, you are on with representative marc veasey. caller: hello. congressman, please, why don't you all give him the money for the border wall? you can call it a fence or a

barrier. take away the talking point. for is what republican once 2018, to they did in use the border well to get reelected. but if you get in the money, you take away his threats. it is simple. they don't want to resolve any problem with daca for the 11 million people here. they just what to use it for politics. give him the money and take away his strength. that is my comment. guest: i disagree with that. i don't see where that lines up. if you give him the money, we've blown and wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money. i think that is a very bad idea. i think what the president needs to do, again, is work with democrats. we are very serious about border security. we have ideas on personnel, on

advanced technology, on how we can actually secure our border. i think that is what the american public wants. the american public is overwhelmingly against this wall. the poll numbers show that, so we need to be moving in the direction that is sensible, that uses our taxpayer money wisely, and actually strengthens security at our border. the president right now is just talking about of hot air. we would not be taking his strength away from him by giving in on this sort of lunacy. host: from massachusetts, republican line, kenneth. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. let's see. i'd like to ask you, how come when the spending bill went to last up to president trump to inn, chuck schumer penciled border -- yoution

know, letting immigrants into the country, he increased the times that the -- you know, what do you call it, when you forgive them from coming in? he increased that time, penciled the time in theere. he crossed out the dates and wrote in his own dates. it created a big, huge loophole that would let immigrants pour into this country from all over the world, and nobody says anything about that. can you explain? they put it in there. host: color, that is on the senate side. our guest present the house. do you have something related to -- represent the house. do you have something related to immigration? caller: this is part of immigration. part of the spending bill was the immigration border security, and chuck schumer -- host: ok. we will let our guest address it if he wishes. guest: i'm not exactly sure what

he's talking about. no one on the democrat side has ever supported us having open borders and just pouring over. i have no idea what he's talking about. it made no sense. host: from ohio, independent line, greg. caller: good morning. you say you are for border security. theall you people voted in past for a wall, a fence, whatever you want to call it. why is it now that donald trump is in there, you don't want no wall? why is that? guest: i am from a border state. i've never been for a wall. if you talk to conservative ranchers that live along the texas border, they will tell you that it is bad for business. it cuts them off from irrigation. it makes it harder for them to run their business that is efficient. it does nothing to deter people from crossing over the border unauthorized. i've never been for a border

wall. i know that there are portions of the texas border where there and theyers right now, are not effective. we are having the conversation that we are having, and we are seeing caravans come from central america, and we already have portions of the wall up. my question to you, and anybody else listening, is do you want us to still keep wasting money? if not, get behind the democrats and our ideas and plans to ,rovide for increased scanning two additional people and personnel to work along the border, for us to give these workers pay raises. let's do that instead of playing the games of symbolism that president trump once to do, and while he's playing this game, literally just wasting and blowing billions of your taxpayer dollars. host: from maryland, democrats line, sylvester.

hello. caller: yes, good morning. i would just like to make a comment. i understand he once the border million, and he initiated this shutdown, but to my understanding -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- the shut down million, so he was hurting the economy by $11 million. so the border wall, to me, as deal, is veryreat unprofitable. to me, i see how he became bankrupt because we lost $11 it's because of a $5 million wall. that is my comment. thank you. guest: you are absolutely right. not only did the shut down cost us $11 billion out of our

is $3 billion we will not get back. it was basically flushed down the toilet by the president. we could use some of that that we won't get back, and the $11 billion overall, to work on some of those enhanced security measures i've talked about and give employees the raises they need. i think that is where we need to start. host: on a scale of one to 10, what is your concern as far as the poorest in us -- the porousness of the southern border? guest: we certainly have unauthorized crossings, and we want to be able to control the flow of immigration into our country. i don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. argument over symbolism and this wall i think is just completely misguided. there are lots of things we can do. there are border security experts that could come and address the congress and work

with democrats and republicans on some of the techniques that i mentioned earlier. we could actually start to put these things into place immediately instead of wasting that, who knows how long it would even take to build. host: our guest serves on the small business and energy and commerce committees. he represents texas, including the areas of dallas and fort worth. in florida on the republican line, george's next -- george is next. hi. caller: listen, mr. veasey. congressman veasey. you are concerned about voter fraud, and i can understand that. i am, too. but it seems as though your state is doing a pretty good job of voter fraud because they uncovered 98,000 illegal voter registrations for noncitizens, and more than half of them voted.

58,000. so it seems to me you would really want a border wall so you can stop these illegals fleeing into texas to vote illegally. promotingit you are voter integrity, but actually you are promoting voter fraud by not wanting the law? guest: yeah, no. most of what you just mentioned is actually urban legend and myth. right now, for instance in the county where i am from, the voter registry in our county's republican-controlled. the registrar has already said the names that have been submitted to him are all u.s. citizens. they haven't finished going through the entire list of names, but what i read in the "star-telegram" this morning is that the list submitted to them by the secretary of state's office, which was initiated by the republican attorney general,

ken paxton, that the names are all u.s. citizens. so i would urge you to continue watching this. this is't appear that what the attorney general said, that the overwhelming number of people on this list appear to be u.s. citizens. host: you say someone would sign an affidavit. that is assuming they don't have some type of id. so how do you confirm truth, and what is the penalty if it is found out they are not who they are? guest: it is not that there is no i didn't of acacian required. you've always been -- no i didn't of acacian required. you've always -- no identification required. under this law -- excuse me --

host: bless you. guest: thank you. under these laws, some forms of identification are no longer valid. there are only a handful. in texas, it is a concealed handgun license, drivers license, state id, and a passport. you may have a student id, and you can use that. even if it is a student id issued by the state of texas, say texas a&m, you would not be able to use that id. what this says is i have my student id, but not a drivers license. i don't plan on getting a drivers license, but really want to vote in this upcoming election. you have to sign an affidavit, show that form of id, show them ,our gas bill, your lights bill your student id, whatever it may be, and you still get to vote. we are not saying someone can walk in with nothing on them and sign up to vote.

there are still rules and regulations that states and counties require people to make. but when you limit the number of ids people can have, that is where the problem starts. that is where you have situations like in wisconsin, where a lot of voting experts are saying it probably swung the election in that particular state and those electoral votes to donald trump. host: the house of representatives is set to come in and just if units -- just a few minutes. you have a chance to ask our guest about the issues we've talked about this morning. (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. john in call comes from south dakota, independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. hello?om south dakota, caller: hello? host: go aheadhost:. caller: if donald trump wants

this -- hello? host: we are going to put you on hold. going to have you turn down your television real quick so we don't get feedback. we will try joe from michigan. hello. morning.michigan, good caller: hello. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes, i got cut off momentarily. my main question is why don't some of the asylum-seekers seek asylum in canada? if i were coming from south of the border, i would ask for the nearest canadian consulate so i could go to canada. they would welcome them. canada is half again larger than the united states, with a population about that of california. they would welcome those people. they would say, come on in. you need asylum? here we are. they would get health care. they would be well taken care

of. i often wonder why they don't seek asylum north of the border. host: thanks, caller. guest: i have something better for you than that. we can actually have asylum-seekers fill out all the paperwork they need to seek asylum in their own countries of origin. there are programs in central america that were in place before donald trump became president, that they have largely dismantled, that would make it so more people wouldn't feel like they need to be a part of a caravan or make their way over in an unauthorized crossing. -- we have ready much have pretty much virtually stopped those programs in their tracks. that was a huge mistake by this administration. look at the success the clinton administration had in columbia, where they actually stabilize that country and made it much more safe. tourism is up in the country of colombia. why aren't we working on programs with countries in

central america to make their countries much more stable and safer, make their economies stronger? again, there were programs that were looking into that area so we could strengthen central america, and the trump administration has scaled those programs back. so i would say there is a way for people to do it in their own countries. but we need this administration to stop playing games and do the right thing. host: from los angeles, republican line, this is carol. caller: hi, thank you. i enjoy your show. i just want to ask the know, ourn, you system is built on, you know, having two different points of view and coming together somewhere in the middle. guest: right. caller: ok. so you want border security, but

most democrats, maybe one democrats will vote for the wall. something like that. a ridiculous amount. we are not coming together. why is it that some a democrats want to resist the wall -- so many democrats want to resist the wall? if they want border security, why are they not willing to sit down and come to some agreement with the republicans in the president have decided the only border security that is really going to be effective, because it's been tried and true in other countries, and the wall works? why can they not come together? -- thethe democrats election has been over now for a couple of years, or something like that. a little less, but ok, it's time to good together -- time to come together. host: we got your point, caller.

guest: we have a response ability to make sure we are spending the american public's dollars and the best ways possible, and spending that much money on a wall is complete lien necessary. i want to stop unauthorized crossings. democrats do not believe in open borders. we want to do every thing possible to secure our border. we want to make sure the minimum and that work along the border have the best technology -- sure the men and women that work along the border have the best technology, are paid well, i don't have to worry about going to work every day. those are the things we should be working on. the american public's overwhelming lay against throwing money away on a wall. if you say walls are effective, again, there are portions of all that are up along the texas border, and people are still coming over. my question is, why would you want to keep wasting money when

it is proven that most of the illegal crossings are coming in through ports of entry, through illegal tunnels? that is where we are seeing these unauthorized crossings. we are not seeing people bringing ladders to go over the wall where they are already in place. let's spend this money wisely. host: several potential democratic presidential candidates have talked about medicare for all. kamala harris. michael bloomberg has said it would bankrupt us. where do you fall? guest: i am on the medicare for all caucus. the district i represent, even with the great economy we have, has the highest percentage of uninsured constituents of any congressional district in the country. of my over 1/3 constituents that don't have insurance.

anything we can do to make insurance more affordable, anything we can do to expand coverage for people that, for whatever reason, have been hard to cover, if they've been denied, i think that is a good idea. i think it would actually save us lots of money on the economy overall if people were going in and having their maladies treated and working on things that go towards preventative medicine and, for instance, one of the things that people who don't have insurance to is utilize our country's emergency rooms. most counties in this country or cities have emergency rooms or county hospitals that people can use for lower costs than they would a private hospital or nonprofit hospital. you will have, for instance, i've heard stories of people that need to be on dialysis. they go into the emergency room, and every time the situation gets bad enough because they

just don't have the insurance needed to go and get dialysis on a frequent basis. they just go to the emergency room whenever he gets bad. situations like that, we could actually save the taxpayers a lot of money if we would look into expanding medicare and making it more accessible for a larger number of americans. host: you've made your own effort on medicaid for all. expanding medicaid. guest: that's right. i have a bill that would expand medicaid. in the state of texas alone, if ,e were to expand medicaid 600,000 new people that currently don't have coverage would be covered. they would be able to go to work on things like preventative medicine instead of using emergency rooms and a hospital. it could save the taxpayers a lot of money. host: this is representative marc veasey joining us from texas.

thanks for your time this morning. guest: good to be here. host: a couple of events you can tune in on at www.c-span.org, including the first meeting of the homeland security group for border security. for now we take you to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 30, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable tony cardenas to act a as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us